Aspect in Burmese: Meaning and function (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Aspect in Burmese Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) This series has been established as a companion series ...

Author: Nicoletta Romeo

40 downloads 852 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Aspect in Burmese

Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) This series has been established as a companion series to the periodical Studies in Language.

Editors Werner Abraham University of Vienna

Michael Noonan

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Editorial Board Joan Bybee

Robert E. Longacre

Ulrike Claudi

Brian MacWhinney

Bernard Comrie

Marianne Mithun

William Croft

Edith Moravcsik

Östen Dahl

Masayoshi Shibatani

Gerrit J. Dimmendaal

Russell S. Tomlin

Ekkehard König

John W.M. Verhaar

University of New Mexico University of Cologne Max Planck Institute, Leipzig University of New Mexico University of Stockholm University of Cologne

Free University of Berlin

University of Texas, Arlington Carnegie-Mellon University University of California, Santa Barbara University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Rice University and Kobe University University of Oregon The Hague

Christian Lehmann University of Erfurt

Volume 96 Aspect in Burmese. Meaning and function by Nicoletta Romeo

Aspect in Burmese Meaning and function

Nicoletta Romeo University of Sydney University of New South Wales

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Romeo, Nicoletta. Aspect in Burmese : meaning and function / Nicoletta Romeo. p. cm. (Studies in Language Companion Series, issn 0165-7763 ; v. 96) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Burmese language--Aspect. 2. Burmese language--Verb. 3. Burmese language--Word formation. I. Title. II. Series. PL3932.R66 2008 495.8'563--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 3107 9 (Hb; alk. paper)

2007040712

© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................xiii FIGURES AND TABLES..........................................................................................xv CHAPTER 1

Introduction........................................................................................................1 1.1 1.2 1.3

Aims of the present study ........................................................................1 Burmese: genetic and typological overview............................................5 Data..........................................................................................................6

PART I

A Descriptive Overview of Burmese.............................................................. 9 CHAPTER 2

The Structure of Burmese Independent Clauses……………......................11 2.1 2.2

Introduction........................................................................................... 11 An overview of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG)......................... 11 2.2.1 The structure of the clause in independent clauses....................12 2.2.2 Operators and their representation.............................................13 2.2.3 The semantic representation of verbs and their arguments .......19 2.2.3.1 Semantic representation of verbs...................................20 2.2.4 The structure of Burmese independent clauses .........................26 2.2.4.1 Morphophonemics .........................................................30 2.2.4.2 The Noun Phrase ...........................................................31 2.2.4.3 The structure of the verbal complex ..............................32

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 3 Verbal Operators .............................................................................................41

3.1

3.2

Pre-VN operators ....................................................................................41 3.1.1 The pre-VN operator r& [m] ‘NEGATIVE1’ .................................41 3.1.2 The pre-VN operator [yef& [pja] ‘RETURN’.................................44 3.1.3 The Pre-VN operator v\rf;& [a] ‘REACH OUT’ ...........................45 3.1.4 The Pre-VN operator 0dkif;& [wai] ‘TOGETHER’............................46 3.1.5 The Pre-VN operator ay;& [pe] ‘LET’ .........................................47 Post-VN operators...................................................................................48 3.2.1 Nuclear post-VN operators .........................................................49 3.2.1.1 &v| [la] ‘COME’ and&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ .........................49 3.2.1.2 &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ .................................................52 3.2.1.3 &wwf [ta] and &avh [le] ‘HABITUAL’ ........................54 3.2.1.4 &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ ...................................................55 3.2.1.5 &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ ...........................................56 3.2.1.6&cJh [k] ‘BACK THERE’ and&vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ ....56 3.2.1.7 &[yef [pja] ‘ITERATIVE’ ..................................................57 3.2.1.8 &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ ............................................................57 3.2.2 Core post-VN operators ..............................................................59 3.2.2.1 The directionals &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’……………………………………………………59 3.2.2.2 &ay; [pe] ‘BENEFACTIVE’ ...............................................59 3.2.2.3 &ju [ta] ‘PLURAL’ .......................................................60 3.2.2.4 &] [ja] ‘GET’ .................................................................61 3.2.2.5 &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ (Deontic modality) .............................65 3.2.2.6 &csif [ti] ‘WANT’ .......................................................65 3.2.3 Clausal post-VN operators ..........................................................66 3.2.3.1 Clausal post-VN operators marking the category of STATUS...........................................................66 &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ ........................67 3.2.3.1.1 3.2.3.1.2 &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ and&r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ ..................................67

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.3

vii

3.2.3.2 Clausal post-VN operators marking the category of TEMPORAL REFERENCE ...................................69 &ao;/&tHk; [e/ou] ‘STILL’ and 3.2.3.2.1 &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’ .....................70 &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ .............................75 3.2.3.2.2 3.2.3.3 Clausal post-VN operators marking the category of ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE ..................................76 &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ and&r,f [m] 3.2.3.3.1 ‘IRREALIS’ ..................................76 &bl; [bu] ‘NEGATIVE2’ ...............76 3.2.3.3.2 3.2.3.3.3 ∅ ‘IMPERATIVE’ and&eJh [n] ‘NEGATIVE IMP’ ..........................77 &v|; [la] (INT)/&vJ [l] (INTWH) 3.2.3.3.4 ‘INTERROGATIVE’ .......................78 &ae|f [n] ‘OK?’ .........................79 3.2.3.3.5 3.2.3.4 Pragmatic operators ...........................................80 &yg [pa] ‘POLITE’ ........................80 3.2.3.4.1 &yJ [p] ‘EMPHATIC’ ...................80 3.2.3.4.2 &aygh [p] ‘OF COURSE’ ...............81 3.2.3.4.3 &]\| [a] ‘PITY’ ..........................82 3.2.3.4.4 Summary ...............................................................................................83

PART II

Aspect in Burmese .........................................................................................85 CHAPTER 4

The post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ (CONT) ................................87 4.1 4.2 4.3

Introduction .........................................................................................87 The full verb ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ .........................................................88 Imperfectivity in English and Burmese ...............................................94 4.3.1 Habituality, timelessness and continuation of a state in English and Burmese ............................................................................95 4.3.2 Continuousness in English and Burmese ................................100 4.3.2.1 Continuousness and states in English and Burmese ...........................................................102

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.3.2.2

4.4

4.5

Continuousness and non-states in English and Burmese ...........................................................105 The use of the post-Vn operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with nonstative verbs.........................................................................................108 4.4.1 The post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with postural verbs ........................................................................................108 4.4.2 The post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with motion verbs ........................................................................................113 4.4.3 The post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with verbs of perception ................................................................................117 4.4.4 The post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with verbs of communication ........................................................................119 4.4.5 The post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with other nonstative verbs.............................................................................122 The use of the post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with stative verbs ....................................................................................................125

CHAPTER 5

The directional post-VN operators &v| [la] ‘COME’ and&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ .................................................................................................................129 5.1 5.2 5.3

Introduction .........................................................................................129 The full verbs v| [la] ‘come’ and oG|; [wa] ‘go’ ............................129 The post-VN operators &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ ..........134 5.3.1 &v| [la] ‘COME’/&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ with motion verbs ...........135 5.3.1.1 Motion verbs with&v| [la] ‘COME’/&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’in dialogues ..............................................136 5.3.1.2 Motion verbs with&v| [la] ‘COME’/&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ in third-person narrative ..........................138 5.3.2 &v| [la] ‘COME’/&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ with activity verbs ..........145 5.3.2.1 &v| [la] ‘COME’ with activity verbs .........................152 5.3.2.2 &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ with activity verbs ...........................160 5.3.3 &v| [la] ‘COME’/&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ with stative verbs ............172

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

CHAPTER 6

The post-VN operator &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (RES) .............................177 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

The full verb x|; [ta] ‘put, place; keep’ .........................................177 The use of x|; [ta] ‘put, place; keep’ as a post-VN operator ...........178 Status and order of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ ..................................185 Uses of the post-VN operator &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ ..................185 6.4.1 Use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ with verbs of putting .......185 6.4.2 Use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ with verbs that imply ‘manner and/or intention of putting + location’ ......................189 6.4.3 Use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ in non-promotional passive constructions ............................................................................192 6.4.4 Use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ in relative clauses ............202 6.4.5 Use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ in imperative clauses .......206

CHAPTER 7

The post-VN operator &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ (PFV) ....................................209

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

Introduction .........................................................................................209 The full verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ ....................................210 The use of [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ as a post-VNoperator ......212 Analysis of the data .............................................................................215 Syntax of constructions with &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ .........................215 &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ as a marker of sequentiality in narrative discourse ..............................................................................................216 Use of &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ in non-final clauses marking temporality ..........................................................................................226

CHAPTER 8

The sentential post-VN operator &[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (CRS) ................................................................................................................229 8.1 8.2 8.3

Introduction .........................................................................................229 &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ as a sentential post-VN operator ...................................232 Syntax of structures marked by &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ ....................................236

x

8.4

8.5 8.6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Burmese &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ and Mandarin sentence-final particle le ‘CRS’: same label, similar function ................................................................239 8.4.1 Change of state ........................................................................240 8.4.2 Progress so far .........................................................................246 &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ with achievements and accomplishments ....................250 The combination &[yD;&[yD [pi–bi] ‘PFV-CRS’ .......................................252

CHAPTER 9

Conclusion ......................................................................................................257 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................259 APPENDIX .........................................................................................................267 Little Frog, Where Are You? .......................................................................269 INDEX ...............................................................................................................283

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is a revised version of my PhD thesis (“Aspect in Burmese: Meaning and Function” – University of Sydney - 2004). First and foremost, my deepest gratitude goes to May Thet Tun, my Burmese language consultant and friend, who believed in me as a potential speaker of Burmese and devoted much of her time to making the task of learning Burmese less daunting. Without her unfailing support, this book would not have been written. I would like to thank one of my PhD examiners, Anthony Diller, for his encouragment and support, which were instrumental in deciding to revise the thesis for publication. I would also like to thank Michael Noonan for believing in my work and two anonimous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions. I have benefited greatly from discussions with colleagues. In particular, I am indebted to Debra Aarons and Mengistu Amberber (both from the University of New South Wales – Sydney), who, in addition to providing me with invaluable feedback on my work, have also shown me their unfailing support and warm friendship. I would also like to thank Joe Blythe (University of Sydney) for his enthusiasm and love for linguistics (more specifically, for Australian languages), which he managed to transmit to me when I needed them the most. I would like to thank Maria Oujo (University of New South Wales) for teaching me the intricate (at times, obscure) ways of desktop editing. Her patience and expertise are unique. I would also like to thank Patricia Leplae and Kees Vaes (John Benjamins) for putting up with problems mainly caused by my chronic inability to make computers work for me (they usually tend to work against me). I would like to thank my family, and, in particular, my husband, Maurizio, who, even though exposed to the same high levels of stress as I was during the revision process, never lost his sanity. I have not recovered yet.

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Finally, I would like to dedicate this book to my father, Piero, who would have loved to see it on a shelf at home.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACC ADV APPELL AUX BEN CL/CLASS COMP CONT CRS DEV DEVREAL EMPH EU FP GEN HAB IMP INADV INT INTWH INTR

accusative adverbialiser appellative auxiliary benefactive classifier complementiser continuous Currently Relevant State deverbaliser realis deverbaliser emphatic euphonic focus particle genitive habitual imperative inadvertent interrogative WH-interrogative intransitive

IRR ITER LOC NEG NEG.IMP NOM OBJ PASS PFV PL POL POSS PTCL QUOT REAL REL RELIRR RELREAL RES SUBJ TOP TR

irrealis iterative locative negative negative imperative nominaliser object passive perfective plural polite possessive particle quotative realis relativiser irrealis relativiser realis relativiser resultative subject topic transitive

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Classification of Burmese ..................................................................8 Figure 2 – The layered structure of the clause (LSC) .......................................12 Figure 3 – LSC with operator projection ..........................................................14

TABLES

Table 1 – Pre-VN operators and their grouping according to their scope .........83 Table 2 – Post-VN operators and their grouping according to their scope ........84 Table 3 – Habituality, timelessness and continuation of a state in Burmese ..100 Table 4 – Continuous and non-states in English and Burmese .......................108

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1

Aims of the present study

This study describes the ways in which Burmese organises its aspectual domain. Aspect is the verbal category that most typically describes the ways “… of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation” (Comrie 1976: 3). Aspect differs considerably from tense, “… which relates the time of the situation referred to to some other time, usually to the moment of speaking” (Comrie 1976: 1-2). In other words, aspect indicates the temporal structure of an event, while tense indicates the temporal location of an event (Bhat 1999:43). The other category that indicates the ways in which speakers describe events is modality, distinguished on the basis of three different parameters (Bhat 1999: 63): (i)

the speaker’s opinion or judgement regarding the actuality of an event;

(ii)

the kind of evidence that is available for the speaker to form this judgement, and

(iii)

the kind of need or requirement which forces the speaker (or someone else) to get involved in an event (or to carry out an action)

In Burmese, aspect and modality are members of a well-established system and are expressed by a great variety of forms marking the predicate and interacting with the rest of the elements in the sentence. According to the classic definition of tense as the ‘grammaticalised expression of location in time’ (Comrie 1985: 1), we cannot clearly identify such a category in Burmese, even though there seems to exist one bound form, &cJh [k] ‘BACK HERE/THERE’, which from indicating displacement in space appears to have specialised its meaning into indicating displacement in time, and is felt and used by native

2

ASPECT IN BURMESE

speakers to indicate past time (Okell and Allott 2001: 24-25). Its status as a tense marker has not yet been established, due to its uncertain origin and its non-obligatory quality. Since in the present study I am concerned solely with the description of the aspectual system of Burmese, further research will be needed to ascertain whether this language, that is traditionally listed among those that do not show tense, does in fact show signs of the presence of this category. In Burmese, aspect (as well as modality and other pragmatic specifications) is shown by means of markers bound to the main verb, whose combination constitutes the verbal complex, where most of the semantic and functional information is stored. Burmese being a verb-final language, most of the markers that pertain to the main verb follow it, linked to it and to each other by segmental and, possibly, tonal sandhi, morpho-phonological modifications known collectively as close juncture 1 (see section 2.2.4.1). Few aspectual markers are prefixed to the main verb; in this case they will undergo homorganic assimilation with the consonant in the onset of the main verb, which remains unaffected by juncture. Most aspectual markers derive from full lexical verbs, many of which are still in use. Such a development may be considered as an instance of heterosemy, a term that refers to … cases (within a single language) where two or more meanings or functions that are historically related, in the sense of deriving from the same ultimate source, are borne by reflexes of the common source element that belong in different morphosyntactic categories (Lichtenberk 1991: 476)

It is our conceptualisation of the world that allows us to extend the use of certain words to new facts, and therefore to create new categories and different conceptual domains. It is our ability to operate connections between phenomena that produces a shift in the semantics of forms, resulting in the presence of multi-functional, grammaticalised, erstwhile lexical forms. As Lichtenberk points out, both the form that provides the source from which the semantic extension originates and the result of this extension, i.e. the new function form, must share part of their structures. This implies that mean1

In the transcription of texts, segmental sandhi, indicated by =, is shown only when it marks grammatical boundness. The grammatical markers involved in sandhi alternations are shown in their citation form, not in their modified phonetic realisation. The absence of segmental sandhi is shown by -, while tonal sandhi has been left unmarked.

INTRODUCTION

3

ings are structurally complex, and “… a certain component of the total meaning of a term may serve as the basis for a functional extension, the other aspects of the meaning being irrelevant” (Lichtenberk 1991: 480). In my analysis of the aspectual system of Burmese, one of the key factors for the explanation of the function of these markers lies precisely in the importance of the combination of the inherent semantic features of their lexical sources with the inherent semantic features of the main verbs they modify, a combination that determines the structure of the verbal complex and, as a direct consequence, the structure of the clause. The other factor that contributes to the analysis of the function of aspectual markers in Burmese is the description of their position vis-à-vis the main verb as well as other grammatical markers with which they may occur within the verbal complex. Insight can be gained by comparing Burmese with other Tibeto-Burman languages, in particular with Lahu (Matisoff 1973), a language belonging to the Loloish branch of the Lolo-Burmese subgroup of the TibetoBurman family, which shows remarkable similarities with Burmese. Lahu has no difficulty in combining verbs (and function forms derived from verbs) to create a well-balanced, articulated verbal complex. As Matisoff states: Lahu verb concatenation is of considerable interest for its own sake, but this phenomenon also raises some very general questions concerning the interrelationships of semantics and syntax. Specifically, there is a well-defined class of cases where the evidence indicates that it is the inherent semantic features of individual verbs which actually determine the structural descriptions of concatenations (Matisoff 1973: 199)

The following is an example of the structural flexibility of the verbal complex in Burmese: (1)

(a)

w]Ha]|tcg

]G|o|&]G| = r\|

tjajka

jwaa-jwa = ma Ywatha-village = AT

once.upon.a.time

4

ASPECT IN BURMESE

vli,fav;&w = a,|uf

]\d = w,f/

lule-t = jau

i = t be = REAL

boy-1 = CLASS

‘Once upon a time, in the village of Ywatha, there was a boy [called Maung San Tun]’ [FR 1] 2 (b)

ar|ifcsdK = u

rdb = rs|; = ]hJ

v,f&tvkyf = r\|

maunto = ka

miba = mja = j

l-lou = ma

Maung.Cho = SUBJ

parent = PL = POSS

field-work(N) = AT

0dkif; = ul&vkyfudkif = ay; = avh = ]d\ = w,f/

wai = ku-loukai = pe = le = i = t GATHER=help-do.for.a.living=BE=HAB=BE=REAL

‘Maung Cho used to help his parents in farm work [after going to school]’ [Yin 1981: 22] In (1a), the verbal complex minimally consists of the main verb ]\d [i] ‘be’ followed by the clausal marker &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’, which ends the sentence and marks it for assertion. In (1b), the main verbs ul; [ku] ‘help’ and vkyfudkif [loukai] ‘do for a living’ are marked by the bound forms &0dkif; [wai] ‘GATHER’, &ay; [pe] ‘BENEFACTIVE’, &avh [le] ‘HABITUAL’ and &]\d [i] ‘BE’, derived from the main verbs 0dkif; [wai] ‘gather around’, ay; [pe] ‘give’, avh [le] ‘acquire a habit’ and ]\d [i] ‘be’ respectively. These verbs are used to convey notions that other languages express by means of various grammatical strategies, such as adpositional phrases (benefactive), aspectual markers (habitual and continuous) and tense/modal markers (past time reference/realis). Unlike Lahu, Burmese distinguishes bound forms (in my terms operators) from their erstwhile main verb counterparts by means of the presence of close juncture. In addition, these verbs occur within the verbal complex in an order which is by no means random. For example:

2

In references to the short story Frog, where are you? (FR), included in the Appendix, the numbers refer to the sections into which the story has been divided.

5

INTRODUCTION

(2)

(a)

yn|

oif = csif = ae = w,f/

pa

i = ti = ne = t

education

learn = WANT = CONT = REAL T

‘[He] continued to want to learn’ (b)

yn|

oif = ae = csif = w,f/

pa

i = ne = ti = t

education

learn = CONT = WANT = REAL T

‘[He] wanted to continue to learn’ The order of the operators &csif [ti] ‘WANT’ and &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, derived from the main verbs csif [ti] ‘want’ and ae [ne] ‘stay; live’, determines their function and meaning in relation to the structure of the event they describe. In (2a), the operator &csif [ti] ‘WANT’ has scope over the main verb oif [i] ‘learn’, while &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ modifies the string [learn-WANT], resulting in the meaning ‘continue to want to learn’. In (2b), it is &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ that has scope over oif [i] ‘learn’, while &csif [ti] ‘WANT’ modifies the string [learn-CONTINUOUS], producing the meaning ‘want to continue to learn’. It is the semantics of the operators, derived from the semantics of their source, that, in most cases, determines a) their order vis-à-vis the main verb and b) their order vis-à-vis the other operators in the verbal complex. This echoes the observations expressed by Matisoff (1973) about Lahu. He acknowledges the existence in Lahu of verbs that he calls versatile verbs which occur concatenated with the main verbs in the clause and are part of a system that works on the basis of “… several interlocking systems of semantic and syntactic constraints which together determine the order, the membership, the constituent structure, the meaning, and the length of actual and possible concatenations” (Matisoff 1973: 202). T

1.2

Burmese: genetic and typological overview

Burmese belongs to the Burmish branch of the Burmese-Lolo (or LoloBurmese) subgroup of the South-Eastern branch of the Tibeto-Burman family (see Figure 1, page 8). It is the national language of Burma (Myanmar), spoken by approximately 37 million people. The standard variety is spoken in Man-

6

ASPECT IN BURMESE

dalay, while distinct dialects include Arakanese in the west (1.8 million speakers), Tavoyan (400,000) and Beik (250,000) in the south-east, east central Intha (90,000), Danu (100,000) and Taungyo (40,000), and west central Yaw (20,000) (Bradley 1997: 41). Since 1990, the Burmese government (SLORC – State Law and Order Restoration Council, renamed ‘State Peace and Development Council’ [SPDC] in 1997) has changed the country’s name into Myanmar, which is the literary name of Burma as well as the name of the Burmese language (Bradley 1997: 41). Burmese is a diglossic language, in that it presents a literary High variety and a spoken Low variety. As Wheatley states: Particularly in this century, differences between literary and spoken styles have tended to diminish, so that nowadays, although other ‘classical’ elements may still appear in literary Burmese, the only feature consistently distinguishing the two is the choice of the textually frequent post-nominal and postverbal particles and other grammatical words (Wheatley 1987: 838)

Since these grammatical words differ in form, but not in meaning or function, and since, interestingly, this difference does not pertain to markers of aspect that constitute the topic of this study, their alternation has not been discussed since it is irrelevant to the topic of this study. 1.3

Data

The Burmese data I have used for my research are of two types: written texts and elicited texts. The written texts consist of short stories included in the collection A Flower of Beauty and Other Tales (1981), by Nu Yin, with translation into English by Tet Toe. In addition, my language consultant, May Thet Tun (a':aroufwGef), has provided the narrative for a wordless picture-book by Mercer Mayer (1974), that had already been utilised by Berman and Slobin (1994) to describe the use of temporal forms to encode events in narrative discourse. I have transcribed, glossed and translated May Thet Tun’s narrative, and I have included it in the Appendix. May Thet Tun has also provided invaluable help in solving complex issues arising from the analysis of written texts. Elicitation sessions would normally follow the discussion on the written data, and would

INTRODUCTION

7

highlight features of the aspectual system that could only be understood through the comparison of series of sentential minimal pairs. Here, the nuances of meaning conveyed by aspectual operators could only be made evident to a non-native speaker by the presence and subsequent absence of the same operators in the same context and by the constant feedback provided by May Thet Tun.

8

ASPECT IN BURMESE

TIBETO-BURMAN

NORTH-EASTERN INDIA

WESTERN

SOUTH-EASTERN

NORTH-EASTERN

BURMESE-LOLO

MRU

GONG

BURMISH

BURMESE

LOLOISH

BURMISH

BURMISH BURMESE

NORTHERN ARAKANESE TAVOYAN BEIK INTHA DANU TAUNGYO YAW

Figure 1. Classification of Burmese (adapted from Bradley 1997: 38-39)

PART I A DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW OF BURMESE

CHAPTER 2 THE STRUCTURE OF BURMESE INDEPENDENT CLAUSES

2.1

Introduction

In order to describe the Burmese aspectual system, I have adopted the approach to syntactic description provided by Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) by Van Valin and LaPolla [VVLP] (1997), which represents a refinement of the theory described for the first time by Foley and Van Valin (1984). In what follows, I will outline the notion of clause structure in RRG and I will identify, and focus on, those issues that are of particular interest for my purposes, i.e. the representation of the system of Burmese aspectual markers and its impact on the semantics and syntax of the language. 2.2

An overview of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG)

RRG is best described as a “structural-functionalist theory of grammar” (Van Valin 1993:1). Van Valin (1993:2) characterises this approach as follows: …. What distinguishes the RRG conception from the standard formalist one is the conviction that grammatical structure can only be understood and explained with reference to its semantic and communicative functions. Syntax is not autonomous. In terms of the abstract paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations that define a structural system, RRG is concerned not only with relations of co-occurrence and combination in strictly formal terms but also with semantic and pragmatic co-occurrence and combinatory relations. Hence RRG may be accurately characterised as a structural-functionalist theory, rather than purely formalist or purely functionalist.

Essential parts of RRG that will be relevant to my study are the structure of independent clauses, the system of verbal markers (operators) as well as the

12

ASPECT IN BURMESE

system of predicate semantics and verb classification, based on Vendler (1967) and Dowty (1979). 2.2.1

The structure of the clause in independent clauses

Van Valin and La Polla (1997: 25ff) describe the structure of the clause in independent clauses as follows (VVLP 1997: 26): CLAUSE

CORE NUCLEUS

PERIPHERY

Figure 2. The layered structure of the clause (LSC) The syntactic slot nucleus is filled by the predicating unit, which is represented by a verb, an adjective, a nominal form or an adposition. In addition, the clause shows the presence of the core, which includes the verb and the arguments that are part of its semantic representation, and the periphery, which includes those elements that are not arguments of the predicate, often referred to as adjuncts. The combination of nucleus, core and periphery constitutes the layered structure of the clause (LSC), represented by the following diagram (VVLP 1997: 31): (3)

SENTENCE

CLAUSE

CORE

(ARG)

(ARG)

PERIPHERY

NUCLEUS

PRED XP

XP

X ( P)

XP/ADV

STRUCTURE OF BURMESE INDEPENDENT CLAUSES

13

In this approach, … the linear order of the core arguments and the predicate is irrelevant to the determination of whether an element is in the nucleus, core or periphery. This representational scheme will work for any linear order because none of these relationships depends upon linear order (VVLP 1997: 32)

It is for this reason that this diagram does not include the existence of a VP, since it is not part of the structural conception of RRG. 2.2.2

Operators and their representation In the following examples from English and Burmese:

(4)

(a)

Scully did not show the photo to Mulder at the office yesterday [VVLP 1997: 32)

(b)

ar|ifcsdK = u

rv\ = ]Jh

tdrf = r\|


maa = j

ei = ma

Maung.Cho = SUBJ

Ma.Hla = POSS

house = AT

p|tkyf = udk

zwf = w,f/

saou = ko

pa = t

book = OBJ

read = REAL

‘Maung Cho read the book at Ma Hla’s house’ elements such as did and not in English and &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ in Burmese represent grammatical categories that are different from the other members of the clause, i.e. predicates and their arguments. These grammatical categories are called operators and their most typical feature is that they modify and have scope over different layers of the clause. Van Valin and LaPolla (1997: 40-52) distinguish eight operators within the inventory of operators found cross-linguistically, namely, aspect (nuclear), negation (nuclear or internal negation), directionality (nuclear and core), modality (deontic or core modality), status (clausal operator which includes epistemic modality, external negation and the distinction realis/irrealis), tense

14

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(clausal), evidentiality (clausal) and illocutionary force (clausal operator which identifies an utterance as being an assertion, a question, a command or a wish). Operators are represented by a structural projection different from that of the clause. The predicate (V) is the element that is shared by both projections. Most importantly, operators are arranged according to their scope vis-à-vis the clause and its parts. The following is the complete structure of the clause, including the operator projection: SENTENCE

CLAUSE

CORE

(ARG)

(ARG)

NUCLEUS

PRED

XP

XP

X ( P)

NUCLEUS

Aspect

NUCLEUS

Negation

NUC/CORE

Directionals

CORE

Modality

CORE

Neg (Internal)

CLAUSE

Status

CLAUSE

Tense

CLAUSE

Evidentials

CLAUSE

Ill. force

SENTENCE

Figure 3. LSC with operator projection (adapted from VVLP 1997: 49)

15


The two projections are linked through the predicate, which is the most important element the two structures share. One important reason for accepting this schema is that operators seem to occur almost always in the same order with respect to the predicate. In addition, if some kind of order exists among operators, they are always ordered in the same way cross-linguistically, so that their order mirrors their scope. In non-V-final languages, like English, in many cases the order of operators mirrors that of V-final languages like Burmese. An instance of this alternate order of operators is shown in the following English (VVLP 1997: 50) and Burmese examples: (5)

Mulder did not show the photo to Skinner yesterday [VVLP 1997: 50] SENTENCE

CLAUSE

CORE

ARG

NUC

PERIPHERY

ARG

ARG

NP

PP

PRED

NP

V

Mulder did not show the photo to Skinner V

NUC

CORE

STA

TNS

IF

CLAUSE

CLAUSE

CLAUSE

SENTENCE

ADV

yesterday

16

ASPECT IN BURMESE

The English example (5) shows the order [IF-TENSE-STATUS-V], although it should be noted here that if the clause is in the affirmative, as in: (6)

Mulder showed the photo to Skinner yesterday

the past tense/IF operator –ed follows the main verb, i.e. [V-TENSE/IF]. In English, therefore, polarity may influence the order of operators. The ordering of Burmese operators is shown in the following examples: (7)

(a)

ar|ifcsdK = u

rv\ = ]Jh

tdrf = r\|


maa = j

ei = ma

Maung.Cho = SUBJ

Ma.Hla = POSS

house = AT

p|tkyf = udk

zwf = w,f/

saou = ko

pa = t

book = OBJ

read = REAL

‘Maung Cho read the book at Ma Hla’s house’ SENTENCE CLAUSE PERIPHERY

CORE

ARG

ARG

NUC PRED

NP

MC = SUBJ

PP

MH = POSS house = AT

NP

book = OBJ

V

read = REAL V NUC CORE CLAUSE CLAUSE SENTENCE

STA IF

17


(b)

ar|ifcsdK = u

rv\ = ]Jh

tdrf = r\|


maa = j

ei = ma

Maung.Cho = SUBJ

Ma.Hla = POSS

house = AT

p|tkyf = udk

zwf = o = v|;/

saou = ko

pa =  = la

book = OBJ

read = REAL = INT

‘Did Maung Cho read the book at Ma Hla’s house?’ SENTENCE CLAUSE PERIPHERY

CORE

ARG

ARG

NUC

PRED

NP

MC = SUBJ

PP


NP

book = OBJ

V

read=REAL=INT V

NUC

CORE

CLAUSE

CLAUSE

SENTENCE

ST

IF

18

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(c)

ar|ifcsdK = u

rv\ = ]Jh

tdrf = r\|


maa = j

ei = ma

Maung.Cho = SUBJ

Ma.Hla = POSS

house = AT

p|tkyf = udk

r = zwf = yg = bl;/

saou = ko

m = pa = pa = bu

book = OBJ

NEG1

= read = POL = NEG2

‘Maung Cho didn’t read the book at Ma Hla’s house’ SENTENCE CLAUSE PERIPHERY

CORE

ARG

ARG

NUC

PRED

NP

MC = SUBJ

PP


NP

V

book=OBJ NEG=read=POL=NEG V NUC CORE

STA

CLAUSE

CLAUSE

CLAUSE SENTENCE

PRAG

IF


19

In (7a) and (7b), the operators are ordered according to their scope over the main verb and they consistently follow it, as it is mostly the case in Burmese. There are a few exceptions to this rule, the most common of which is the order of the negative operators r& [m] ‘NEG1’ and &bl; [bu] ‘NEG 2’. In (7c), r& [m] ‘NEG1’ (see section 3.1.1) consistently precedes the main verb, indicates external/propositional negation and is included in the category of status. The other non-obligatory negative operator &bl; [bu] ‘NEG2’ (see section 3.2.3.3.2) is said not to have negative meaning in itself (Okell and Allott 2001: 147), but it marks the end of a negative statement, and, as such, it is located at the end of the clause, in complementary distribution with other operators of illocutionary force, etc. For my purposes, it is important to stress the fact that there exists some degree of order variation between operators within the same layer. For instance, aspect and nuclear directionals may alternate in their order, but will always be closer to the verb than core or clausal operators. The authors state that “… what is not found is variation in ordering across layers” (VVLP 1997: 51) and it will be shown that, apart from a few apparent exceptions, this seems also to be the case in Burmese. 2.2.3

The semantic representation of verbs and their arguments

In order to describe the Burmese aspectual system, it is necessary to distinguish between the inherent lexical aspect class of predicates (their Aktionsart) and the grammatical expression of aspect, as marked by various operators in the language. Predicates may be included into different lexical classes according to their meaning by running tests that ascertain their co-occurrence and compatibility with temporal forms, such as temporal and manner adverbials. Once the Aktionsart of predicates has been identified, we can express it by utilising a system of lexical decomposition, which involves “… paraphrasing verbs in terms of primitive elements in a well-defined semantic metalanguage” (VVLP 1997: 90). These representations, called logical structures (LS), will be proved to be particularly useful for the analysis of Burmese aspect, in that it will be shown that the semantics of aspectual operators, derived from the semantics of their sources, may totally or partially affect parts of the logical structures of the predicates they modify (VVLP 1997: 171). Rapoport (1999) has called this particular phenomenon aspectual structure focus (AS focus), and has defined it “… the foregrounding, or emphasis, of a particular [aspec-

20

ASPECT IN BURMESE

tual] structure or part of a structure, with the consequent backgrounding, or deemphasis, of other parts of that structure” (Rapoport 1999: 659). Logical structures also include the identification of the arguments of predicates (thematic relations), which are therefore a function of these same logical structures and are assessed on independent criteria, not arbitrarily. In addition, since most events have only one or two core participants, these are represented as macroroles, i.e. “… generalisations across the argument-types found with particular verbs which have significant grammatical consequences; it is they, rather than specific arguments in logical structure, that grammatical rules refer to primarily” (VVLP 1997: 139). The generalised AGENT-type role is termed Actor while the generalised PATIENT-type role is termed Undergoer. The conflation of argument-types into two major semantic categories is a common cross-linguistic phenomenon. What will vary is the number of argument-types which are allowed to be included in the Actor category and the Undergoer category. 2.2.3.1

Semantic representation of verbs

The system of lexical decomposition employed by Van Valin and LaPolla is based on that proposed by Vendler (1957 [1967]). It is based on what he calls Aktionsart, defined as “… the inherent temporal properties of verbs” (VVLP 1997: 92). Vendler proposed the existence of four basic Aktionsart classes for verbs: states, activities, achievements and accomplishments. States and activities differ in that, although they are both temporally unbounded (atelic), the former are non-dynamic, while the latter are dynamic in nature. Achievements and accomplishments are both temporally bounded (telic) , although they differ in that achievements code instantaneous changes of state (defined as punctual) while accomplishments code changes of state that occur over some period of time (defined as non-punctual). The following are a few examples of these different classes in English (VVLP 1997: 92): (8)

states: activities: achievements: accomplishments:

be sick, be tall, love, know, have walk, swim, read, eat, rain pop, explode, collapse, shatter (all intransitive) melt, freeze, dry (all intransitive)


21

An important observation on the semantics of verbs is that it is necessary to distinguish between their lexical meaning, as it is shown in the lexicon of a language, and the meaning they have in a particular clause. This means that they show a basic Aktionsart type, which may change if the semantics of the verb is further specified by the presence of prepositional or adverbial phrases, and therefore can often be used with more than one Aktionsart. For instance, certain verbs that are considered as accomplishments may behave like activities if they have a mass or indefinite noun as an object. For example: (9)

(a) (b)

He ate a plate of spaghetti in ten minutes He ate spaghetti for ten minutes

In (9a), the definite object ‘a plate of spaghetti’ delimits and quantifies the event, so that the end point of the event is reached when the whole content has been consumed. In (9b), on the other hand, the content is not specified and the event is not seen as having reached its end-point. The authors refer to the accomplishment use of activity verbs as active accomplishments. To determine the Aktionsart of verbs, the authors have devised a series of tests (VVLP 1997: 9), in part derived from Dowty (1979). These tests are thought to apply cross-linguistically, although it is advisable for researchers to adapt these tests in a way that is specifically targeted to the language(s) to be investigated. Predicates are tested for duration, dynamicity, punctuality and telicity. The distinction drawn between the basic Aktionsart types has been formalised by Foley and Van Valin (1984) and Van Valin and LaPolla (1997) by utilising logical structures, (a term coined by Dowty [1979]), i.e. formulae based on symbols used by formal semantics into which the semantic metalanguage present in the lexical decomposition of verbs has been translated. The following is a list of verb classes and their corresponding logical structures (VVLP 1997: 109):

22

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(10) VERB CLASS

LOGICAL STRUCTURE

State

predicate´ (x) or (x,y)

Activity

do´ (x, [predicate´ (x) or (x,y)])

Achievement

INGR INGR

Accomplishment

predicate´ (x) or (x,y) or do´ (x, [predicate´ (x) or (x,y)])

BECOME BECOME

predicate´ (x) or (x,y) or do´ (x, [predicate´ (x) or (x,y)])

Active accomplishment

do´ (x, [predicate1´ (x), (y))]) & BECOME predicate2´ (z, x) or (y)

Causative

α CAUSE β, where α, β are LSs of any type

The elements in boldface and followed by a prime are the constants, i.e. normally predicates. They are part of the semantic metalanguage used to decompose and describe meaning cross-linguistically. States are represented as simple predicates, while the logical structure of activities is represented by the general activity predicate do´ which marks the membership of predicates to this specific class. Achievement and accomplishment verbs are composed of states or activities marked by a marker of change. INGR derives from ‘ingressive’ and codes punctual changes of state or activity, while BECOME codes changes which take place over a period of time and produce a change of state or activity. The following are instances of logical structures of English verbs and their Burmese counterparts (adapted from VVLP 1997: 105): (11) States (a)

Fred is at the house

be-at´ (house, Fred)


(a′)

Fred Fred Fred

tdrf = r\|

]\d = w,f/

ei = ma

i = t

house = AT

be = REAL

be-at´ (ei, Fred) Activities (b)

The children cried

do´ (children, [cry´ (children)])

(b′)

uav; = awG idk = ju = w,f/ kle = de

o = ta = t

child = PL

cry = PL = REAL

do´(klede, [o´ (klede)]) Achievements (c)

The window broke

(c′)

`ywif;aygufr\ef

uJG = oG|; = w,f/

bdibauma

kw = wa = t

window.pane

break(INTR) = GO = REAL

INGR

broken´ (window)

INGR kwwa´ (bdibauma)

Accomplishments melted´ (ice)

(d)

The ice melted

(d′)

a]cJ

ays|f = oG|; = w,f/

je

pj = wa = t

ice

melt(INTR) = GO = REAL

BECOME

BECOME pjwa´ (je)

23

24

ASPECT IN BURMESE

Active accomplishments (e)

Paul ran to the store do´ (Paul, [run´ (Paul)]) & BECOME be-at´ (store, Paul)

(e′)

Paul Paul Paul

qdkif = udk

a`y; = oG|; = w,f/

sai = ko

pje = wa = t

store = TO

run = GO = REAL

do´ (Paul, [pje´ (Paul)]) & BECOME be-at´ (sai, Paul) Causatives (f)

Max broke the window

(Causative achievement)

[do´ (Max, ∅)] CAUSE [INGR broken´ (window)] (f′)

Max Max Max

`ywif;aygufr\ef = udk

cJG = vdkuf = w,f/

bdibauma = ko

kw = lai = t

window.pane = OBJ

break(TR) =FOLLOW= REAL

[do´ (Max, ∅)] CAUSE [INGR kwwa´ (bdibauma)]

Examples (11c-c′) and (11f-f′) are particularly interesting for my purposes. In (11c), the verb break is used intransitively to describe a state of affairs that lacks the expression of an overt agent while it shows the presence of an overt patient, identified by the subject. (11f) shows the presence of an agent which causes the patient to change its state from being ‘unbroken’ to being ‘broken’. In English, this is done structurally, without the use of specific causative markers or other morphological means. In Burmese, both the indication of the type of Aktionsart and the causative quality of the event are expressed by morpho-phonological means. The verb cJG [kw] ‘break’ in (11f′) is the causative counterpart of the verb uJG [kw] ‘break’ in (11c′), with aspiration as a mark of causation. More interestingly, the semantic specification of the two verbs is further refined by the use of different operators, &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ and &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ (derived from the main verbs oG|; [wa] ‘go’ and vdkuf [lai] ‘follow’) which mark punctual changes of state that are spontaneous or

25


induced respectively. I hypothesise that it is the semantics (or Aktionsart) of the sources of these two operators that has contributed to their use as inchoative markers in specific contexts. There is also great variation in the way languages identify the Aktionsart of verbs. A change of state may be seen as occurring instantaneously in one language but as occurring over a period of time in another. For example, die in Burmese and Mandarin is punctual (achievement) while in English it is not necessarily so. Therefore, in English we can say the following (VVLP 1997: 106): (12)

(a) (b)

He died quickly/slowly He died suddenly

while in Burmese and in Mandarin we cannot: (13)

(a)

*vsif`ref = pG| imja = swa be.quick = ADV

ao = w,f/

Burmese

e = t

die = REAL

‘He died quickly’ (b)

*Tā sĭ de kuài

Mandarin

‘He died quickly’ Van Valin and LaPolla state that “… it is clear that determining the Aktionsart of a verb is not a matter of looking at the state of affairs it depicts; rather, it is a linguistic property which can be determined only by means of linguistic tests…” (VVLP 1997: 106). This system of lexical representation of verbs is a powerful tool for the analysis and the explanation of forms whose both regular and idiosyncratic behaviour would otherwise be unobservable. I will show that certain components of the semantic specification of the source form are taken to be its prototypical features, which constitute the basis for its re-analysis as a functional/aspectual form. The above-suggested analysis will be proved to be successful in the treatment of those post-verbal operators which maintain a clear link with their source or that have undergone partial grammaticalisation.

26

2.2.4

ASPECT IN BURMESE

The structure of Burmese independent clauses

The structure of Burmese independent clauses is the following (# = sentence boundary): (14)

#(PERIPHERY)

NP

n

(with n ≥0)

VCOMPLEX#

We may visualise the LSC in Burmese as follows 1 : (15) SENTENCE CLAUSE

(PERIPHERY)

CORE

(ARG)

(ARG)

NUCLEUS PRED

XP/ADV

NP

NP

V

⏐ NUCLEUS

ASP

⏐ NUCLEUS

DYN. M.

⏐ CORE

DIR

⏐ CORE

BEN

⏐ CORE

PL

⏐ CORE

DEON.M.

⏐ CORE

DES

⏐ CLAUSE

ST

⏐ CLAUSE

TR

⏐ CLAUSE

IF

⏐ CLAUSE

PRAG

⏐ SENTENCE

1

The following are the glosses used in the operator projection: ASP (Aspect), BEN (Benefactive), DEON.M (Deontic Modality), DES (Desiderative), DIR (directionals), DYN.M (Dynamic Modality), IF (Illocutionary Force), PL (Plural), PRAG (Pragmatic operators), ST (Status), TR (Temporal Reference).

27


The following is an example of an independent clause in Burmese and its structural representation: (16)

`rifo|&jrdKh = r\|

mjia-mjo = ma

Myintha-village = AT

a`c = udk

uko = w,f/

te = ko

kua = t

leg = OBJ

treat = REAL

aq;]Hk&q]|0ef[uD; = u

sejou-sjawudi = ka hospital-head.doctor = SUBJ

‘The head doctor of the hospital at Myintha treated [his] leg’ [Yin 1981: 24] SENTENCE CLAUSE

(PERIPHERY)

CORE

(ARG)

(ARG)

NUCLEUS

PRED

PP

Myintha=AT

NP

NP

head.doctor=SUBJ leg=OBJ

V

treat=REAL NUCLEUS

CORE

CLAUSE

CLAUSE

SENTENCE

ST IF

28

ASPECT IN BURMESE

The nucleus is filled by the pivot of the clause, the predicate. The predicate is typically represented by a verbal form (VN), either simple or compound, or by a combination of VNs that stand in a relation of serialisation. The combination of VN (s) and the set of grammatical operators that typically cluster around VN (s) and have scope over the different layers of the clause has been defined as the verbal complex, which, in Burmese, strictly occupies the final position in the clause. While most operators follow the VN (Post-VN operators), only a few operators precede the VN (Pre-VN operators). The core of the clause is filled by the verbal complex together with the NP arguments of the main verb. The presence of the core NPs is optional, in that they may not occur if they are presupposed or given within discourse. In that case, an independent clause will only be composed of the verbal complex and, optionally, the periphery: (17)

`rifo|&`rdKh = udk

a]|uf = wJh

mjia-mjo = ko

jau = t Myintha-village = TO arrive = RELREAL

tcg

aq;]kH = udk

ka sejou = ko

time

hospital = TO

wif = ju = av = w,f/ ti = ta = le = t

place = PL = EU = REAL ‘When [they] arrived at Myintha, [they] hospitalised [Maung Cho]’ [Yin 1981: 24] If core NPs do occur, they are located strictly to the left of the verbal complex, and, if more than one core NP is present in the clause, their order will vary according to the pragmatics of discourse. Only in simple, declarative, pragmatically neutral, highly artificial clauses, do we find the canonical order SOV that identifies the same type of clauses in other Tibeto-Burman languages. In addition to the predicate and its core arguments, the clause may show the presence of the periphery, which is filled by optional elements, such as locative expressions or temporal adverbials. Again, the order of the periphery vis-à-vis the other members of the clause may vary depending on pragmatic factors:


(18)

(a)

rv = ]hJ

tdrf = r\|

maa = j

ei = ma

Ma.Hla = POSS

house = AT

p|tkyf = udk

zwf = w,f/

saou = ko

pa = t

book = OBJ

read = REAL

29

ar|ifcsdK = u maunto = ka

Maung.Cho = SUBJ

‘Maung Cho read the book at Ma Hla’s house (not at my place)’ [PERIPHERY – SUBJ – OBJ – V] (b)

ar|ifcsdK = u

rv = ]hJ


maa = j

tdrf = r\| ei = ma

Maung.Cho = SUBJ

Ma.Hla = POSS

house = AT

p|tkyf = udk

zwf = w,f/

saou = ko

pa = t

book = OBJ

read = REAL

‘Maung Cho (and no one else) read the book at Ma Hla’s house’ [SUBJ – PERIPHERY – OBJ – V] (c)

ar|ifcsdK = u

p|tkyf = udk

rv = ]hJ


saou = ko

maa = j

Maung.Cho = SUBJ

book = OBJ

Ma.Hla = POSS

tdrf = r\|

zwf = w,f/

ei = ma

pa = t

house= AT

read = REAL

‘Maung Cho (no one else) read the book (not a magazine) at Ma Hla’s house’ [SUBJ – OBJ – PERIPHERY – V]

30

ASPECT IN BURMESE

The remarkable word order flexibility among the core arguments and the periphery vis-à-vis the fixed anchoring of predicates at the end of the clause makes it problematic to assert the existence of a VP in Burmese. 2.2.4.1

Morphophonemics

Before introducing the components of Burmese independent clauses, a few remarks on the morphophonemics of the language are in order. Burmese makes extensive use of sandhi alternations on both phonetic segments and tones to mark various lexical and grammatical processes. Segmental sandhi obligatorily occurs between (two) syllables whose relation is one of grammatical and/or lexical boundness, therefore representing a valid instrument to detect word boundaries. Tone sandhi accompanies segmental sandhi in the same contexts and their interaction goes under the cover term of close juncture 2 . Close juncture between syllables is typically represented in the following way: (19)

A=B

I will distinguish between sandhi affecting the combination of full syllables and sandhi affecting the combination of reduced (i.e. unstressed) and full syllables. With two or more full syllables, the first tends to be shortened and shows “… a truncated pitch contour” (Wheatley 1987: 841). The voiceless consonant in the onset of B normally undergoes voicing if it is a ‘voiceable’ consonant (i.e. aspirated and non-aspirated stops, fricatives and affricates). If A ends with a glottal stop or a nasalised vowel, both these segments will undergo homorganic assimilation with B’s initial consonant. Voicing of the latter is barred if A ends with a glottal stop. In combinations of reduced and full syllables, ARED-B, the initial voiceless consonant of B normally undergoes voicing. For example:

2

Segmental sandhi, indicated by =, is shown only when it marks grammatical boundness. The grammatical markers involved in sandhi alternations are shown in their citation form, not in their modified phonetic realisation. Tonal sandhi has been left unmarked.


(20)

p|;yGJ

[sbw] ‘table’

[zbw]

‘table’

In addition to segmental quality, each syllable, considered in its citation form, shows one of the three possible tones in Burmese (creaky, low and high). If two or more syllables are linked by close juncture, the tone of the first syllable retains its full quality and influences the tone of the following syllable(s) by lowering it, a process common in most tonal languages and known as downdrift. Downdrift has rightward scope over complex lexical forms (compounds) as well as over full phrases, in both cases delimiting their extension to include structurally and functionally homogeneous forms. Downdrift affects only high and creaky tone, while low tone does not undergo any type of tonal modification. Reduced, toneless syllables (t& //) do not influence the tonal quality of the following syllable, which retains its citation-form tone specification. Close juncture, both at segmental and tonal level, is not shown orthographically. The absence of sandhi phenomena between syllables indicates their lack of lexical and/or grammatical cohesion, thus pointing at their identification as distinct lexical morphemes or phrases. In this case, we talk about open juncture. Open juncture is normally shown in written texts by a space between forms. 2.2.4.2

The Noun Phrase

In Burmese, the NP is a highly organised and complex structure. Its head may be a noun, a pronoun or a noun clause. Nominals undergo modification by means of various markers, most of which follow their base, i.e. the head nominal (NH). The structure of the Burmese NP is the following: (22)

NP → [(NOP1) NH = (NOP2)] = (NPOP)

32

ASPECT IN BURMESE

The only obligatory element of the NP is the head noun (NH), its nucleus. It may be a noun, a pronoun or a noun clause. Noun operators (NOP) are forms that further specify N as the nucleus of the NP. They may be either pre-posed (NOP1) or post-posed (NOP2) to N. NOP1 may be free or bound forms. Demonstratives are typical NOP1 free forms, with open juncture between them and N. Numerals and interrogatives are NOP1 forms, which form a compound with the following N and are reciprocally bound by close juncture. Except for numerals, all NOP2 are bound to the N by close juncture. Non-numeral quantifiers (such as tcsdKh [to] ‘some’, tvHk; [lou] ‘all’, trs|; [mja] ‘many/much’, etc.) and classifiers are typical examples of post-posed NOP. Noun phrase operators (NPOP) mark the relationships NPs engage with the rest of the members of the clause/sentence. All NPOPs are post-posed to the NP and are bound to it by close juncture. NPOPs mark NPs for possession, location, direction of motion, number and case. 2.2.4.3

The structure of the verbal complex

The following is the structure of the verbal complex: (23)

#…….[(Pre-VN) = VN = (Post-VN)] VCOMPLEX #

The predicate (VN) is represented by a verb, either simple or compound, or by a combination of serialised verbs. The verb represents the basic informative unit in Burmese, contained in the nucleus of the clause. Its pivotal nature is clearly shown in clausal structure, where all lexical and grammatical elements revolve around and depend on its semantics. Verbs may be either monosyllabic or polysyllabic. Monosyllabic verbs are by far the commonest. Non-monosyllabic verbs are the result of verbal compounding. Most compound verbs are disyllabic, while polysyllabic forms are the result of the combination of two compound, disyllabic verbs. It is important to note that close juncture does not occur between the two (or more) members of a verbal compound, unlike what happens in nominal compounds. Verbs tend to maintain their individuality as if they were simply juxtaposed rather than combined. Two or more verbs may co-occur in the nucleus by being simply juxtaposed to one another, without any intervening joining elements (conjunctions,


33

complementisers, etc.). These structures are best known as serialised verb constructions (SVCs). In Burmese, SVCs are strictly nuclear, in that they possess a complex nucleus composed of two or more verbs, that count as a single semantic unit, and “… all core and peripheral arguments are arguments of this complex nuclear element” (Foley and Van Valin 1984: 188). For example: (24)

(a)

rdef;uav; = e|; = r\|

meile = na = ma

girl = NEAR = AT

oG|;&xdkif = w,f/ wa-tai = t

go-sit = REAL

‘[He] went and sat near the girl’ (b)

p|tdwf

0if&0,f = w,f/

saei

wi-w = t

envelope

enter-buy = REAL

‘[I] went in and bought an envelope’ In (24a), the verbs oG|; [wa] ‘go’ and xdkif [tai] ‘sit’ share the same Actor (‘he’) while in (24b) the verbs 0if [wi] ‘enter’ and 0,f [w] ‘buy’ share the Actor (‘I’) but not the Undergoer (‘letter’). Burmese does not allow core SVCs, in which “… the core arguments of each nucleus are selected independently and are core arguments only of their specific nuclei” (FVV 1984: 190): (25)

*0if

p|tdwf

0,f = w,f/

wi

saei

w = t

enter

envelope

buy = REAL

‘I went in and bought an envelope’ Such a construction is allowed only if 0if [wi] ‘enter’ is followed by the operator &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ (see chapter 7), which marks sequentiality of foregrounding events which are brought about by the same Actor, as in:

34

(26)

ASPECT IN BURMESE

p|tdwf

0,f = w,f/

wi = pi

saei

w = t

enter = PFV

envelope

buy = REAL

0if = [yD;

‘[I] went in and bought an envelope’ Doubts often arise as to the status of certain verbal forms when juxtaposed. Are they full lexical verbs in series or are they the combination of full lexical verbs with other verbs that have been grammaticalised into pre- or postVN operators? In Burmese, in order to disambiguate the information provided by the verbal complex and the clause, one has to rely mainly on the type of juncture that occurs between verbal forms as well as on the context of utterance. Full lexical verbs in series will not show close juncture, whereas grammatical operators derived from lexical verbs will show close juncture with respect to the main verb and other operators, if present. As mentioned previously, the verbal complex includes a series of operators that have scope over the different layers of the clause, i.e. the nucleus, the core and the clause. The predicates in the nucleus maintain their original phonetic specification, which sets them apart from other verbal forms that may be used as grammatical modifiers. Close juncture occurs between pre-VN operators and the (first) predicate in the nucleus, in that the final consonant of the pre-VN operator adopts the point of articulation of the consonant in the onset of the predicate that follows. As for post-VN operators, most of them undergo close segmental and tonal juncture triggered by the predicate(s) in the nucleus, juncture which affects (where phonetically possible) all following grammatical forms included within the boundaries of the clause. Various interrelated factors come into play in the discussion on Burmese operators. The most salient factor is the degree of relatedness between the semantics of operators and the semantics of their lexical (mostly verbal) sources. In many cases, the link between them is transparent. For instance, the post-VN operator &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ derives from the full verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish’, a derivation by no means rare cross-linguistically (see, among others, Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994: 55-57). Interestingly, the operators that have scope over the nucleus and are, in most cases, closer to it than core or clausal operators (if present), show a clear semantic affinity with their lexical source, and the notions they convey are more concrete. As we move away from the nucleus, the lexical origin of the operators that modify the core and the clause be-


35

comes more and more opaque as the function of operators becomes more abstract. For instance: (27)

uGsefaw|f

vrf;

r = avs|uf = mdkif = aw|h = bl;?

tn

la

m = au = nai = t = bu

I

road

NEG1-walk-CAN-FINAL-NEG2

‘I can’t walk anymore’

[Yin 1981: 22]

The main verb avs|uf [au] ‘walk’ is marked for ability by the nuclear operator &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’, whose lexical source is the main verb mdkif [nai] ‘win; conquer; prevail’. The clausal operator &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’ used with negative statements marks the event as no longer occurring at speech time, and it therefore conveys a temporal notion, which typically applies at clausal level. What is interesting though is that its lexical source is (to the best of my knowledge) unknown in the same way as the lexical source of the clausal marker of negative statements &bl; [pu] ‘NEG2’ is. The semantics of operators is also the key factor in the determination of their grammatical function vis-à-vis the predicates they modify. We can see this in those operators whose meaning is fully retrievable from that of their lexical sources. For instance, the verb ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ is used in its full sense in:

(28)

reufzef = cg

rdk;]G| = ]if

mnpa = ka

mojwa = ji

tomorrow = time

rain = IF

uGsefr = wdkh

tdrf = r\|

ae = r,f/

tma = to

ei = ma

ne = m

I(fem) = PL

home = AT

stay = IRR

‘If it rains tomorrow, we’ll stay at home’

[Dahl 2000: 66]

We can visualise the logical structure of ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ (as well as of its English counterparts) as follows: (29)

do′ (x, [be-at′ (y, x)])

36

ASPECT IN BURMESE

which can be paraphrased as ‘someone x does/is doing something so that he/she can maintain his/her position at some specific location y’. It is the activity component do′ that distinguishes stay from a pure stative verb such as be: (30)

be-at′ (y, x)

as exemplified in: (31)

reufzef = cg

rdk;]G| = ]if

tomorrow = time

rain = IF

mnpa = ka

uGsefr = wdkh


I(fem) = PL

mojwa = ji

tdrf = r\|

]\d = r,f/

ei = ma

i = m

home = AT

be = IRR

‘If it rains tomorrow, we’ll be at home’

ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ should therefore be considered as denoting a dynamic state of affairs which is needed to maintain a certain position in space. It is precisely these semantic components of the logical structure of this verb that get grammaticalised into the aspectual features of the post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, which marks the continuation of an event or state at speech or reference time, as in: (32)

(a)

a]; = ae = w,f/

ol

p| = awG

u

sa = twe

je = ne = t

he

letter = PL

write = CONT = REAL

‘[A: What is your brother doing right now? B:] He’s writing letters’ [Dahl 1985: 198] (b)

a`c

usdK; = ae = (wJh) = ol = uav; = udk

leg

break(INTR) = CONT = (RELREAL) = he = small = OBJ

te to = ne = (t)= u = kle = ko

‘the boy with a broken leg’


(c)

'D

yef;

eD = ae = w,f/

di

pa

ni = ne = t

this

flower

be.red = CONT = REAL

37

‘This flower is red (now, but it could change its colour)’ In (32a), a]; [je] ‘write’ is an activity verb, whose logical structure is the following: (33)

do′ (x, [predicate′ (x, y)]) do′ (brother, [write′ (brother, letters)])

which can be paraphrased as ‘the entity x (brother) does/is doing something (writing letters)’. In (32b), usdK; [to] ‘break’ is an achievement verb, i.e. a verb that denotes a change-of-state event that is inherently non-durative, and its logical structure is the following: (34)

INGR

pred′ (x)

INGR

broken′ (leg)

It can be paraphrased as ‘the state in which entity x is came into being instantaneously’. In (32c), we have the stative verb eD [ni] ‘be red’, whose logical structure is the following:

(35)

predicate′ (x) be.red′ (flower)

paraphrased as ‘the entity x is in a particular state (‘redness’)’. The use of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ in all three examples conveys the same aspectual notion, i.e. the continuation of an activity or a state, but, more importantly, the continuation of the activity or state is seen to be limited to speech time. In other words, the entities’ activities or states/qualities are under focus at speech time, and, as a consequence, it may be possible for them to be temporary and subject to further change. This element of dynamicity and change is provided by the

38

ASPECT IN BURMESE

semantics of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ as indicated by the activity constant do′ in its logical structure, while the element of continuation could be derived from the constant be-at′ that characterises the locational part in its logical structure. We may paraphrase the logical structure of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ as ‘a certain activity/state x is described as being maintained at some specific location in time y’. The semantics of operators is also responsible for their ordering within the verbal complex. Post-VN operators have scope over all forms preceding them, as in:

(36)

uGsefaw|f

vrf;

avs|uf = mdkif = aw|h = w,f/

tn

la

au = nai = t = t

I

road

walk = CAN = FINAL = REAL

‘In the end, I was able to walk’

[[[walk-CAN]-FINAL]-REALIS] STATUS (REALIS) ⊃ TEMPORAL REFERENCE (FINAL) ⊃ ABILITY (CAN) ⊃ VN

(with ⊃ meaning ‘has scope over’ – VVLP 1997: 46) Pre-VN operators have scope over those forms that follow them and that are included within the range of the clausal layer they modify. That is, a pre-VN operator of the clause, like r& [m] ‘NEG1’, will have scope over the main verb and those forms that follow that have scope over the nucleus, the core and the clause. For instance: (37)

uGsefaw|f

r = avs|uf = mdkif = aw|h = bl;/

vrf;

tn

la

m = au = nai = t = bu

I

road

NEG1

= walk = CAN = FINAL =NEG2

‘I wasn’t able to walk anymore’

[NEG1-[[walk-CAN]-FINAL]-NEG2] STATUS (NEG1) ⊃ VN ⊃ ABILITY (CAN) ⊃ TEMP. REFERENCE (FINAL) ⊃ ILL. FORCE

(NEG2)


39

The order of operators that have scope over the same structural layer may be conditioned by their respective meaning. For instance, the nuclear operators &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ and &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’, which marks dynamic modality, may occur in either order, producing different meanings as in: (38)

(a)

p|; = ae = mdkif sa = ne = nai

eat = CONT = CAN ‘be able to keep eating’ (b)

p|; = mdkif = ae sa = nai = ne

eat = CAN = CONT ‘keep being able to eat’ On the other hand, in the following example: (39)

(a)

wDAGD;

junfh = ae = wwf = w,f/

tibwi

ti = ne = ta = t

TV

look.at = CONT = HAB = REAL

‘He is watching TV (as he usually does at this time of the day)’ (*b)

wDAGD;

junfh = wwf = ae = w,f/

tibwi

ti = ta = ne = t

TV

look.at = HAB = CONT = REAL

‘He is continuing the habit of watching TV’ (c)

wDAGD;

junfh = wwf = ae = w,f/

tibwi

ti = ta = ne = t

TV

look.at = CAN = CONT = REAL

‘He continues to be able to watch TV’

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ may occur with the nuclear operator &wwf [ta] ‘HABITUAL’, derived from the main verb wwf [ta] ‘know’, only in the order

40

ASPECT IN BURMESE

shown in (39a). The reason for this is that (39a) expresses the progression of an activity at speech time as being part of a routine (‘he is watching TV as he always does’). On the other hand, (39b) is barred since it is the habituality of the activity in its totality that is expressed as progressing at speech time. The operator &wwf [ta] ‘HABITUAL’ is also used in alternation with &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ to convey dynamic modality (see section 3.2.1.8), and it is with this sense that (39c) is acceptable. In this case, the combination [look.at-CAN] can be modified by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ to mean ‘to continue to be able to watch TV’. It is therefore the degree of semantic compatibility among operators that rules their mutual ordering. Although RRG maintains that operators having scope over different structural layers cannot vary their respective order (VVLP 1997: 51), there seem to be in Burmese instances of this phenomenon, whereby, for instance, we have examples of core operators like &csif [ti] ‘WANT’ occurring closer to the main verb than nuclear operators, like &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, as in: (40)

ckef = csif = ae

kou = ti = ne

jump = WANT = CONT T

‘keep wanting to jump’ as opposed to the usual use: (41)

ckef = ae = csif kou = ne = ti

jump = CONT = WANT ‘want to keep jumping’ Once again, the semantics of forms overrides their structural configuration. In this case, though, we could explain the unusual order if we consider the combination [jump-WANT] as the stative verb ‘want to jump’. The operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ marks its continuation at speech time. T

CHAPTER 3 VERBAL OPERATORS

The following sections discuss the order and function of the verbal operators that are most commonly found in Burmese. The meaning, function and structure of some of these operators have been discussed in depth in what constitutes the central part of this study. 3.1

Pre-VN operators

In the following sections, I will briefly describe a few common grammatical forms that occupy the pre-VN slot in the verbal complex, i.e. the operators r& [m] ‘NEGATIVE1’, `yef& [pja] ‘RETURN’, v\rf;& [a] ‘REACH OUT’, 0dkif;& [wai] ‘TOGETHER’ and ay;& [pe] ‘LET’. 3.1.1

The Pre-VN operator r& [m-] ‘NEGATIVE1’ (NEG1)

Negation in Burmese is marked by two different operators, the pre-VN operator r& [m] ‘NEGATIVE1’ (NEG1) and the clausal post-VN operator &bl; [bu] ‘NEGATIVE2’ (NEG2). r& [m] ‘NEG1’ usually immediately precedes the main verb, while &bl; [bu] ‘NEG2’ is located at the end of the clause in complementary distribution with other operators that identify clausal categories such as status and illocutionary force (see section 3.2.3.3.2). Okell and Allott (2001: 147) state that “…&bl; in itself carries no negative meaning: it only marks the conclusion of a negative statement”. Therefore, it is r& [m] ‘NEG1’ that carries the heaviest semantic load, and it identifies the type of negation as being external, i.e. as having the whole proposition under its scope. In RRG, external negation is a type of status operator together with epistemic modality and categories like realis/irrealis. Interestingly, while status operators in Burmese (as well as all clausal operators) follow the main verb and have scope over all the forms

42

ASPECT IN BURMESE

to their left, indeed over the whole clause, r& [m] ‘NEG1’ precedes the main verb, and yet it still has scope over the whole clause. In spoken Burmese, in independent clauses used to express a negative statement, the two markers usually co-occur within the verbal complex, as in: (42)

= mdkif = bl;/

ae|uf = v

r = vkyf

nau = la

m = lou = nai = bu

next = month

NEG1

= do = CAN = NEG2

‘[They] will not be able to do [it] next month’ In literary Burmese and in specific structural environments, the clausal post-VN operator &bl; [bu] ‘NEG2’ is not used: (43)

ae|uf = v

nau = la

next = month

r = vkyf

= mdkif

m = lou = nai NEG1

= do = CAN

‘[They] will not be able to do [it] next month’ If the verbal root is monosyllabic, r& [m] ‘NEG1’ will immediately precede it. Its position, though, may vary according to the structural type of the verb it attaches to. For instance, in disyllabic verbal compounds of the type [V = V]V and [N = V]V, the preferred option is to have r& [m] ‘NEG1’ mark directly the verbal form, since it is precisely the latter that is being negated (the following examples are all drawn from Okell 1969: 40-42): (44)

Disyllabic compound [V = V]V:

r = [V - V]V (a)

(also r = V - r = V)

r = aq|if]Guf (< aq|if [sau] ‘bear’ + ]Guf [jw] ‘carry on head’) m = saujw NEG1

= carry.out

‘not carry out’

VERBAL OPERATORS

(b)

r = aq|if - r = ]Guf

m = sau - m = jw NEG1

43

(r = V - r = V)

= bear - NEG1 = carry.on.the.head

‘not carry out’ (45)

[N = V]V N-r=V

(a)

(exceptionally r - N = V)

m\kwf - r = quf

nou - m = s

mouth - NEG1 = join ‘not greet’ (b)

r = m\kwf - quf

m = nou - s NEG1

= mouth - join

‘not greet’ In serial verb constructions, r& [m] ‘NEG1’ is usually located between the two verbs in series, and only rarely can it be found prefixed to the verbs in question: (46)

[V1 - V2] V1 = r - V2

(a)

qif; = r - ao|uf

si = m - au

descend = NEG1 - drink ‘not go down and drink’

(exceptionally r = V1 - V2)

44

(b)

ASPECT IN BURMESE

r = qif; - ao|uf

(r = V1 - V2)

m = si - au NEG1

= descend - drink

‘not go down and drink’ Since in Burmese serialised verb constructions are strictly nuclear and denote one single, unanalysable complex event, although r& [m] ‘NEG1’ may be inserted between the two verbs in serialisation, it still negates both the verbs and, therefore, the whole event, not the predicate it is prefixed to. If verbs are followed by operators, it is they that are usually negated, less commonly the operators: (47)

[V = Post-VN]

r = V = Post-VN (a)

(less common V = r = Post-VN)

r = ,l = oG|;

m = ju = wa NEG1

= take = GO

‘not take away’ (b)

,l = r = oG|;

ju = m = wa

take = NEG1 = GO ‘not take away’ In the latter example, the presence of the negative marker blocks close juncture onto the post-VN operator &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’. 3.1.2

The pre-VN operator `yef& [pja] ‘RETURN’

The full verb `yef [pja] ‘return’ may be used pre- or post-verbally to convey aspectual meanings that, although similar, show subtle but clear differ-

VERBAL OPERATORS

45

ences (for its use as a post-VN operator see section 5.3.1.2). Pre-verbally, it is mostly used to express either the resumption of an activity or state, as in: (48)

]yf = ]| = uae

`yef = xdkif = vdkuf = w,f/

ja = ja = ane

pja = tai = lai = t

stand = place = FROM

RETURN

= sit = FOLLOW = REAL

‘He sat down again from his upright position’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 134] or its repetition in reply to someone else’s input, as in the following example: (49)

ar|ifcsdK = ]hJ

tar = u

Maung.Cho = POSS

mother = SUBJ

p|&w = ap|if

`yef = a]; = vdkuf = av = w,f/

maunto = j

me = ka

ar|ifcsdK = xH maunto = ta

Maung.Cho = PLACE

sa-t = sau

pja = je = lai = le = t

letter-1 = CLASS

RETURN

= write = FOLLOW = EU = REAL

‘(When Maung Cho’s mother received his letter saying that he would go back to the village after the examination,) she sent a letter to where [Yin 1981: 30] Maung Cho was staying’ 3.1.3

The pre-VN operator v\rf;& [a] ‘REACH OUT’

The pre-VN operator v\rf;& [a] ‘REACH OUT’ is the grammaticalised form of the main verb v\rf; [a] ‘reach out; hand something to somebody; be far’: (50)

rD;`cpfbl; = udk

uGsefaw|f = qD

v\rf; = vdkuf = yg?

midibu = ko

tn = si

a = lai = pa

match.box = OBJ

I = PLACE

reach.out = FOLLOW = POL

‘Please, hand the match box over to me’ In its grammaticalised form, the core pre-VN operator v\rf;& [a] ‘REACH OUT’ marks activities as being addressed to entities that are displaced some way or another from the Actor. For example:

46

(51)

ASPECT IN BURMESE

ar|ifcsdK = u

wJ = xJ = r\


t = t = ma

Maung.Cho = SUBJ

ae = [yD;

ne = pi hut = INSIDE = FROM stay = PFV

aus|if;o|; = wdkh = udk

v\rf; = junfh = ae = av = w,f/

taua = to = ko

a = ti = ne = le = t

student = PL = OBJ

REACH.OUT

= see = CONT = EU = REAL

‘Maung Cho looked at the students from the hut’ 3.1.4

[Yin 1981: 36]

The pre-VN operator 0dkif;& [wai] ‘TOGETHER’

The core operator 0dkif;& [wai] ‘TOGETHER’ derives from the main verb 0dkif; [wai] ‘gather around’, as in: (52)

[rdKh = udk

]efol = rs|; = u

0dkif; = x|; = w,f/

mjo = ko

jau = mja = ka

wai = ta = t

village = OBJ enemy = PL = SUBJ

gather.around = RES = REAL

‘The enemies gathered around the village’ The operator 0dkif;& [wai] ‘TOGETHER’ marks the event as being performed collectively by (some of) the entities participating in the speech act, as in the following: (53)

ar|ifcsdK = u

p|oif = ] = `cif;&t`yif

mauto = ka

sai = ja = ti = pji

Maung.Cho = SUBJ

learn = GET = DEV = outside

rdb = rs|; = ]hJ

v,f&tvkyf = r\|

parent = PL = POSS

field-work(N) = AT

miba = mja = j

l-lou = ma

VERBAL OPERATORS

47

0dkif; = ul&vkyfudkif = ay; = avh = ]d\ = av = w,f/

wai = ku-loukai = pe = le = i = le = t TOGETHER

= help-do.for.a.living = BEN = HAB = BE = EU = REAL

‘Maung Cho used to help his parents in farm work after going to school’ [Yin 1981: 22] In this example, the reading ‘gather around and help’ is ruled out by the existence of close juncture between the operator and the main verb as well as by its context of occurrence. 3.1.5

The pre-VN operator ay;& [pe] ‘LET’

The clausal pre-VN operator ay;& [pe] ‘LET’, derived from the main verb ay; [pe] ‘give’, marks permission. For example: (54)

wpf = m\pf = xuf

ay; = r = vkyf = aw|h = bl;/

t = n = t

pe = m = lou = t = bu

1 = year = OVER

LET

= NEG1 = work = FINAL = NEG2

‘[They] don’t allow [the Karen girls] to work for more than a year’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 120] In addition, it may mark causation, as in: (55)

zdeyf

ay; = r = cGswf = yg = eJh/

pna

pe = m = tu = pa = n

shoes

LET

= NEG1 = take.off = POL = NEG.IMP

‘Let him not take his shoes off’ which represents a less firm request than the one conveyed by the clausal postVN operator &ap [se] ‘CAUSE’ in:

48

(56)

ASPECT IN BURMESE

zdeyf

r = cGswf = yg = ap = eJh/

pna

m = tu = pa = se = n

shoes

NEG1

= take.off = POL = CAUSE = NEG.IMP

‘Don’t make him take his shoes off’

[Okell and Allott 2001: 53]

Although the two sentences (55) and (56) are perceived by native speakers as conveying the same meaning, they differ in terms of their illocutionary force. In fact, the two operators may co-occur to convey an even stronger request, as in: (57)

zdeyf

ay; = r = cGswf = yg = ap = eJh/

pna

pe = m = tu = pa = se = n

shoes

LET

= NEG1 = take.off = POL = CAUSE = NEG.IMP

‘Don’t make him take his shoes off’ (very strong request) 3.2

Post-VN operators

This section includes an overview of the meaning and function of the commonest post-VN operators, i.e. those grammatical operators that follow the main verb within the verbal complex. They are divided into three groups on the basis of their respective scope (nuclear, core and clausal) and meaning, although a few operators may have scope over different layers of the clause according to their function. The analysis of the post-VN operators &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’, &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ and &[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ will constitute the core of this study. I have therefore included in this overview only a brief description of their function and meaning to provide the readers with an overall (although not exhaustive) picture of the rich system of Burmese operators1 .

1

The sections describing these operators have been provided with reference to the relevant chapters in Part II. Reference to chapters immediately follows the section headings and is shown in parenthesis.

VERBAL OPERATORS

3.2.1

49

Nuclear post-VN operators

&v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ (Part II - Ch. 5)

3.2.1.1

In Burmese, the inherent orientation of a motion or activity event, with no specific reference to its participants, is expressed lexically by a verb construction where the main motion or activity verb, unmarked for orientation, is followed by an inherently oriented verb, whose function is similar to the English adverbials such as up and down in ‘walk up’ or ‘look down’. For instance: (58)

a`y; = xGuf

pje = tw

run = exit ‘run out’ If the order of the two verbs is reversed, as in: (59)

xGuf&a`y; tw-pje

exit-run ‘exit and run’ the verb xGuf [tw] ‘exit’ is no longer considered as a modifier of the verb a[y; [pje] ‘run’, but acquires independent status and becomes part of the semantics of the serialised verb construction ‘exit and run’. Direction of motion of the participants in the motion event identified by the core arguments of motion verbs is marked by &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, derived from the main verbs v| [la] ‘come’ and oG|; [wa] ‘go’ respectively. In addition, they show different functions according to the semantics of the nuclear non-motion verb(s) they modify. With motion verbs, they specify the direction of motion of the core arguments, i.e. of the participants in the motion event, vis-à-vis their respective main location (the deictic centre – DC). In dialogues, &v| [la] ‘COME’ marks the motion event as directed towards the DC, &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ marks the motion event as directed away from the DC. For instance:

50

(60)

ASPECT IN BURMESE

'D = e|;

eJeJ

wdk; = v| = prf;/

di = na

nn

to = la = sa

here = vicinity

a.little

advance = COME = URGENT

‘Come a little closer to here’ (61)

T


pufbD;

pD; = oG|; = w,f/

sbei

si = wa = t

bicycle

ride = GO = REAL

‘He rode off on his bicycle’


In narratives, &v| [la] ‘COME’ orients motion towards the actual, habitual or intended location of the character(s) involved, considered to be the pivot(s) of the narrative. On the other hand, &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ orients motion away from the character(s) and from their common location. For instance: (62)

vli,fuav; = u

opf = udkif; = [uD;

lule = ka

i = kai = ti

i = t

boy = SUBJ

tree = branch = be.big

be = RELREAL

tyif = ay: pi = p

tree = ON

]\d = wJh

wuf = [yD;

opf = udkif; = xJ = udk

t = pi

i = kai = t = ko

climb.up = PFV

tree = branch = INSIDE = TO

ikHh&junfh = wJh

ou-ti = t

incline-look = RELREAL

tcg = r\|

ZD;uGuf = i\uf = [uD;

ka = ma

ziw =  = ti

time = AT

owl = CLASS = be.big

ysH&xGuf = v| = w,f/ pja-tw = la = t

fly-exit = COME = REAL ‘The boy climbed on the tree where the big branch was and when [he] inclined [his] head and looked, a big owl came out and flew [away]’ [FR 19]

VERBAL OPERATORS

51

The narrator considers the main character (the boy) and his location as the DC and, by using &v| [la] ‘COME’, she describes the trajectory of motion of the owl as being oriented towards the main character. In the following example: (63)

'],f = vJ

vefh = [yD;

olh = csdK = udk

cwf = vdkuf = wJh

dj = l

la = pi

u = to = ko

ka = lai = t

deer = ALSO

be.afraid = PFV its = antlers = OBJ

toss = FOLLOW = RELREAL

tcg

a`c

vGwf = [yD;

'],f = acgif; = ay:

ka lule

vli,fav;

te

lu = pi

dj=kau=p

time

leg

be.free = PFV deer = head = ON

boy

csdK = ju|;

vdrfh&us = oG|; = aw|h = av = w,f/

to = ta

lei-ta = wa = t = le = t

antlers = BETWEEN

roll-fall = GO = FINAL = EU = REAL

‘The deer too got scared and when [it] tossed [its] antlers, the boy’s leg [FR 26] was freed and [he] rolled and fell between the antlers’ the main character is the same (the boy) and the narrator describes his trajectory of motion as being directed away from his location. In these uses, because &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ indicate direction of motion of the participants in the motion event, identified by the core arguments of the verbs of motion, they are considered to be operators of the core. With verbs which express change of state as well as with stative verbs, &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ mark the attainment of the goal of the change (the new state) either through progression in time (&v| [la] ‘COME’) or instantaneously (&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’). They have therefore inchoative/ingressive function, and may be grouped among the aspectual (nuclear) operators. For example: (64)

an|if = udkif; = udk

udkif = x|; = wJh

au = kai = ko

kai = ta = t

tree = branch = OBJ

hold = PUT = RELREAL

vuf = r\| l = ma

hand = TOP

52

ASPECT IN BURMESE

wkef = v| = [yD; = ]if

tou = la = pi = ji

tremble = COME = PFV = WHEN ‘[Because he was scared] [his] hands holding the branches started to tremble, and ….’ [Yin 1981: 110] (65)

rD;av|if = wJh

txJ = r\|

tukef

yg = oG|; = w,f/

milau = t

t = ma

kou

pa = wa = t

burn = RELREAL

inside = AT

everything

lose = GO = REAL

‘Everything was lost in the fire’


Most stative verbs occur with &v| [la] ‘COME’, while only few occur with &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’: (66)

ae|ufqHk; = r\|

ol = u

pdwfysuf = v| = w,f/

nausoun = ma

u = ka

seipj = la = t

last = AT

she = SUBJ

be.discouraged = COME = REAL

‘At last, she became discouraged’ (67)

q]|r = u

taw|f

sjama = ka

t

teacher(fem) = SUBJ quite

[Okell 1994: 97]

tHhjo = oG|; = w,f/ a = wa = t

be.amazed = GO = REAL

‘The teacher was quite amazed’ 3.2.1.2

[Okell 1994: 102]

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ (CONT) (Part II – Ch. 4) T

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ is one exponent of the morphologically marked category of imperfectivity. It marks dynamic, inherently durative events (activities and accomplishments) as ongoing at speech or reference time, as in:

VERBAL OPERATORS

(68)

b|

vkyf = ae = o = vJ/

ba

lou = ne =  = l

what

do = CONT = REAL = INTWH

‘What are you doing?’

53


It also marks states whose existence includes and possibly exceeds speech or reference time. For instance: (69)

uGsefaw|f = wdkh

aus|if; = u

tn = to

tau = ka

I = PL

school = SUBJ

t`rJ mj

always

oefh]\if; = ae = yg = w,f/ ai = ne = pa = t

be.clean = CONT = POL = REAL ‘Our school is always clean’


&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ occurs rarely with verbs denoting punctual events (achievements). Here, it is the result brought about by the event that is marked as existing or continuing at speech or reference time: (70)

usdK; = ae = ol = uav; = udk

q]|0ef[uD; = u

a`c

sjawudi = ka

te to = ne = u = le = ko

head.doctor = SUBJ

leg

break(INTR) = CONT = he = small= OBJ

juyfrwf = [yD;

uko = ay; = av = w,f/

tama = pi

kua = pe = le = t

exercise.close.supervision = PFV

treat = BEN = EU = REAL

‘The head doctor [at Myintha hospital] gave the boy with a broken leg [= whose leg was broken] a careful treatment’ [Yin 1981: 24]

54

ASPECT IN BURMESE

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ is a nuclear operator, in that it has scope only over the predicate, since it describes features that are typical of the temporal contour of events (as typically shown by aspect), not features referring to the relation between events and their participants (core relations) or between events and their location in time (expressed by certain clausal operators). 3.2.1.3

&wwf [ta] ‘HABITUAL’ and &avh [le] ‘HABITUAL’ (HAB)

The nuclear operators &wwf [ta] ‘HABITUAL’ and &avh [le] ‘HABITUAL’ derive from the lexical verbs wwf [ta] ‘know’ and avh [le] ‘practise; acquire a habit; become accustomed to’ respectively. They seem to be used interchangeably to mark habituality, as in: (71)

rpHy,f = u

oli,fcsif; = rs|; = udk

masb = ka

udi = mja = ko

Ma.Sabeh = SUBJ

friend = PL = OBJ

‘Ma Sabeh usually helps her friends’ (72)

vrf; = u

qdk; = aw|h

la = ka

so = t

road = SUBJ

be.bad = BECAUSE

ulnD = wwf = w,f/ kui = ta = t

help = HAB = REAL [Okell and Allott 2001: 90]

u|; = udk

ka = ko car = OBJ

vrf; = xdyf = r\| la = tei = ma

road = top = AT

]yf = x|; = cJh = avh = ]\d = w,f/ ja = ta = k = le = i = t

stop = RES = BACK.THERE = HAB = BE = REAL ‘As it was a bad road, we used to leave the car at the top of the road’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 205] In addition, &wwf [ta] ‘HABITUAL’ alternates with &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ to convey what Palmer calls dynamic modality, which is “… subject-oriented in the sense that it is concerned with the ability or volition of the subject of the sentence, rather than the opinions (epistemic) or attitudes (deontic) of the speaker (and addressee)” (Palmer 1990: 36). I will talk about this use of &wwf [ta] when I briefly discuss the operator &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ (see section 3.2.1.8).

VERBAL OPERATORS

55

&[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ (PFV) (Part II – Ch. 7)

3.2.1.4

The rare use of the verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish’ in its full lexical sense is matched by the uncommon use in independent clauses of its grammaticalised form, the nuclear post-VN operator &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’, which marks events as bounded temporally. In this context, it occurs almost exclusively with the post-VN operator &[yD [pi] ‘CURRENT RELEVANT STATE’ (CRS). For example: (73)

reufzef

us = r\

zwf = [yD; = r,f/

mnpa

ta = ma

pa = pi = m

tomorrow

arrive = NOT.UNTIL

read = PFV = IRR

‘I won’t finish reading [it] until tomorrow’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 130] (74)

igh = p|tkyf

zwf = [yD; = [yD = v|;/

a = saou

pa = pi = bi = la

my = book

read = PFV = CRS = INT

‘Have you read/Have you finished reading my book? [Okell and Allott: 2001: 130] Its rare use as a ‘pure’ perfective marker in independent clauses has been further specialised to function as a marker of sequentiality in discourse as well as a marker of subject continuity in the same context. Here, it mostly occurs following the main verb in non-final/dependent clauses, functioning both as a perfective marker and a marker of co-subordination (for a definition of cosubordination see VVLP 1997: 453-454). For example: (75)

e|]D

ao|hay; = [yD;

p|;yGJ = ay:

naji pe = pi

sbw = p

wif = x|; = w,f/

clock wind = PFV

table = ON

put = RES = REAL

ti = ta = t

‘After winding up the clock, [he] put [it] on the table’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 131]

56

ASPECT IN BURMESE

&x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (RES) (Part II – Ch. 6)

3.2.1.5

The function of the core operator &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ is to mark the state of the Undergoer resulting from the activity expressed by the main verb, a state that is seen as stable and permanent. At the same time, it marks the affectedness of the Undergoer, therefore shifting the focus of attention from the entity that triggers the change to the affected entity. For instance: (76)

OD;av; = u

uGsefaw|f = wdkh

v| = r,f = udk

ule = ka

tn = to

la = m = ko

Uncle = SUBJ

I = PL

come = IRR = OBJ

od = [yD;

xrif;

i = pi

tmi

t = ta = t

know = PFV

rice

cook = RES = REAL

csuf = x|; = w,f/

‘Uncle cooked a meal ready because he knew that we were coming’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 99] 3.2.1.6

&cJh [k] ‘BACK THERE’ and &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’

The meaning and function of post-VN operators &cJh [k] ‘BACK THERE’ and &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ are perhaps among the most elusive of all Burmese operators. Despite their frequent occurrence in written and oral texts, their function is yet to be definitively assessed. As for &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’, Bernot (1980: 301-306) states that its function in the spoken language is to mark the attainment of the activity expressed by the main verb (“Le verbe lai? ‘suivre’, ‘accompagner’ est utilisé comme auxiliaire et marque la poursuite du procès exprimé par le verb principal, jusqu’à son terme logique” – Bernot 1980: 301). For Okell and Allott (2001), this operator has the effect of “… minimizing the time and effort involved in the action” (Okell and Allott 2001: 214), a definition which seems not to account for other meanings, which are “… not yet fully understood” (Okell and Allott 2001: 214). I have cursorily described the function of &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ as a marker of transitivity/volition in transitive clauses, a use which was not identified by the above-mentioned authors. Its analysis appears in the chapter on the directionals &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ (chap-

VERBAL OPERATORS

57

ter 5), since &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ alternates with &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ in a few interesting ways. As for &cJh [k] ‘BACK THERE’, from its original function as a marker of displacement in space, it has come to be used by native speakers as a marker of displacement in time, the only bound operator to mark a category that could be defined as tense in an otherwise tenseless language. Bernot (1980: 225-228) and Okell and Allott (2001: 24-27) seem to agree on this analysis and they themselves acknowledge the need for a more accurate description of these two operators. A full analysis of these operators will not be included in this study and will constitute part of future research. 3.2.1.7

&[yef [pja] ‘ITERATIVE’ (ITER)

For a brief discussion of &[yef [pja] ‘ITERATIVE’ see section 5.3.1.2. 3.2.1.8

&mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’

The operator &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ derives from the main verb mdkif [nai] ‘win; conquer; prevail’. Its function as a post-VN modifier is to convey the meanings of ability, possibility and permission. As for ability, &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ marks what Palmer has termed dynamic modality. An example of dynamic modality in English would be the following: (77)

She can speak English

where the meaning conveyed by can is not modal, in that it “… does not describe the possibility of the situation which the sentence describes, but rather the potential … of the subject of the sentence” (Steele 1975: 38, quoted by Palmer 1990: 36). The following is an example in Burmese: (78)

a`cax|uf&wpf = zuf

usdK; = ae = vdkh

ol

vrf;

tedau - t = p

to = ne = lo

u

la

leg-1 = of.pair

break = CONT = BECAUSE

he

road

58

ASPECT IN BURMESE

au|if;au|if;

r = av\s|uf = edkif = bl;/

kauau

m = au = nai = bu

well

NEG1

= walk = CAN = NEG2

‘He can’t walk very well because he has a broken leg’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 109] In its use as a dynamic modal marker, &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ is found in alternation with the post-VN operator &wwf [ta] ‘CAN’, also used as a marker of habituality. For instance: (79)

Ar| = pu|;

a`y| = wwf^mdkif = o = v|;/

bma = sa

pj = ta/nai =  = la

Burma = language

speak = CAN = REAL = INT

‘Can you speak Burmese?’


When marking dynamic modality, &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ (as well as &wwf [ta] ‘CAN’) is best considered as an operator of the nucleus, in that it does not describe a particular feature of the relationship between the speaker and the addressee, seen as the core arguments of the modal clause, but it describes the event per se. &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ is also used to mark ‘epistemic’ possibility as in: (80)

a]

r = ,dk = mdkif = at|if

je

m = jo = nai = au

water

NEG1

= leak = CAN = SO.THAT

‘They patched it so that it couldn’t leak’

z| = x|; = w,f/ pa = ta = t

patch = RES = REAL [Okell and Allott 2001: 109]

The fact that &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ expresses epistemic possibility may account for its use to mark permission, in that “… to say what is possible is often to imply that the speaker will not object, i.e. that he gives permission” (Palmer 1990: 72). In this sense, &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ conveys permission of a milder type, where the entity that is allowed to perform a certain activity is free to choose whether to perform it or not. It does not therefore have the same strong deontic value of &] [ja] ‘GET’. For example:

VERBAL OPERATORS

(81)

tvdk]\d = ]|

59

'D

wdkif;`ynf = r\|

oG|; = mdkif = yg = w,f/

di

taipji = ma

loi = ja

this

country = AT

want = THING go = CAN = POL = REAL

wa = nai = pa = t

‘You may go wherever you like in this country’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 109] (82)

touf

18 = m\pf

`ynfh = o = wdkif;

rJqN



18 = ni 18 = year

pji = u = tai

msanda

reach = he = EACH

vote (N)

age

ay; = mdkif = w,f/ pe = nai = t

give = CAN = REAL ‘Every citizen of 18 years of age can vote’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 109] In its epistemic use, &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ may be considered as a status operator, which has scope over the clause. 3.2.2 3.2.2.1

Core post-VN operators The directionals &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ (Part II – Ch. 5)

For a discussion of the function of these operators as markers of directionality see section 3.2.1.1. and chapter 5. 3.2.2.2

&ay; [pe] ‘BENEFACTIVE’ (BEN)

&ay; [pe] ‘BENEFACTIVE’ represents the grammaticalised use of the main verb ay; [pe] ‘give’. It is used to mark the fact that the activity expressed by the main verb is done for the benefit of (one of) the entities in the event or it affects (one of) them either positively or negatively. &ay; [pe] ‘BENEFACTIVE’ is therefore a core operator. For example:

60

(83)

ASPECT IN BURMESE

uGsefr = ]Jh

ig; = Aef; = udk

tma = j

a = pa = ko I(fem) = POSS fish = tray = OBJ

ul = [yD;

r = ay; = yg = ae|f/

ku = pi help = PFV

ma = pe = pa = n

lift=BEN=POL=OK?

‘Give me a hand in lifting my tray of fish, would you?’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 120] (84)

]\if; = `y = ay; = yg/

i = pja = pe = pa

clear.up = SHOW = BEN = POL ‘Please explain this’


&[u [ta] ‘PLURAL’ (PL)

3.2.2.3

The core post-VN operator &[u [ta] ‘PLURAL’ is not obligatory in Burmese. If it appears in the verbal complex, it emphasises “… (a) the mutuality of the action, or (b) the fact that several actors were engaged separately, severally, or (c) (confusingly) that all the actors acted together” (Okell and Allott 2001: 16-17). The following are examples of these three uses: (85)

(a)

eHrnf

ar; = ju = pdkh = ]Jh/

nam

me = ta = so = j

name

ask = PL = LET’S = EMPH

Let’s ask (each other’s) names’ (b)


wyfraw|f = udk

txifvGJ = ju = w,f/

tamd = ko

tilw = ta = t

army = OBJ

misunderstand = PL = REAL

‘People have misunderstood about the army’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 16]

VERBAL OPERATORS

(c)

61

xrif;

oG|;&p|; = ju = ]at|if/

rice

go - eat = PL = SHALL.WE?

tmi

wa-sa = ta = jaau

‘Shall we go and eat (all together)?’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 17] Because of the non-obligatoriness of &[u [ta] ‘PLURAL’, various counterexamples to the uses indicated above may be found. For example, in: (86)

[rdKh = u

aq;]kH; = udk

ac: = oG|; = [yD;

mjo = ka village = FROM

sejou = ko hospital = TO

k = wa = pi

take = GO = PFV

uko = ju = yg” = [k

a`y| = av = w,f/

kua = ta = pa = hu

pj = le = t

cure = PL = POL = QUOT

say = EU = REAL

‘“Take him to the hospital in town and get a cure” [said the doctor]’ [Yin 1981: 24] the doctor is talking to Maung Cho’s parents. The use of &[u [ta] ‘PLURAL’ is redundant, in that the entities that are referred to are well-identifiable within context, they do not act mutually or severally, nor does the doctor refer to an event that Maung Cho’s parents will necessarily have to perform together. 3.2.2.4

&] [ja] ‘GET’

The main verb ] [ja] ‘a) get; obtain; have; b) attain; acquire; reach’ has been grammaticalised into the core post-VN operator &] [ja] ‘GET’, which marks a) obligation, and b) permission. According to Okell and Allott “… the common component of the two sets of translations is ‘non-volitional action’, i.e. the subject or agent of the verb is not actively willing or initiating the action or state; rather he is a passive actor, ‘obliged’ to do or ‘given the possibility’ of doing something” (Okell and Allott 2001: 178). Both meanings are exemplified in the following sentence:

62

(87)

ASPECT IN BURMESE

uGsefaw|f = u

4 = wef;

at|if = [yD; = ae|uf

I = SUBJ

4 = ta 4 = standard

pass = PFV = after

tn = ka

au = pi = nau

5 = wef; = r\|

r = ae = ] = yJ

5 = ta = ma 5 = standard = AT

m = ne = ja = p

6 = wef; = udk

6 = ta = ko 6 = standard = TO

NEG1

= stay = GET = INDEED

ckef&wuf = oG|; = ] = w,f/ kou-t = wa = ja = t

jump-ascend = GO = GET = REAL

‘After I had passed the 4th standard, I didn’t have to stay in the 5th standard but jumped (was allowed to jump) up to the 6th standard’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 178] In addition to these meanings, &] [ja] ‘GET’ marks ability, which speakers gain by having overcome difficulties preventing them from attaining the ability in question. English would paraphrase this meaning by using the forms manage to, get to. For example: (88)

raeh&n = u

tdyf = [yD;

r = ]/

mne-a = ka

ei = pi

m = ja

yesterday-night = FROM

sleep = PFV

NEG1

= GET

‘Last night I couldn’t manage/get to sleep’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 179] These uses of &] [ja] ‘GET’ are strikingly similar to those of operators in many South-East Asian languages, all of which are grammaticalised forms of the main verb get/acquire (Matisoff 1973, Matisoff 1991, Enfield 2000, Enfield 2001). Interestingly, in these languages, the two sets of meanings are conveyed by the same form which occurs in different slots within the verbal complex, namely obligation in pre-verbal position and ability in post-verbal position. As for Burmese, the same operator &] [ja] ‘GET’ conveys both meanings and occurs only post-verbally. The following are a few examples of the Lahu operator a (Matisoff [1991: 418-427]), derived from the main verb a ‘get’:

VERBAL OPERATORS

(89)

63

Lahu a (a)

Main verb ma

a

e

ka

ma

b

NEG

get

PTCL

even

NEG

angry get

ma

ha-l

NEG

happy

a

e

ka

PTCL

even

‘If I don’t get it I won’t be mad – if I do get it I won’t be happy’ [Matisoff 1991: 419] (b)

Pre-head versatile verb (1)

‘manage to VH; get to VH’

-chi

m-m

ve

ka

ma

a

ca

curry

tasty

PTCL

even

NEG

GET.TO

eat

ve

yo

PTCL

PTCL

‘We didn’t get to eat very tasty food either’ [Matisoff 1991: 419] (2)

‘must VH’

chi-b

a

a

qay

ve

yo

now

ISG

MUST

go

PTCL

PTCL

‘I must leave now’ (c)

[Matisoff 1991: 419]

Post-head versatile verb ‘get by VH-ing; able to/can VH; completed VH -ing’ kala-phu

ve

-chi

a

ca

ma

a

white.man

GEN

food

ISG

eat

NEG

CAN

‘I just can’t eat white men’s food’


64

ASPECT IN BURMESE

Enfield (2000, 2001) shows a similar development in Lao, a language of the Tai group, spoken in Laos. In Lao, the normal meaning of the main verb daj is ‘come to have’, as in the following example: (90)

phuu-nan

pen

phuu

person-that

be

person

daj

khan

come.to.have stuff

daj

khn

come.to.have

things

‘That person is the one who’ll get many things’

[Enfield 2001: 269]

In its post-verbal use, daj ‘ACQUIRE’ has meanings related to both possibility and achievement. For example: (91)

haw

b

paj

nam

khaw ka

b

daj

I

NEG

go

accompany

3

NEG

ACQUIRE

FP

‘I couldn’t not go with them’

[Enfield 2001: 270]

The meaning of achievement derives pragmatically from that of possibility in particular temporal and aspectual contexts. The following example is ambiguous between the readings of possibility and achievement: (92)

naa

thaj

daj

lw

paddy.field

plough

ACQUIRE

PFV

(i) (ii)

‘(This) field can be ploughed’ ‘(This) field has been ploughed’

[Enfield 2001: 270]

daj ‘ACQUIRE’ may also convey the notion of success in the activity denoted by the main verb it modifies. For example:

(93)

man

haa

pm

hua

nan

daj

(lw)

3

seek

book

CL

that

ACQUIRE

PFV

‘He has found that book’

[Enfield 2001: 271]

VERBAL OPERATORS

65

Pre-verbally, daj ‘ACQUIRE’ is translated as ‘get to; have to; happen to’. For example: (94)

kuu

daj

naaj

han

I

RPE

move

house

(i) (ii)

‘I got to move house’ ‘I had to move house’

[Enfield 2001: 276]

Enfield tells us that “… the invariant meaning here is that ‘the main verb is the case because of something else that has happened before it’ (thus the gloss ‘(R)esult of (P)rior (E)vent’)” (Enfield 2001: 276). The reading in (94i) would occur if someone had given permission to move, while the reading in (94ii) would occur if someone had ordered to move. The latter is the meaning that is expressed in Burmese by &] [ja] ‘GET’. For example: (95)

uGsefr

tdrf

a`y|if; = ] = w,f/

tma

ei

pjau = ja = t

I

house

change = GET = REAL

‘I had to change house’ 3.2.2.5

&mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ (Deontic modality)

For a discussion on &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ as a marker of deontic modality see section 3.2.1.8. 3.2.2.6

&csif [ti] ‘WANT’

The core operator &csif [ti] ‘WANT’ expresses desire or intention on the part of the speaker directed towards the realisation of an event. For example: T

66

ASPECT IN BURMESE

wDAGD

(96)

(97)

junfh = csif = ]if

tibwi

ti = ti = ji

TV

look = WANT = IF

junfh/ ti

look

T

‘Watch TV if you want to’


vl = awG

rs|; = v| = vdkh

r = ul; = csif = bl;/

lu = twe

mja = la = lo

m = ku = ti = bu

person = PL

be.many = COME = BECAUSE

NEG1=swim=WANT= NEG2 T

‘I don’t want to swim: it’s too crowded now’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 36] Occasionally, &csif [ti] ‘WANT’ expresses likelihood, as in: T

(98)

rdk;

]G| = csif = [yD

xif = w,f/

mo

jwa = ti = pi

ti = t

rain

fall = WANT = CRS

think = REAL

T

‘I think it’s likely to rain’


If &csif [ti] ‘WANT’ is used deontically by speakers who want to express ‘desiderative causatives’ (Matisoff 1973: 332), i.e. directives, it must be preceded by the causative post-VN operator &ap [se] ‘CAUSE’, as in: (99)

uGsefaw|h = tdrf = udk

v| = ap = csif = w,f/

tn = ei = ko

la = se = ti = t

my = house = TO

come = CAUSE = WANT = REAL

‘I want you to come to my place’ 3.2.3 3.2.3.1

Clausal post-VN operators Clausal post-VN operators marking the category of STATUS

VERBAL OPERATORS

3.2.3.1.1

67


For a discussion on &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ as a marker of epistemic modality see section 3.2.1.8. 3.2.3.1.2

&w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ (REAL)/ &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ (IRR)

The operator &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ (literary High &onf [i], &. [i]) obligatorily occurs at the end of clauses to mark 1) the reality of the event, i.e. its past or present existence in the real world of events in esse, as well as 2) the declarative quality of the utterance that describes the event itself. It therefore combines two functions that are considered by RRG as being represented by operators having scope over the same layer (clause) but belonging to two different categories, namely status (realis/irrealis) and illocutionary force (declarative). &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ is replaced by its allomorphs &o [] and &w| [ta] (sometimes phonetically and orthographically realised as &x| [ta] after glottal stop) when used in conjunction with interrogative or pragmatic operators. In particular, &o [] is mostly used when followed by the interrogative operators &v|; [la]/&vJ [l], and &w|/&x| [ta/ta] is mainly used by speakers before certain pragmatic operators, to emphasise statements or to correct their interlocutors’ mistaken or false opinions. For instance: (100) rdk;]G| = ae = w,f/ mojwa = ne = t rain = CONT = REAL ‘It is/was raining’ (101) a]


euf = o = v|;/

n =  = la water be.deep = REAL = INT

je

‘Is/was the water deep?’


68

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(102) odyf

0rf;o| = w| = yJ/

ei

wua = ta = p

very

be.pleased = REAL = INDEED

‘I am very pleased indeed’ (103) t[kwf = udk hou = ko really = EMPHATIC


xkwf&ypf = x|/ tou-pji = ta

bring.out-throw = REAL

‘[They] did actually throw [him] out!’

zGifh = x|; = w|/

(104) r = [kwf = bl;/ m = hou = pu NEG1


pwi = ta = ta

= be.so = NEG2

open = RES = REAL

‘No! I did open [it] (correcting a wrong impression)’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 95] The operator &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ (literary High &rnf [mji], &tHh [a]  ) marks the non-reality of the event, i.e. its description as existing not in the real world of events in esse, but only in the non-real, possible, or projected world of events in posse. Like &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’, it occurs at the end of the clause and it marks the declarative quality of the utterance. The two operators are obviously in complementary distribution with one another as well as with the other illocutionary force operators. &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ is replaced by its allomorphs &r [m]/&r\| [ma] in the same contexts in which the allomorphs of &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ (&o [] and &w|/&x| [ta/ta]) occur. For example: (105) reufzef

p = r,f/

mnpa

sa = m

tomorrow

begin = IRR

‘[We] shall start tomorrow’

[Okell 1969: 355]

VERBAL OPERATORS

(106) refusnf;oD;

p|; = zl; = r,f

mdii

sa = pu = m

tamarind.fruit

eat = EVER = IRR

69

xif = w,f/ ti = t

think = REAL

‘[I] think [he] must have eaten tamarinds before’ (107) owd

x|;/

[Okell 1969: 355]

azaz

pdwfqdk; = r\|/

di

ta

pepe

seiso = ma

attention

put

Dad

be.cross = IRR

‘Be careful! Dad will be really cross!’ (108) b,f = txd b = ti where = up.to

[Okell 1969: 355]

r = vkyf = ay; = mdkif = r = vJ/ m = lou = pe = nai = m = l NEG1

= do = BEN = CAN = IRR = INTWH

‘For how long will [you] be unable to do [it] for [me]?’ [Okell 1969: 357]

&r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ may be preceded by the post-VN operator &vdrfh [lei] ‘MAYBE’, to add a semantic component of probability to its generic irrealis meaning: (109) OD;cif = wdkh = vJ uki = to = l U.Khin = PL = ALSO

v| = ju = r = v|;/

la = ta = m = la

come = PL = IRR = INT

v| = ju = yg = vdrfh = r,f/ la = ta = pa = lei = m

come = PL = POL = MAYBE = IRR ‘Will the Khin family come too? I expect so (= they will probably come) [Okell and Allott 2001: 220] 3.2.3.2

Clausal post-VN operators marking the category of REFERENCE

TEMPORAL

70

ASPECT IN BURMESE

3.2.3.2.1

&ao; [e]/ &tHk; [ou] ‘STILL’ and &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’

&ao; [e]/ &tHk; [ou] ‘STILL’ and &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’ are considered by Okell (1979) to be exponents of a system which is close in meaning and function to that identified by the English forms still and anymore, as discussed by Michael Morrissey (1973). In what follows, I will give a brief description of the use of these operators, by summarising Okell’s discussion. The operators &ao; [e] and &tHk; [ou] ‘STILL’ “… not only inform the hearer of some action (or, with a negated verb, inaction), but also imply a relationship with some preceding action (or inaction)” (Okell 1979: 72). They are in complementary distribution and are used in different structural contexts. &ao; [e] ‘STILL’ occurs in realis clauses, while &tHk; [ou] ‘STILL’ occurs in irrealis clauses. For example, in positive statements like the following: (110) (a)

yWv|;

wD; = r,f/

patla

ti = m

xylophone

play = IRR

‘[I] will play the xylophone’ (b)

yWv|;

[Okell 1979: 72]

wD; = tHk; = r,f/

patla

ti = ou = m

xylophone

play = STILL = IRR

‘[I] will go on playing the xylophone/[I] will play the xylophone again’ [Okell 1979: 72] (c)

yWv|;

wD; = ao; = w,f/

patla

ti = e = t

xylophone

play = STILL = REAL

‘[I] also played the xylophone (on Sunday)’

[Okell 1979: 73]

(110a) informs the hearer that some activity will take place some time in the future. (110b) informs the hearer not only that the activity will be performed some time in the future, but it also implies some preceding activity (in this case, the same one) that is known by the hearer, or is inferred by the context. Therefore, ‘I will go on playing the xylophone’ implies that I have already

VERBAL OPERATORS

71

played the xylophone before. The same applies to (110c), where it is assumed that ‘I also played the xylophone on Sunday’ implies, for example, that I had played the xylophone on Saturday. We can therefore visualise the relations in (110b) and (110c) as follows: (111) (a)

‘I have already played the xylophone’ +

‘I will play it again’

(b)

‘I had already played the xylophone’ +

‘I played it again”

+

+

Only &ao; [e] ‘STILL’ is used in negative statements, which may refer to either realis or irrealis events, while &tHk; [ou] ‘STILL’ is used only in negative imperatives. For example:

(112) yWv|;

r = wD; = ao; = bl;/

patla

m = ti = e = bu

xylophone

NEG1

= play = STILL = NEG2

‘a) I hadn’t played the xylophone yet; b) I won’t play the xylophone yet’ [Okell 1979: 73] Both renderings of (112) can be paraphrased as follows: (113) (a)

‘I had not played the xylophone before’

+ ‘I did not play it again’

(b)

‘I have not played the xylophone before’

+ ‘I will not play it’

−

−

Of the two operators, only &tHk; [ou] ‘STILL’ is used in imperative constructions. The following are instances of its use in positive and negative imperative clauses:

72

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(114) (a)

yWv|;

wD; = tHk;/

patla

ti = ou

xylophone

play = STILL

‘Go on playing the xylophone’

(b)

yWv|;

[Okell 1979: 77]

r = wD; = eJh = tHk;/

patla

m = ti = n = ou

xylophone

NEG1

= play = NEG.IMP = STILL

‘Don’t play the xylophone yet’

[Okell 1979: 77]

(114a) implies that the addressee has been playing the xylophone before and s/he is asked to continue playing it. In (114b), the addressee has not been playing the xylophone and s/he is asked to continue not to play it at speech time (now). We can visualise the two different views as follows: (115)

(a)

‘You have been playing the xylophone so far’ + ‘Go on playing it’ + +

(b)

‘You haven’t been playing the xylophone so far’ + ‘Don’t play it now’ − −

To summarise, &ao; [e] and &tHk; [ou] ‘STILL’ are used in their respective structural environments (realis for the former, irrealis for the latter) to convey the following contrasts: (a) with a positive verb, they mark an event as having already occurred previously and as continuing at speech or reference time (+, +); (b) with a negative verb, they mark an event as not having already occurred previously and as not occurring at speech or reference time (−, −) Okell (1979: 75-76) states that the meaning of &ao; [e] and &tHk; [ou] ‘STILL’ is strikingly similar to that of English still, and he adds that

VERBAL OPERATORS

73

… though there are some important differences between them, the Burmese auxiliary verbs [operators in our terminology] and the English adverbs seem to point to a need felt by two quite different language communities to relate stated action to known or preceding action (Okell 1979: 76)

To explain the meaning of the operator &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’ is a more complex task. I will analyse its function in relation to its use in realis and irrealis positive and negative statements and in directives (imperatives). The following are examples of its use in positive and negative statements together with their paraphrases: (116) (a)

yWv|;

wD; = aw|h = w,f/

patla

ti = t = t

xylophone

play = FINAL = REAL

‘In the end, I played the xylophone’ ‘I had not played the xylophone’ − (b)

yWv|;

wD; = aw|h = r,f/

patla

ti = t = m

xylophone

play = FINAL = IRR

[Okell 1979: 77] +

‘I will play the xylophone at last’ ‘I haven’t played it so far’ − (c)

(i) (ii)

+

yWv|;

r = wD; = aw|h = bl;/

patla

m = ti = t = bu

xylophone

NEG1

‘Then, I did’ +

[Okell 1979: 75] ‘Now, I’ll play it’ +

= play = FINAL = NEG2

‘I didn’t play the xylophone anymore’ I won’t play the xylophone anymore

[Okell 1979: 75]

74

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(i) (ii)

‘I had played it before’ + ‘Then, I didn’t play it anymore’ ‘I was playing it before’ + ‘I’m not going to play it anymore’ −

+

In positive statements, &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’ marks the transition from a state of non-activity to a state of activity, with the passage from one state to the other culminating at speech or reference time. In negative statements, on the other hand, &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’ marks the transition from a state of activity to one of non-activity, conveyed in English by anymore. English does not possess a form that may fill the slot occupied by &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’ in positive statements, making it difficult for English speakers to grasp the concept behind its use and to find an adequate translation. &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’ may be also found in positive and negative imperative clauses:

(117) (a)

yWv|;

wD; = aw|h/

patla

ti = t

xylophone

play = FINAL

‘Play the xylophone now’ (b)

yWv|;

[Okell 1979: 77]

r = wD; = eJh = aw|h/

patla

m = ti = n = t

xylophone

NEG1

= play = NEG.IMP = FINAL

‘Don’t play the xylophone anymore’

[Okell 1979: 77]

(117a) implies that the addressee was not playing the xylophone before, and that s/he is asked to play it, while (117b) implies that the addressee was playing it before, and that s/he is asked not to. This use of &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’ in these instances is totally consistent with its use in the examples above. From what has been said so far, &ao; [e] / &tHk; [ou] ‘STILL’ and &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’ appear to be presupposition operators, relating one event to the occurrence or non-occurrence of another event, just as again, still and then do in English. In addition, the relational nature of the function of these operators contributes to their identification as tense-like operators, and to group them among those operators, like tense, that have scope over the clause.

VERBAL OPERATORS

3.2.3.2.2

75

&[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (CRS) (Part II – Ch.8)

In addition to the post-VN operator &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’, the main verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ has also provided the semantic source for the post-VN clausal operator &[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’. This operator marks events as having attained or as being in the process of attaining their point of realisation, and it makes the result of the change relevant to the discourse frame of the participants in the speech act at speech or reference time. For example: (118) 'D

yef;

eD = [yD/

di

pa

ni = pi

this

flower

be.red = CRS

‘[A few minutes ago, the flower was pink. Now,] the flower is red’

ql = [yD/?

vufzuf]nf

azs|f = ] = r = v|;/

je-nwe

su = pi

lpje

pj = ja = m = la

water-warm

boil = CRS

tea

make = GET = IRR = INT

(119) a]&amG;

‘The water is boiling. Shall I make tea?’ (120) cJwH

[Dahl 2000: 812]

usdK; = oG|; = [yD//

kda

to = wa = pi

pencil

break(INTR) = GO = CRS

‘The pencil has broken [Go and find another one]’

&[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’, as in:

STATE’

often occurs with the post-VN

b,fm\pf = ]Guf

a]; = [yD; = [yD = vJ/

samjna

bn = jw

je = pi = pi = l

page

how.many = sheet

write = PFV = CRS = INTWH

(121) p|rsufm\|

‘How many pages have you written so far?’

76

ASPECT IN BURMESE

t]Guf

ig; = q,f

a]; = [yD; = [yD/

jw

a = z

je = pi = pi

page

5 = 10

write = PFV = CRS

‘I’ve written 50 pages’

[Dahl 2000: 803]

The event marked as a single, unanalysable whole by &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ is then made relevant to actual discourse by &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’. Clausal post-VN operators marking the category of

3.2.3.3

ILLOCUTION-

ARY FORCE

3.2.3.3.1

&w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ (REAL)/ &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ (IRR)

For a discussion on &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’/&r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ as markers of illocutionary force see section 3.2.3.1.2. 3.2.3.3.2

&bkl; [bu] ‘NEGATIVE2’ (NEG2)

&bl; [bu] ‘NEG2’ is one of the exponents of the category of negation, the other being the obligatory pre-VN operator r& [m] ‘NEG1’ (see section 3.1.1). It occurs in the spoken variety only in independent clauses and is rigidly located at the end of the clause, where it marks a negative statement in combination with r& [m] ‘NEG1’, although it does not carry any negative meaning in itself. Unlike r& [m] ‘NEG1’, &bl; [bu] ‘NEG2’ is not obligatory in literary Burmese. For instance: (122) (a)

r = a`z/

Literary Burmese

m = pje NEG1

= answer

‘He didn’t answer’ (b)

r = a`z = bl;/

m = pje = bu NEG1

= answer = NEG2

[Okell and Allott 2001: 147] Spoken Burmese

VERBAL OPERATORS

77

In addition, it does not occur in dependent clauses, in statements ending in &w| [ta] ‘REALIS’ and in questions marked by &vJ [l] ‘INTERROGATIVEWH’. For example: (123) r = a`z = ]if….. m = pje = ji….. NEG1 = answer = IF… ‘If he doesn’t answer…..’ (124) raehu


tcsdef

vHk;vHk;

r = ] = bl;/

mnea

tei

loulou

m = ja = bu

yesterday

time

at.all

NEG1

'g = aju|ifh

r = v| = w|/

da = tau

m = la = ta

that = BECAUSE

NEG1

= get = NEG2

= come = REAL

‘Yesterday, I had no time at all. That’s why I didn’t come’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 147] (125) b| = aju|ifh

r = vkyf = ] = o = vJ/

ba = tau

m = lou = ja =  = l

what = BECAUSE

NEG1

‘Why shouldn’t [he] do it?’ 3.2.3.3.3

= do = GET = REAL = INTWH [Okell and Allott 2001: 147]

∅ ‘IMPERATIVE’ (IMP) and &eJh [n] ‘NEGATIVE IMPERATIVE’ (NEG.IMP)

In Burmese, the expression of a command is marked by the lack of overt operators in the clause. This feature sets it apart from other expressions of illocutionary force, such as statements, questions, etc., which all show the presence of modifiers in the clause slot. For example:

78

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(126) x/ ta

get.up ‘Get up!’ (127) a]\h = udk e = ko front = TO

[Okell 1969: 479]

v|/ la

come

‘Come up to the front!’ (128) cE

[Okell 1969: 479]

i\g; = vdkuf = prf; = yg = tHk; = As|/

kna

moment

a = lai = sa = pa = ou = pja lend = FOLLOW = URGENT = POL = STILL = FELLOW

‘Do please lend [it to me] for a while, old chap’

[Okell 1969: 479]

On the other hand, the expression of a negative command is marked by the combination of the pre-VN operator r& [m] ‘NEG1’ and the clausal post-VN operator &eJh [n] ‘NEGATIVE IMPERATIVE’ (literary High &m\ifh [ni]). For example: (129) b,f = r\ b = ma anywhere = EVEN

r = oG|; = eJh = ae|f/

m = wa = n = n NEG1

= go = NEG.IMP = OK?

‘Don’t go anywhere, will you?’ 3.2.3.3.4


&v|; [la] (INT)/&vJ [l] (INTWH) ‘INTERROGATIVE’

The illocutionary force operator &v|; [la] ‘INTERROGATIVE’ is used in yes-no questions, as in:

VERBAL OPERATORS

(130) yGJ

79

r = oG|; = aw|h = bl; = v|;/

pw

m = wa = t = bu = la

festival

NEG1

= go = FINAL = NEG2 = INT

‘Aren’t you going to the festival after all?’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 199] The operator &vJ [l] ‘INTERROGATIVEWH’ is used in WH-questions, as in: (131) b|`zpfvdkh

r = vkyf = ] = o = vJ/

m = lou = ja =  = l

bapjilo

why

NEG1

= do = GET = REAL = INTWH

‘Why aren’t you allowed to do [it]?’ 3.2.3.3.5


&ae|f [n] ‘OK?’

The clausal operator &ae|f [n] ‘OK?’ is used as an illocutionary force marker in an utterance “… implying a question, soliciting agreement or assent, or softening a request” (Okell and Allott 2001: 107) in a friendly and intimate way. For example: (132) oG|; = r,f = ae|f/ wa = m = n go = IRR = OK? ‘I’m going, ok?’ (133) cE


ap|ifh = ae = ae|f/

kna

sau = ne = n

moment

wait = CONT = OK?

‘Just wait here a moment, ok?’


80

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(134) r = aju|uf = eJh = ae|f/ m = tau = n = n NEG1 = be.afraid = NEG.IMP = OK? ‘Don’t be afraid now, will you?’ 3.2.3.4

Pragmatic operators

3.2.3.4.1

&yg [pa] ‘POLITE’ (POL)

[Okell 1969: 372]

The main function of the clausal operator &yg [pa] ‘POLITE’ is to mark the attitude of speakers towards their addressees as being polite, respectful or deferential (Okell and Allott 2001: 113). This operator usually precedes status/illocutionary force operators. For example: (135) eHrnf

b,fvdk

ac: = yg = o = vJ/

nm

blo

k = pa =  = l

name

how

call = POL = REAL = INTWH

‘What would your name be?’


In addition, &yg [pa] ‘POLITE’ appears to add emphasis or insistence to a statement which is produced when speakers want to correct their hearers’ mistaken or false opinions, a statement which is structurally marked by the operator &w| [ta] ‘REALIS’. In this case, &yg [pa] ‘POLITE’ follows the realis marker, as in: (136) 'g = aju|ifhrdkh da = taumo that = BECAUSE

r = ar; = w| = yg/ m = me = ta = pa NEG1

= ask = REAL = POL

‘That’s why I didn’t ask’ 3.2.3.4.2

[Okell 1969: 375]

&yJ [p] ‘EMPHATIC’ (EMPH)

The operator &yJ [p] ‘EMPHATIC’ is most commonly used to add emphasis to the utterance. In this sense, it is an operator of the clause, since it has scope over the whole proposition. For example:

VERBAL OPERATORS

(137) v| = r,f = vdkh la = m = lo come = IRR = THAT

81

a`y| = w| = yJ/

pj = ta = p

say = REAL = EMPH

‘He certainly said he would come’


This operator can also be found to highlight a dependent clause or a particular noun phrase as being “… the most informative part of the sentence” (Okell 1969: 295), as in: (138) awhG = yJ twe = p meet = EMPH

awhG = zl; = w,f/ twe = pu = t

meet = EVER = REAL

‘[I] have only met [him]’ (139) aus|if;o|;b0 = uwnf;u = yJ tauabwa = da = p school.days = SINCE = EMPH

[Okell 1969: 295]

od = ae = w|/ i = ne = ta

know = CONT = REAL

‘[We] have known [each other] since [our] school days’ [Okell 1969: 295] 3.2.3.4.3

&aygh [p] ‘OF COURSE’

This clausal operator conveys the meaning expressed by the English forms ‘of course’, ‘by all means’, ‘naturally’, ‘obviously’, etc. It follows the realis and irrealis markers, which in this case may take the reduced forms &w| [ta] ‘REALIS’ and &r\| [ma] ‘IRREALIS’. For example: (140) rif mi

ink

uke = oG|; =,if

kou = wa = ji run.out = GO = WHEN

a]; = vdkh je = lo

write = DEV

82

ASPECT IN BURMESE

r = ] = aw|h = bl; = aygh/ m = ja = t = bu = p NEG1

= succeed = FINAL = NEG2 = OF.COURSE

‘When the ink runs out, you can’t write anymore, of course’ [Okell 1969: 393] 3.2.3.4.4

&]\| [a] ‘PITY’

This clausal operator is usually used by speakers to express sympathy or pity towards a third party. For instance: cH = oG|; = ] = ]\| = w,f/ (141) tzrf; pa ka = wa = ja = a = t capture undergo = GO = GET = PITY = REAL ‘[He] was caught, poor fellow’ (142) touf


r = ]\nf = ]\| = bl;/



m = e = a = bu

age

NEG1

= be.long = PITY = NEG2

‘Unfortunately, he did not live long’


VERBAL OPERATORS

3.3

83

Summary

The following tables show the different operators and their grouping according to their scope:

PRE-VN OPERATORS NUCLEUS

CORE

CLAUSE

DIRECTIONALS

STATUS

v\rf;& [a] ‘REACH OUT’ `yef& [pja] ‘RETURN’

EPISTEMIC MODALITY

ay;& [pe] ‘LET’

BENEFACTIVE

EXTERNAL NEGATION

0dkif;& [wai] ‘TOGETHER’

r& [m] ‘NEG1’

DEONTIC MODALITY

ay;& [pe] ‘LET’ Table 1. Pre-VN operators and their grouping according to their scope

84

ASPECT IN BURMESE

POST-VN OPERATORS NUCLEUS

CORE

CLAUSE

ASPECT

DIRECTIONALS

STATUS

&v| [la] ‘COME’ / &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ ‘IN-

&v| [la] ‘COME’/&oG|;

EPISTEMIC MODALITY

[wa] ‘GO’


CHOATIVE’

BENEFACTIVE

(POSSIBILITY/PERMISSION)

&ae [ne]‘CONT’ &wwf [ta]/&avh [le]

&ay; [pe] ‘BENEFACTIVE’

REALIS/IRREALIS

‘HABITUAL’

&ju [ta] ‘PLURAL’

&[yD; [pji] ‘PERFECTIVE’ (independent clauses only)

&`yef [pja] ‘ITERATIVE’ &mdkif [nai] ‘BE ABLE’

PLURAL DEONTIC MODALITY

&] [ja] ‘GET’ &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’ DESIDERATIVE

&csif [ti] ‘WANT’ RESULTATIVE

&x|;[ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’

&w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ TEMPORAL REFERENCE

&ao; [e]/&tHk; [ou] ‘STILL’ &aw|h [t] ‘FINAL’ &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE

&w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ &bl; [bu] ‘NEGATIVE2’ ∅ ‘IMPERATIVE’

&eJh [n] ‘NEG. IMPERATIVE’ &v| [la] ‘INTERROGATIVE’ &vJ [l] ‘INTERROGATIVE ’ &ae|f [n] ‘OK?’ WH

PRAGMATIC OPERATORS

&yg [pa] ‘POLITE’ &yJ [p] ‘EMPHATIC’ &aygh [p] ‘OF COURSE’ &]\| [a] ‘PITY’ Table 2. Post-VN operators and their grouping according to their scope.

PART II ASPECT IN BURMESE

CHAPTER 4 THE POST-VN OPERATOR &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ (CONT)

4.1

Introduction

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ may be considered as one exponent of the morphologically marked category of imperfectivity, characterised as “… explicit reference to the internal temporal structure of a situation, viewing a situation from within” (Comrie 1976: 24). &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ marks a) dynamic, inherently durative events (activities/accomplishments) as ongoing at speech/reference time and b) states, whose well-established existence is seen to encompass and possibly exceed speech/reference time. Only rarely does it mark achievements, since the latter code change-of-state events that are inherently non-durative, i.e. punctual events that take place (or are perceived as taking place) instantaneously. In this case, &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ marks the result produced by the event (i.e. the attainment of the entity’s state) as continuing or existing at speech or reference time. It differs in this from the post-VN operator &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’, which focuses on the state of an Undergoer as the result of an activity brought about by an Actor, whether known or unknown, characteristics that are part of the semantic representation of its lexical source, the verb x|; [ta] ‘put’. The other exponents of the category of imperfectivity are the markers of habituality &avh [le] ‘HABITUAL’, derived from the full lexical verb avh [le] ‘practise; acquire a habit; become accustomed to’ and &wwf [ta] ‘HABITUAL’, derived from the verb wwf [ta] ‘know’. Because of the limited range of application of these two operators and their rare appearance in my sample, I will focus my attention on &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, an operator that is extensively used throughout my sample and, in certain cases (with verbs of communication in particular), seems to have transcended the clause level as an aspectual marker and to have moved to include in its scope the sphere of discourse. As is often the case in Burmese, the function of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ as a marker of duration results from the grammaticalisation of the verb of loca-

88

ASPECT IN BURMESE

tion ae [ne] ‘stay; live’, a development which is well attested crosslinguistically (see Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer 1991, Heine 1993, Bybee et al 1994). In the following sections, I will analyse the use of the lexical verb ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ and the function of its structural counterpart &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ within the aspectual system of Burmese.

4.2

The full verb ae [ne] ‘stay; live’

The following are a few examples of the relatively frequent use of the intransitive verb of location ae [ne] ‘stay; live’: (143) ol

`yef =

v| = [yD;

u

pja = la = pi

she

RETURN

= come = PFV

uGsefr = wdkh = eJh

ae = w,f/

tma = to = n

ne = t

I (fem) = PL = WITH

live = REAL

‘She came back and lived with us’ (144) ae|uf&m\pf

Sydney = r\| Sydney = ma Sydney = AT

uGsefr

nau-ni

tma

next-year

I(fem)

‘Next year I’ll live in Sydney’ (145) reufzef = cg mnpa = ka tomorrow = time

ae = r,f/ ne = m

live = IRR [Dahl 2000: 790]

rdk;]G| = ]if

uGsefr = wdkh

rain = IF

I(fem) = PL

mojwa = ji

tdrf = r\|

ae = r,f/

ei = ma

ne = m

home = AT

stay = IRR

‘If it rains tomorrow, we’ll stay at home’ (146) q]|0ef[uD; = u sjawudi = ka head.doctor = SUBJ

[Dahl 2000: 803]

ar|ifcsdK = udk


[Dahl 2000: 792] “ae|uf = w = ywf

mauto = ko

nau = t = pa

Maung.Cho = OBJ

next = 1 = week

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ ae = ]if

aq;]Hk = u

qif; = mdkif = [yD” = [k

ne = ji

sjou = ka

si = nai = pi = hu

stay = IF

hospital = FROM

leave = CAN = CRS = QUOT

89

a`y| = av = w,f/ pj = le = t

say = EU = REAL ‘The head doctor told Maung Cho “If [you] stay [in hospital] another [Yin 1981: 26] week, [you] can leave the hospital’ The semantics of the verb ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ (and its counterparts in various other languages, English included) implies the existence of an animate entity (the Actor) at a specific location and the maintenance of this location over a certain period of time. At first sight, we seem not to have a problem in identifying the Aktionsart type of ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ as that of a state, i.e. a verb characterising a state of affairs that shows little or no change over time (static), as lacking an inherent end-point (atelic) and as occurring over a non-delimited period of time (non-punctual/durative). On the other hand, though, it has been recognised (Jackendoff 1983: 170174) that stay (or live for that matter) behaves like verbs that express events rather than states, i.e. it codes the occurrence of a particular situation, rather than its mere existence. We could ascertain the inclusion of stay among the category of verbs denoting events by testing the possibility for stay to occur after “What happened/occurred/took place was (that) …..”. We obtain the following contrasts (Jackendoff 1983: 171-172): (147) Events What happened was that

the bird stayed in its nest the mouse ran up the clock Bill flew around the pole

90

ASPECT IN BURMESE

States What happened was that

*Max was in Africa *the rug lay on the floor *the statue stood in the park

Obviously, in order for an event to happen, there must be an entity that triggers it. In this case, the only argument (the Actor) of stay(/live) represents an (animate) entity that controls the event consciously and wilfully by deliberately occupying and maintaining a certain location over a period of time, rather than simply happening to be at that location. In other words, the entity ‘does’ something in order to keep the location it occupies. To support this view, we can run a few tests to ascertain whether stay(/live) is a stative verb or an activity verb. These tests are based on the degree of involvement and/or control by an Actor. If stay (as well as counterparts in Burmese and other languages) coded a state, it would not occur in imperatives (‘Stay at home!’ vs. *‘Know the answer!’) or in sentences governed by agentive verbs (‘Sue persuaded/forced/allowed/required John to stay at home’ vs. *‘Sue persuaded/forced/allowed/required John to know the answer’) or it would not be modified by manner adverbs indicating agency (‘John stayed at home deliberately/intentionally’ vs. *‘John knew the answer deliberately/intentionally’) (adapted from Chung & Timberlake 1985: 215). In addition, in English stay can appear in the progressive (‘Where are you staying?’ ‘I’m staying at my parents’ place’), in the same way as an activity verb like read can (‘What are you doing?’ ‘I’m reading the paper’), while a purely stative verb like know cannot (*‘I’m knowing the answer [now]’). As we see, stay does pass these tests successfully, while the stative know does not. The same applies to Burmese, where ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ occurs in the same contexts as English stay, unlike od [i] ‘know’, whose Aktionsart matches that of its English counterpart: (148) (a)

tdrf = r\|

ae/

ei = ma

ne

house = AT

stay

‘Stay at home!’

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ (*b)

ta`z = udk

od/

pje = ko

i

answer = OBJ

know

91

*‘Know the answer!’ (149) (a)

John John John

tdrf = r\|

ol

ae = yg = vdkh

ei = ma

ne = pa = lo

house = AT

stay = POL = COMP

trdef

ay; = w,f/

u

mei

pe = t

she

order

give = REAL

‘She ordered John to stay at home’ (*b)

John John John

ta`z = udk

od = yg = vdkh

ol

pje = ko

i = pa = lo

u

answer = OBJ know = POL = COMP

trdef

she

ay; = w,f/

mei

pe = t

order

give = REAL

*‘She ordered John to know the answer’ (150) (a)

ol

tdrf = r\|

wrifoufouf

u

ei = ma

tmi ne = t

she

house = AT

intentionally

ae = w,f/ stay = REAL

‘She stayed at home intentionally’ (*b)

ol

ta`z

wrifoufouf

od = w,f/ know = REAL

u

pje

tmi i = t

she

answer

intentionally

*‘She knew the answer intentionally’

92

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(151) (a)

olh = rdb = wdkh = m\ifh

ae = ae = w,f/

u = miba = to = ni

ne = ne = t

her = parent = PL = WITH

stay = CONT = REAL

‘(Where is she staying now?) She’s staying with her parents’ (b)

ol

rZif;

zwf = ae = w,f/

u

mzi

pa = ne = t

he

magazine

read = CONT = REAL

‘He’s reading a magazine (now)’ (*c)

ol

ta`z

od = ae = w,f/

u

pje

i = ne = t

she

answer

know = CONT = REAL

*‘She is knowing the answer (now)’ The semantic characterisation of ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ as a verb that combines the stative component of location with the component of activity aimed at maintaining that particular location distinguishes it from purely stative verbs of existence such as ]\d [i] ‘be’ and `zpf [pji] ‘be’, which lack the event reading assigned to ae [ne] ‘stay; live’. For example: (152) ol

touf

q,f = m\pf

]\d = w,f/

u



s = ni

i = t

he

age

10 = year

be = REAL

trnf = u

ar|ifv\

`zpf = yg = w,f/

m = ka

maua

pji = pa = t

‘He is ten years old’ (153) uGsefaw|f = ]Jh tn = j I = POSS

name = SUBJ Maung.Hla

be = POL = REAL

‘My name is Maung Hla’ No input of energy on the entities’ part is required to maintain their condition, nor are the entities involved in any activity that is conducive to the re-

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’

93

alisation of the condition itself. What is shown here is that the existence of the state is described at some non-specified, crystallised point in time. ]\d [i] ‘be’ is used to convey states that are transient or temporary (he is ten years old now, but he will not be ten for ever), while `zpf [pji] ‘be’ conveys states or qualities that are seen as permanent (a person’s name is normally considered to be one of his/her stable features). In fact, their use is similar to that of Spanish copular verbs estar and ser respectively. For example: (154) Maria está enferma ‘Mary is ill’ Maria es profesora ‘Mary is a teacher’

(< estar)

(< ser)

We may visualise the logical structure of ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ (and of its English counterpart) as follows: (155) do′ (x, [be-at′ (y, x)]) which can be paraphrased as ‘someone x does/is doing something so that he/she can maintain his/her position at some specific location y’. The activity component do′ (x, … distinguishes this verb from the stative ]\d [i] ‘be’ and `zpf [pji] ‘be’, whose logical structure is as follows: (156) be-at′ (y, x) The grammaticalisation of the verb ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ into the nuclear post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ seems to have progressed along the same path followed by similar verbal forms in other languages. Such a phenomenon is indeed so widespread cross-linguistically that it could be seen to represent a (quasi-) universal tendency. In what follows, I will analyse the development of the function of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ from its lexical source and its place in the Burmese broader category of morphological imperfectivity.

94

4.3

ASPECT IN BURMESE

Imperfectivity in English and Burmese

Comrie defines imperfectivity as “… explicit reference to the internal temporal structure of a situation, viewing a situation from within” (Comrie 1976: 24). In more concrete terms, “… an imperfective situation may be one viewed as in progress at a particular reference point, either in the past or present, or one viewed as characteristic of a period of time that includes the reference time, that is, a habitual situation” (Bybee et al. 1994: 125-126). Imperfectivity differs from perfectivity, which “… involves lack of explicit reference to the internal temporal constituency of a situation” (Comrie 1976: 21) and refers to a situation seen as a whole. This means that speakers ‘talk perfectively’ about an event when they view it as having clear and visible limits, as bounded by being part of a sequence of discrete events that follow one another in temporal succession, from which the direct involvement of the speakers is excluded. On the other hand, when speakers ‘talk imperfectively’, they talk about events or states in which they (or others) are involved while they are (or as if they were) in the middle of performing or experiencing them. The external boundaries of events or states seen imperfectively are totally irrelevant to speakers, so much so that imperfective forms are often used in discourse to introduce background information, i.e. information that does not add any new, discrete events to the narrative and is not therefore considered as vital for the advancement of the plot. In the literature on aspect, imperfectivity is the aspectual category that is presented as having the highest degree of complexity, in that it is more influenced by the way speakers conceptualise the world, and for that reason, it is subject to a higher degree of structural diversity coupled with a remarkably variable terminology. In addition, in many languages, imperfectivity is heavily affected by tense, especially in regard to habituality. On the other hand, in languages like Burmese that lack tense altogether, the expression of imperfectivity is less problematic, although definitely not less interesting. Comrie (1976: 25) visualises the set of aspectual oppositions as follows:


Perfective

95

Imperfective

Habitual

Continuous

Non-progressive

Progressive

According to Comrie, the broader, more abstract category of imperfectivity covers the meanings of habituality and continuousness. Habituality describes “… a situation which is characteristic of an extended period of time, so extended in fact that the situation referred to is viewed not as an incidental property of the moment but, precisely, as a characteristic feature of a whole period” (Comrie 1976: 27-28). Continuousness, on the other hand, is defined negatively as “… imperfectivity not occasioned by habituality” (Comrie 1976: 33). It is divided into the progressive, defined as “… the combination of progressive meaning (= continuous meaning) and non-stative meaning” (Comrie 1976: 35) and the non-progressive, for which Comrie provides no clear definition or examples, although, by inference, we may describe it as the combination of continuous meaning and stative meaning. In the following sections, I will analyse Comrie’s aspectual distinctions from the viewpoint of English and Burmese. I will briefly talk about habituality, while I will concentrate my analysis on the description of continuousness as the semantic category whose morphological marking is the most relevant to the present discussion. 4.3.1

Habituality, timelessness and continuation of a state in English and Burmese

English distinguishes habituality that encompasses speech time (i.e. habitual events in the present) as in:

96

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(157) I read a magazine every day In this case, the occurrence of the event is seen as taking place regularly, including speech time and beyond. English also distinguishes habituality that does not include speech time (i.e. habitual events in the past): (158) I used to read a magazine every day Here, the event is predicated about as having taken place customarily in the past but it no longer occurs at speech time. The difference in the expression of habituality lies in the use of tense for the present time reference and the use of a (tensed) periphrastic structure for the past. The following are the Burmese counterparts of the English examples shown above: (159) (a)

aeh = pOf

ne = si

day = every

ol

rZif;

zwf = w,f/

u

mzi

pa = t

he

magazine

read = REAL

‘He reads a magazine every day’ (b)

aeh = pOf

ol

rZif;

zwf = wwfâvh = w,f/

ne = si

u

mzi

pa = ta/le = t

day = every

he

magazine

read = HAB = REAL

‘He used to read a magazine every day’ In (159a), the main verb zwf [pa] ‘read’ is unmarked for aspect. Only the clausal operator &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ appears in the verbal complex, which, in addition to marking the clause for assertion, also indicates that the event expressed in the clause is described as included in the world of events in esse, i.e. events that are known to have happened at a time prior to speech time or to be happening at speech time. This world includes the “… full temporal expanse of human experience” (Langacker 1990: 94) and the function of &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ (and of the present tense in English) is therefore to convey structural


97

knowledge of the world, which portrays “… something that will endure until the world changes; we thereby lend it an intrinsic permanence…” (Langacker 1990: 94). In (159b), habituality with past time reference is overtly marked by either of the post-VN operators &wwf [ta] or &avh [le]. According to my language consultant, &wwf [ta] ‘HABITUAL’ is more commonly used in contexts where the habitual event is described as having occurred regularly in the past. &avh [le] ‘HABITUAL’ seems to imply that the event is still felt as occurring habitually, although less regularly. In addition to applying to activities, habituality also applies to states. For example: (160) (i) (ii)

It usually gets a bit cold in the evenings It used to get a bit cold in the evenings

with their Burmese counterparts: (161) (i)

n

us = aw|h

eJeJ

csrf; = v| = w,f/

a

ta = t

nn

ta = la = t

a.little

be.cold = COME = REAL

night fall = WHEN

‘It usually gets a bit cold in the evenings’ (ii)

n

us = aw|h

eJeJ

a

ta = t

nn ta = la = ta = t

night fall = WHEN

csrf; = v| = wwf = w,f/

a.little be.cold = COME = HAB = REAL

‘It used to get a bit cold in the evenings’ As an extension to the concept of habituality, I will include in the description those events that have been termed gnomic, such as: (162) Dogs bark at strangers i.e. events that “… apply to generic subjects” (Bybee et al. 1994: 126) and “… are often regarded as timeless because they hold for all time, but they still can

98

ASPECT IN BURMESE

be regarded as in effect at the moment of speech” (Bybee et al. 1994: 141). Expressions referring to gnomic events can have past time reference in English, as in: (163) (In those days) dogs barked at strangers On the other hand, if the same sentence shows a referential subject such as (Bybee et al. 1994: 152): (164) My dog barks at strangers the activity is not described as typical of all the members of the category ‘dog’ at any time (including speech time). It is only typical of that particular member of the category, and, as a consequence, it holds only for the repetition of that activity by the same entity, i.e. it is habitual. In this case, the same habitual event can be described as having occurred in the past, as in: (165) My dog used to bark at strangers While verbs expressing gnomic situations in English occur in the Simple Present or Simple Past, those expressing gnomic situations in Burmese are unmarked for aspect: (166) acG; = rs|; kwe = mja dog = PL

olpdrf; = rs|; = udk

uzei = mja = ko

stranger = PL = OBJ

a[|if = w,f/ hau = t

bark = REAL

‘Dogs bark/barked at strangers’ The existence and continuation of a state is again expressed by the Simple Present in English and the lack of aspectual marking in Burmese: (167) (a)

This flower is red

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ (b)

'D

yef;

eD = w,f/

di

pa

ni = t

this

flower

be.red = REAL

99

‘This flower is red’ (168) (a) (b)

They are obnoxious

ol = wdkh

qdk;]G|; = w,f/

u = to

sojwa = t

they

be.obnoxious = REAL

‘They are obnoxious’ In both examples, the entities’ qualities are described as existing at speech or reference time, with no hint at a possible change in the entities’ configuration. The same states in the past are conveyed by the Simple Past in English and by the lack of aspectual marking in Burmese: (169) (a) (b)

This flower was red

'D

yef;

eD = w,f/

di

pa

ni = t

this

flower

be.red = REAL

‘This flower was red’ (170) (a) (b)

They were obnoxious

ol = wdkh

qdk;]G|; = w,f/

u = to


they

be.obnoxious = REAL

‘They were obnoxious’ To summarise:

100

ASPECT IN BURMESE

TIME REFER-

ENGLISH

BURMESE

Simple Present

V = ∅ = w,f [t] ‘REAL’/

ENCE

GNOMIC

timeless

Simple Past STATE CONTINUES HABITUAL

(state/activity)

V = ∅ = w,f [t] ‘REAL’/

present

Simple Present

past

Simple Past

present

Simple Present

V = ∅ = w,f [t] ‘REAL’/

past

used to V

V = wwf[ta]/&avh[le] ‘HABITUAL’ = w,f [t] ‘REAL’/

(∅ symbolises the lack of aspectual operators occurring within the verbal complex between V and the clausal operator &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’) Table 3.

Habituality, timelessness and continuation of a state in Burmese

The Simple Present (as well as the Simple Past) in English “… carries no explicit meaning at all; it refers to the default situation from which all other tenses represent deviations” (Bybee et al. 1994: 152). In this sense, then, the Simple Present and the Simple Past correspond to the tense forms associated with the default case for habitual events and stative situations, while the Simple Present is the only option for the expression of gnomic situations. In Burmese, a tenseless language, it is the lack of aspectual marking combined with the sole use of the clausal operator &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ that functions as the default option to convey aspectual meanings referring to the moment of speech. In the case of habitual situations, only past ones are overtly marked by the operators &wwf [ta]/&avh [le]. 4.3.2

Continuousness in English and Burmese

Let us now turn to the other major sub-category of imperfectivity, the continuous. Continuousness is a semantic notion that describes states as enduring and non-states as ongoing at speech/reference time. Although Comrie does not pro-


101

vide a clear-cut definition of continuousness (“[Continuousness is] … imperfectivity not occasioned by habituality” [Comrie 1976: 33]), we could use his definition of habituality (“… a situation which is characteristic of an extended period of time, so extended in fact that the situation referred to is viewed not as an incidental property of the moment but, precisely, as a characteristic feature of a whole period” [Comrie 1976: 27-28]) to describe continuousness as a situation which is viewed as ‘an incidental property of the moment’. Comrie identifies the morphological category of continuous as composed of two sub-categories, the non-progressive for stative verbs (which he does not define) and the progressive for non-stative verbs. Interestingly, while markers of the progressive are abundant cross-linguistically, neither Comrie nor Dahl (1985) or Bybee et al. (1994) have been able to identify a marker of the continuous in their data (nor a marker for the non-progressive for that matter). If they had included Burmese in their sample, they would have had a distinguished exception, since the post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ does indeed mark continuousness both in states and non-states. Besides, Bybee et al. did have a language in their sample, Tibeto-Burman Lahu, which clearly shows the presence of the continuous. The post-verbal marker -ch (derived from the main verb ch ‘live; dwell; stay; be in a place’) is labelled as continuative by Matisoff (1973: 240), who glosses it as ‘be in the act or state of V-ing, be still V-ing’, clearly stating that it may be used with verbs that describe both states and non-states, as in: (171) (a)

chu

ch

be.fat

CONT

‘is still fat’ (b)

v

ch

wear

CONT

‘is wearing’


Bybee et al. define the continuous as: … more general than progressive, because it can be used in progressive situations but in addition with stative predicates. Thus continuous views a situation, whether it be dynamic or stative, as ongoing at reference time…. No

102

ASPECT IN BURMESE

cross-linguistic gram-type [i.e. morphological marker] ‘continuous’ emerged from our study despite the logical position of this sense in Comrie’s system (Bybee et al. 1994: 127)

Later in the discussion, though, they talk about Lahu -ch as a continuative marker, i.e. a marker “… that includes progressive meaning – that a dynamic situation is ongoing – and additionally specifies that the agent of the action is deliberately keeping the action going” (Bybee et al. 1994: 127), a definition which contrasts with the additional remark on -ch seen as signalling “… the continuation of a state as well as an action. The Lahu gram also has a progressive sense” (Bybee et al. 1994: 165). Is -ch then a continuous or a continuative marker in Bybee et al.’s terms? It is definitely a continuous marker, as is its Burmese counterpart &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’. In what follows, I will briefly describe the use of the grammatical means employed by English and Burmese to convey continuousness of states and events at speech time before introducing a more detailed analysis of a few Burmese examples. 4.3.2.1

Continuousness and states in English and Burmese

As discussed in the section on habituality, timelessness and continuation of a state (4.3.1), the existence and continuation of a state is marked by the Simple Present or the Simple Past in English and is shown by the lack of aspectual marking in Burmese: (172) (a) (b)

This flower is/was red

'D

yef;

eD = w,f/

di

pa

ni = t

this

flower

be.red = REAL

‘This flower is/was red’

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ (173) (a) (b)

103

They are/were obnoxious

ol = wdkh

qdk;]G|; = w,f/

u = to


they

be.obnoxious = REAL

‘They are/were obnoxious’ In English, the only way for speakers to express the fact that the entity’s quality is under focus at speech time, and, as a consequence, that it may be possible for the entity’s state to be temporary and subject to change, is either to add lexical material to the structure, as in: (174) This flower is red now/at the moment (but it could become purple later on) or use the progressive, whose function with states is to add “… a sense of actual or possible change” (Chung & Timberlake 1985: 216). For example, in: (175) (a) (b)

They are obnoxious They are being obnoxious

the Simple Present (or the Simple Past for past time reference) used in (175a) establishes a feature of the entities that is considered to be stable and to hold indefinitely throughout the speakers’ realis world. In (175b), on the other hand, the progressive marks a change in the stable situation of the entities, which is triggered by the entities themselves. This feature of control on the part of the entities in question implied in the change transforms a state into a dynamic event, which applies to a narrower time span, that of speech time, and indicates, as a consequence, its temporariness within the wider scope of the realis world. This is the reason why a sentence like The flower is red cannot appear in the progressive (*The flower is being red), simply because the entity flower is not capable of controlling its own internal composition. There must be an external causer operating on it to produce any change in its structure. The function of the English progressive with states is matched in Burmese by the function of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ used with stative predicates:

104

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(176) 'D

yef;

eD = ae = w,f/

di

pa

ni = ne = t

this

flower


‘This flower is red (now, but it could change its colour)’ (177) ol = wdkh u = to they

qdk;]G|; = ae = w,f/

sojwa = ne = t

be.obnoxious = CONT = REAL

‘They are being obnoxious (now, they are not always that way)’ Unlike English, Burmese allows a stative verb like eD [ni] ‘be red’ to occur with &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’. In addition to describing states viewed as ongoing at speech time, the progressive marks states that are seen as having a potential for change by degrees, as in the following example: (178) (a) (b)

They understand mathematics They are understanding mathematics more and more every day

In (178a) the entities are represented as fully capable of comprehending the subject and their understanding of it is stable and unchallengeable. In (178b), the state is represented as “… having different degrees of manifestation that change over time; the state can be interpreted as a process” (Chung and Timberlake 1985: 216). Here again, the event is seen to be developing by stages towards the final state, i.e. ‘understand mathematics’. The following are the corresponding examples in Burmese: (179) (a)

ol = wdkh

ocFs|

e|;vnf = ju = w,f/

u = to

ita

they

mathematics

nal = ta = t understand = PL = REAL

‘They understand mathematics’

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ (b)

105

ol = wdkh

ocFs| = udk

aeh = pOf

u = to he = PL

ita = ko

ne = si

mathematics = OBJ

day = EVERY

ydk = e|;vnf = v| = w,f/ po = nal = la = t MUCH

= understand = COME = REAL

‘They are understanding more and more every day’ Interestingly, the fact that a state is shown to ‘have different degrees of manifestation that change over time’ and is therefore assimilated to a process, is marked in Burmese not by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ but by &v| [la] ‘COME’, a directional marker which is commonly found in the language to convey inchoative meaning with stative predicates (see section 5.3.3). The function of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ is to focus on the state as the speaker views it at speech time. It derives this feature from its lexical source ae [ne] ‘stay; live’, while &v| [la] ‘COME’ derives its semantics and function from its lexical source v| [la] ‘come’, a motion verb that is naturally associated with progression towards a goal. 4.3.2.2

Continuousness and non-states in English and Burmese

In English, the canonical function of the progressive is to mark verbs that denote non-stative, inherently durative situations (activities and accomplishments) as ongoing at speech or reference time either in the present, as in (Dahl 1985: 198): (180) (What is your brother doing right now?)

He’s writing a letter

in the past: (181) (What was your brother doing just then?) or in the future:

He was writing a letter

106

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(182) (What will your brother be doing tomorrow when we arrive?) He’ll be writing a letter The function of the progressive is to “narrow our horizons considerably” (Langacker 1990: 95) from viewing events as occupying the entire temporal expanse of the realis world and, therefore, seen as stable, to viewing events as occupying only a portion of that temporal expanse, and, for that matter, as being only temporary. Events expressed in the progressive are normally considered as ongoing at speech time, although there are cases where the temporal specification need not necessarily refer to speech time. For example, in: (183) Barbara is writing her PhD thesis the statement holds equally well both in a situation where the speaker is directly witnessing the actual writing of the thesis by the entity (s/he is in Barbara’s room watching her while she is writing it) and in a situation where the activity is considered to be in progress at speech time even though the speaker is not witnessing it directly (the only thing the speaker knows is that, at this point in time, wherever Barbara may be, she is writing her thesis). In Burmese, the function of the progressive is covered again by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’: (184) (a)

ol

p|&w = apgif

a]; = ae = w,f/

u

sa-t = sau

je = ne = t

he

letter-1 = CLASS

write = CONT = REAL

‘[A: What is your brother doing right now? B:] He’s writing a [Dahl 1985: 198] letter’ (b)

ol

p|&w = apgif

a]; = ae = w,f/

u

sa-t = sau

je = ne = t

he

letter-1 = CLASS

write = CONT = REAL

‘[A: What was your brother doing yesterday when you talked to him on the phone? B:] He was writing a letter’ [Dahl 1985: 198]

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ (c)

107

ol

p|&w = apgif

a]; = ae = vdrfh = r,f/

u

sa-t = sau

je = ne = lei = m

he

letter-1 = CLASS

write = CONT = NO.DOUBT = IRR

‘[A: What will your brother be doing tomorrow when we arrive? B:] He will be writing a letter’ [Dahl 1985: 199] As we already know, Burmese lacks morphological marking of temporal relations, e.g. tense. It only distinguishes between realis and irrealis events, i.e. between events that are known by the speaker to be occurring or to have occurred in his/her real world, and events that are not part of the speaker’s real world, i.e. events that may or will occur. The realis quality of events described in (184a) and (184b) is marked by the clausal post-VN operator &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’, with temporal reference retrievable only from the context, while the irrealis quality of the event described in (184c) is marked by the clausal post-VN operator &r,ff [m] ‘IRREALIS’. To summarise, the progressive in English is the unmarked option for the description of inherently durative events which occur at speech time, either in the past, present or future. On the other hand, the progressive used with stative verbs to convey a potential for change in the quality of the entity’s state is a highly marked option in English. Not all stative verbs allow progressive marking, and there seems to exist a ‘scale of stativity’ which is “… a duration scale on which, theoretically, native speakers distribute the verbs/predicates which they use” (Mufwene 1984: 37). In both cases, the choice of the speakers to use the progressive is strongly influenced by the way speakers conceptualise the event they participate in (for a more detailed description of stativity and the progressive in English see Mufwene 1984). In Burmese, &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ is the unmarked and only option, expressing both states and non-states as existing or occurring at speech time. The characterisation of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ as the unmarked choice for states and non-states alike justifies its labelling as ‘continuous’, while it is not possible to claim the existence of this category in English, since, as I explained above, the progressive does not mark stative and non-stative verbs indiscriminately, but it is consistently used to mark continuousness with non-stative verbs, while its use with stative verbs is idiosyncratic. We can visualise the different oppositions as follows:

108

ASPECT IN BURMESE

ENGLISH

BURMESE

present

be (PRES) V-ing

V = ae [ne] ‘CONT’ = w,f [t] ‘REAL’/

past

be (PAST) V-ing

AKTIONSART TIME REFERENCE

CONTINUOUS

STATES/NONSTATES

Table 4. 4.4

Continuous and non-states in English and Burmese

The use of post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with non-stative verbs

In this section, I will discuss the use of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with nonstative verbs, in particular with verbs of posture, motion, perception, communication and with a few achievement verbs, i.e. verbs that describe inherently non-durative, punctual events. 4.4.1

The post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with postural verbs

Postural verbs such as xdkif [tai] ‘sit’ and ]yf [ja] ‘stand’ “ … specify the spatial configuration of an entity with respect to some location” (Levin 1993: 255-256) . The operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ marks the maintenance of the ‘spatial configuration’ of an entity at some location at some point in time. For example, in:

rD;zdk = xJ = r\|

xdkif = ae = w,f/

u

mibo = t = ma

tai = ne = t

she

kitchen = INSIDE = AT

sit = CONT = REAL

(185) ol

‘[Somebody on the phone wants to know about Mary; my answer is:] She is sitting in the kitchen’ [Dahl 2000: 811]


109

the location of the entity (Mary) is described from the speaker’s viewpoint as continuing at (and including) speech time. The same structure with xdkif [tai] ‘sit’ not marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, as in: (186) ol

rD;zdk = xJ = r\|

u

mibo = t = ma

she


xdkif = w,f/ tai = t

sit = REAL

‘She sits in the kitchen’ expresses the location that the entity habitually occupies when she is at home and could be uttered to answer the question: Where does Mary sit when she is at home? The same alternation holds in: (187) b|

vkyf = ae = o = vJ/

ba

lou = ne =  = l

what

do = CONT = REAL = INTWH

‘What was [she] doing?’

ol

rD;zdk = xJ = r\|

xdkif = ae = w,f/

u

mibo = t = ma

tai = ne = t

she


sit = CONT = REAL

‘[A: I went to Mary’s place yesterday. B: What was she doing? A:] She was sitting in the kitchen’ Here, the event is narrated as having been witnessed by the speaker at a specific temporal locus in the past (in this case yesterday). The same structure without &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ marks a simple statement about what Mary did sometime in the past: (188) ar]D

tdrf = r\|

]\ = wJh

tcg

b,fr\| xkdif = o = vJ/

where sit = REAL = INTWH

meri ei = ma

i = t

ka bma tai =  = l

Mary house = AT

be = RELREAL

time

‘Where did Mary sit when she was at home?’

110

ASPECT IN BURMESE

ol

rD;zdk = xJ = r\|

xdkif = w,f/

u

mibo = t = ma

tai = t

she


sit = REAL

‘She sat in the kitchen’ If the event is described as occurring at a temporal locus in the future (in this case, tomorrow), as in: (189) b|

vkyf = ae = r = vJ/

ba

lou = ne = m = l

what

do = CONT = IRR = INTWH

‘What will [she] be doing?’

ol

rD;zdk = xJ = r\|

xdkif = ae = r,f/

u

mibo = t = ma

tai = ne = m

she


sit = CONT = IRR

‘[A: I will go to Mary’s place tomorrow. B: What will she be doing? A:] She will be sitting in the kitchen’

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ will still be used to mark the fact that at the time the speaker arrives at Mary’s place, she will already be engaged in the activity of ‘sitting in the kitchen’. If, on the other hand, the same structures occur without &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, as in: (190) b|

vkyf = r = vJ/

ba

lou = m = l

what

do = IRR = INTWH

‘What will [she] do?’

ol

rD;zdk = xJ = r\|

xdkif = r,f/

u

mibo = t = ma

tai = m

she


sit = IRR

‘[A: I will go to Mary’s place tomorrow. B: What will she do? A:] She will sit in the kitchen’


111

Mary’s sitting in the kitchen will occur after the speaker’s arrival at her place. The difference between these sets of events lies primarily in the narration of them as taking place in two different worlds, the world of events in esse and the world of events in posse, marked by &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ and &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ respectively. &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ narrows the speaker’s focus down to one particular section of that particular temporal span. In the following example, the two characters Mya Khin and Aye Hla are in a room with a midwife looking after Mya Khin’s mother, who is about to give birth. While Mya Khin is not able to stay and look at her mother and leaves the scene, Aye Hla decides to stay: (191) (a)

`rcif = u

………….

mjaki = ka

tcef; = `yif = buf = udk

ka = pji = b = ko

Mya.Khin = SUBJ

room = outside = side = TO

`yef = xGuf = oG|; = av = w,f/

pja = tw = wa = le = t RETURN

= exit = GO = EU = REAL

‘Mya Khin [dared not look at her mother who was about to give birth, so she] left the room [and went back outside]’ (b)

atv\ = o|

t0wf = yHk = e|; = r\|

cyfwnfwnf

ea = a

wu = pou = na = ma

katidi

Aye.Hla = ONLY

clothes = pile = be.near = AT calmly

xdkif = ae = cJh = av = w,f/ tai = ne = k = le = t

sit = CONT = BACK.THERE = EU = REAL ‘Only Aye Hla kept sitting calmly near the heap of clothes’ [Yin 1981: 14] Here, we are presented with the description of two events whose aspectual rendering supports their narrative function. The two characters Mya Khin and Aye Hla occupy the same narrative space. In (191a), the directional marker &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ signals the exit of Mya Khin from the scene. It contributes to a change in the spatial configuration of

112

ASPECT IN BURMESE

the two characters and, as a consequence, to a different perspective on the narrative, by focussing the attention of the reader on the only character left on stage. In (191b), the narrator’s viewpoint has shifted to the other character, Aye Hla. With &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, the narrator signals Aye Hla’s (physical) presence on stage and the duration of the event she is engaged in. An interesting example of the use of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ in alternation with other operators is shown in the following sentences:

(192) (a)

]\yftufsD

oHacs|if; = ay: = r\|

csdwf = ae = w,f/

aidi

adau = p = ma

shirt

nail = ON = AT

tei = ne = t hang = CONT = REAL

‘[A: I need my shirt right now. Where is it? B:] The shirt is hanging on the nail’ [Dahl 2000: 811] (b)

]\yftufsD = udk

aidi = o

shirt = OBJ

oHacs|if; = ay: = r\|

adau = p = ma nail = ON = AT

csdwf = x|; = w,f/

tei = ta = t

hang = RES = REAL ‘[A: I need my shirt right now. Where is it? B:] The shirt is hanging on the nail [ = the shirt has been hung on the nail and is still hanging there]’ [Dahl 2000: 811] According to the semantics of the verb csdwf [tei] ‘hang’ (and of its counterpart hang in English), a causative achievement verb, the Undergoer (the shirt) has been placed at a particular location (on the nail) by a (human) Actor. In both sentences, what is stated is the actual location of the entity at speech time. So why has the verb csdwf [tei] ‘hang’ been marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ and &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ respectively? The answer is once again to be sought in the different viewpoint taken by the speaker on the event. In (192a), by marking the verb with &ae [ne] ‘CON-


113

TINUOUS’,

my consultant views the event (the shirt hanging on the nail) simply as existing at speech time. She is not interested in the circumstances under which the entity has come to be placed at that specific location; she is simply interested in conveying the duration of the location of the entity at speech time. As a consequence, the use of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ contributes to the expression of the temporariness of the entity’s location, since by describing the mere existence of the entity at that location at speech time, one sees the state from within, with no reference to its external temporal boundaries. In (192b), on the other hand, by marking the verb with the post-VN operator &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (see chapter 6), my consultant wants to express the way in which the state has come about, i.e. the covert presence of an Actor who is responsible for the state the Undergoer is in, the dynamicity of his/her action that has brought about the state and its relative duration at speech time. The higher degree of agentivity of the clause marked by &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ compared to the lack of agentivity shown by the clause marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ is mirrored by the case marking of arguments. In (192a), the only core argument ‘shirt’ is unmarked for case, while in (192b) the core argument is marked by &udk [ko] ‘OBJECT’, the case which marks Undergoers. In (192b), the viewpoint therefore lies with the Undergoer and on the end-point of the event that has produced the state in question, a feature that groups &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ among the markers of perfectivity. 4.4.2

The post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with motion verbs In the following example:

(193) `rcif = u mjaki = ka Mya.Khin = SUBJ

av\s|uf = ae = ]| = r\ au = ne = ja = ma

walk = CONT = WHILE = EMPH

cyfokwfokwf kaouou

rather.briskly “eif = wdkh ni = to you = PL

zG|;zG|; pwapwa

grandmother

114

ASPECT IN BURMESE

pdwfyl = ae = yg = r,f” = [k

a`y| = vdkuf = w,f/

be.worried = CONT = POL = IRR = QUOT

say = FOLLOW = REAL

seipu = ne = pa = m = hu

pj = lai = t

‘While Mya Khin was walking rather briskly, she told [Aye Hla]: [Yin 1981: 8-10] “Your grandmother may be worried about you”’ Mya Khin has performed a temporally bounded activity (her talking to Aye Hla) within a broader, temporally unbounded motion activity (Mya Khin’s walking), shared by both characters. The perfectivity of the former is marked by &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’, while the duration of the latter is marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ and &]| [ja] ‘WHILE’. In the following example: (194) ar|ifcsdK = u mauto = ka Maung.Cho = SUBJ

tJ'D

tap|ifh

aoewf

xrf; = u|

di

sau

ena

ta = ka

that

guard

gun

carry = AND

av\s|uf = ae = w,f = udk

junfh = [yD;

au = ne = t = ko

ti = pi

walk = CONT = REAL = OBJ

look.at = PFV

aus|if;o|; = wdkh

]d\]| = udk

wdwfwdwf

taua = to

ija = ko

teitei

student = PL

place = TO

quietly

oG|; = ae = av = w,f/ wa = ne = le = t

go = CONT = EU = REAL ‘Maung Cho looked at the guard walking and carrying a gun, [and from the dark place,] he quietly [crawled and] went towards the place where the students were’ [Yin 1981: 40] the narrator describes the event as construed on the activities of two characters, Maung Cho and the guard. The guard’s ongoing activity (his walking) marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ is a function of the activity Maung Cho is engaged


115

in (his looking at the guard) and it sets the background for Maung Cho’s motion towards a goal (the students’ place). What is unusual in this sentence is the use of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with the motion verb oG|; [wa] ‘go’. Usually, motion verbs are marked by the post-VN operators &v| [la] ‘COME’ or &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, which provide indication of direction of motion towards the deictic centre or away from it to a goal that may or may not be specified. With the verbs oG|; [wa] ‘go’ and v| [la] ‘come’, direction of motion is redundant, since these verbs are inherently marked for direction, and therefore it is not indicated. Although a goal of motion is provided (the students’ place), the narrator is not particularly interested in the attainment of that goal. Rather, s/he wants to stress the fact that Maung Cho is on his way towards that goal and, more importantly, he is moving within the same temporal frame as the guard, i.e. the motion activities of the characters temporally overlap. This is confirmed by the passage that immediately follows the analysed one: (195) (a)

tap|ifh = u = vnf;

olh = udk

r = `rif = vdkuf = ay/

sau = ka = l

u = ko guard = SUBJ = ALSO him = OBJ

m = mji = lai = pe NEG=see=FOLLOW=EMPH

‘The guard didn’t see him’ (b)

[Yin 1981: 40]

aus|if;o|; = rs|;

teD; = udk


taua = mja

ni = ko

Maung.Cho = SUBJ

student = PL

vicinity = TO

ar|ifcsdK

=u

a]|uf = wJh

tcg …

jau = t

ka

arrive = RELREAL

time …

‘When Maung Cho arrived near the students, …’ [Yin 1981: 40] An interesting use of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ is shown in the following example:

116

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(196) ar|ifcsdK = vnf; … mauto = l Maung.Cho = ALSO

aw| = xJ = udk t = t = ko forest = INSIDE = TO

a]|uf = ae = w,f = udk

od = ] = av = w,f/

jau = ne = t = ko

i = ja = le = t

arrive = CONT = REAL = COMP

know = GET = EU = REAL

‘Maung Cho [went with them in fear, and after going for some distance, he] knew [they] had arrived (= were) in a forest’ [Yin 1981: 34] The semantics of the verb a]|uf [jau] ‘arrive’ describes a motion event which is seen as inherently telic, i.e. as requiring the existence of a goal at which the Actor will be located once the trajectory of motion is completed. The focus here is on motion, rather than on the end-point of motion, i.e. its goal. If a]|uf [jau] ‘arrive’ is used as a canonical motion verb, it will be accompanied by the directional operators &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, according to the orientation of motion. In addition, the goal of motion will be usually marked by the motion postposition &udk [ko] ‘TO’ (&odkh [o] ‘TO’ in literary High contexts). For example: (197) (a)

a]acs|if; = urf;pyf = udk

a]|uf = oG|; = w,f/

jetau = kaza = ko

jau = wa = t

water.stream = bank = TO

arrive = GO = REAL

‘[While the deer was running, it] arrived at the bank of a stream’ (b)

ar me

May

Florence = udk Florence = ko Florence = TO

a]|uf = v| = w,f/ jau = la = t

arrive = COME = REAL

‘May has arrived in Florence’ In (197a), motion is directed away from the deictic centre, while in (197b) motion is directed towards the deictic centre, i.e. the speaker’s location. The semantics of arrive in English (and other languages), on the other hand, focuses on the end-point of the trajectory of motion, as it is shown by the use of locative prepositions that mark the goal:

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ (198) English

117

The deer arrived at the pond May has arrived in Florence

If the goal of motion is represented as an enclosed space, the goal will also be marked by the locational postposition &xJ [t] ‘INSIDE’, as in: (199) ao|if;usef; = Adkvf = ]Jh

wJ = xJ = udk

auda = bo = j

t = t = ko

insurgent = leader = POSS

hut = INSIDE = TO

a]|uf = oG|; = wJh

tcg…..

arrive = GO = RELREAL

time

jau = wa = t

ka

‘When [they] arrived (in)to the insurgent leader’s hut,…..’ [Yin 1981: 38] In (199), a]|uf [jau] ‘arrive’ is not marked by the directional operators &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, since the motional component of the event is not focussed on. By marking a]|uf [jau] ‘arrive’ with &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, the narrator is stressing the existence of the characters at that particular location (the forest), which also presupposes the fact that the goal of motion has been attained. 4.4.3

The post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with verbs of perception In this example:

(200) atv\ = u ea = ka Aye.Hla = SUBJ

awG; = u|

ai;junfh = ae = av =w,f/

twe = ka

eti = ne = le = t

think = AND

stare.at = CONT = EU = REAL

‘Aye Hla was staring [at them] and thinking [“It would be good if the [Yin 1981: 18] midwife from Mya Khin’s house were here”]’

118

ASPECT IN BURMESE

the activities expressed by ai;junfh [eti] ‘stare at’ and awG; [twe] ‘think’ have been made to temporally overlap by the use of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, which has scope over both verbs. In the following: (201) ar|ifcsKd = u mauto = ka Maung.Cho = SUBJ

tJ'D

wpfywf&twGif; = r\|

di

dba-twi = ma

that

week-inside = AT

wufa]|uf&uko = ae = ju = wJh tjau-kua = ne = ta = t

attend-treat = CONT = PL = RELREAL

aq;]Hk = r\| sejou = ma

hospital = AT

vle| = rs|; = udk

luna = mja = ko patient = PL = OBJ

vdkuf = [yD; lai = pi

follow =PFV

junfh = ae = wwf = av = w,f/ ti = ne = ta = le = t

look.at = CONT = HAB = EU = REAL ‘During that week, Maung Cho would follow and look at the patients who were being treated at the hospital’ [Yin 1981: 26] the operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ is shown twice in the sentence. Firstly, it appears in the NP-embedded relative clause: (202) wufa]|uf&uko = ae = ju = wJh tjau-kua = ne = ta = t attend-treat = CONT = PL = RELREAL

vle| = rs|; = udk

luna = mja = ko

patient = PL = OBJ

‘patients (OBJ) who were being treated [at the hospital]’ where it marks the activity affecting the noun head as ongoing at reference time, i.e. as being co-temporal with the activities and viewpoint of the main character (Maung Cho). If the same relative clause were not marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, as in: (203) wufa]|uf&uko = ju = wJh tjau-kua = ta = t attend-treat = PL = RELREAL

vle| = rs|; = udk

luna = mja = ko

patient = PL = OBJ

‘patients (OBJ) who are treated [at the hospital]’


119

it would denote a more general, characteristic feature of the head noun, e.g. patients treated at hospitals as opposed to patients treated, for instance, at general practitioners’ surgeries. Secondly, &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ appears in the verbal complex followed by the habitual marker &wwf [ta] ‘HABITUAL’: (204) vdkuf = [yD; lai = pi follow = PFV

junfh = ae = wwf = av = w,f/ ti = ne = ta = le = t

look.at = CONT = HAB = EU = REAL

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ marks the two activities vdkuf [lai] ‘follow’ and junfh [ti] ‘look at’ in which the Actor is engaged as ongoing within the temporal frame identified by the temporal phrase xdkwpfywftwGif;r\| [todbatwima] ‘in/during that week’. In addition, by further marking this nuclear aspectual specification by &wwf [ta] ‘HABITUAL’, the narrator views these combined activities as occurring on different occasions, i.e. habitually, within the same temporal frame (‘that week’). If &wwf [ta] ‘HABITUAL’ had not marked the nuclear structure, as in: (205)

[[vdku = [yD; [[lai = pi [[follow = PFV

junfh] = ae] ti] = ne]

look.at] = CONT]

the activities ‘follow’ and ‘look at’ would have been described as continuing without interruption throughout the whole time frame. This example neatly shows the fact that in the Burmese aspectual system, durativity and habituality are two different, well-identifiable categories within the broader category of imperfectivity, as it was stated by Comrie (1976: 26), although they are not complementary, as shown above. 4.4.4

The post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with verbs of communication

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ is often used to mark duration with verbs of communication at speech or reference time. For example:

120

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(206) 'D

tcef; = xJ

pu|; a`y| = r = ae = yg = eJh/

di

ka = t

sa pj = m = ne = pa = n

this

room = INSIDE

word say = NEG1 = CONT = POL = IMP

‘Don’t keep on talking in this room!’

[Okell & Allott 2001: 105]

Here, the order issued by the speaker requires that his/her interlocutors interrupt the activity they are engaged in at speech time, the ongoing quality of which is marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’. Interestingly, the negation prefix r& [m] ‘NEG1’, which normally precedes the main verb, has its scope over &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, negating therefore the continuation of the activity, not the activity itself. My sample contains a few instances of the verb a`y| [pj] ‘say’ marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’. For example: (207) oHk;a]&ao|ufa]

w = ]G| = vHk;

ouje-auje

t = jwa = lou

domestic.water-drinking.water

village = whole

r = yl = ju = ] = bl; = vdkh m = pu = ta = ja = bu = lo NEG1

= be.worried = PL = GET = NEG2 = COMP

a':av; = rv\ = wdkh

a`y|&a`y| = ae = ju = w| = yJ/

dle = maa = to

pj-pj = ne = ta = ta = p say-say = CONT = PL= REAL = EMPH

aunt = Ma.Hla = PL

‘Aunt Ma Hla and others have been saying that [when father was alive, because he was repairing the pond,] the entire village didn’t have to worry about domestic and drinking water [during the summer]’ [Yin 1981: 58] The frequency with which the characters have been talking about the problem of the lack of water in the village is shown by the repetition of the verb a`y| [pj] ‘say’, while the duration of the same activity at speech time is marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’. In the following example, &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ seems not to have the same function as in previous examples:


121

'Daeh = r\

b|vdkh ae|ufus = ] = w| = vJ”

ni = ka

dine = ma

balo nauta = ja = ta = l

you = SUBJ

today = FROM why

(208) “eif = u

be.late = GET = REAL = INTWH

at;v\ = u

`rcif = udk

a`y| = ae = av = w,f/

ea = ka

mjaki = ko

pj = ne = le = t

Aye.Hla = SUBJ

Mya.Khin = OBJ

say = CONT = EU = REAL

‘Why were you late today? Aye Hla said to Mya Khin. [I wasn’t late on [Yin 1981: 6] purpose….]’ Here, &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ does not mark an ongoing activity at speech or reference time, nor does it mark simultaneity of the activities represented in the two clauses. Rather, its scope seems to transcend the sentence level and to extend to the discourse level. The speaker Aye Hla is obviously expecting her interlocutor Mya Khin to provide her with an answer to her question, and it is assumed that the dialogue will necessarily continue. By marking the verb with &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, the narrator wants to create in the reader the same sense of expectation and suspense present in the character. On the other hand, if the dialogue had reached its end, and the narrative had moved forward, the event would have been marked as perfective by the operator &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’, as in:

igh = wl

`yef = mdkif = yg = [yD” = [k

k

a = tu

pja = nai = pa = pi = hu

well

my = nephew

return = CAN = POL = CRS = QUOT

(209) uJ

a`y| = vdkuf = av = w,f/ pj = lai = le = t

say = FOLLOW = EU = REAL ‘“Well, my nephew, now you can go back” [he] told [him]’ [Yin 1981: 8]

122

ASPECT IN BURMESE

The post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with other nonstative verbs

4.4.5

This section includes instances of the rare occurrence of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with achievement verbs, i.e. with verbs that denote change-of-state events that are inherently non-durative. For example: (210) q]|0ef[uD; = u

a`c

usdK; = ae = ol = uav; = udk

sjawudi = ka

te to = ne = u = le = ko

head.doctor = SUBJ

leg

break(INTR) = CONT = he = small = OBJ

juyfrwf = [yD;



kua = pe = le = t treat = BEN = EU = REAL


‘The head doctor [at Myintha hospital] gave the boy with a broken leg [Yin 1981: 24] [= whose leg was broken] a careful treatment’ Here, &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ appears in a relative clause which lacks the realis relativiser &wJh [t]: (211) a`c

usdK; = ae = (wJh) = ol = uav; = udk

te

to = ne = (t)= u = le = ko

leg

break(INTR) = CONT = (RELREAL) = he = small = OBJ

‘the boy with a broken leg’ Obviously, &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ does not mark the dynamic, ongoing quality of the event at speech time, since the semantics of the achievement verb usdkK; [to] ‘break’ disallows such a reading. What it marks instead is the duration of the state resulting from the activity expressed by usdkK; [to] ‘break’ (the leg broke > the leg is broken), a state that is employed in the above-mentioned relative clause to express a characteristic feature of the entity in question (the boy with a broken leg). &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ is used in a similar way in the following example:

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ (212) wkdh = tdrf = u ZD;r to = ei = ka zima our = house = FROM Zeema

tdrf

123

reufu mnka

morning

`yef = r = v| = bl;/

ei

pja = m = la = bu

house

return = NEG1 = COME = NEG2

‘Our Zeema hasn’t come back home since this morning’

xrif;

v| = r = p|; = bl;/

tmi

la = m = sa = bu

rice

come = NEG1 = eat = NEG2

‘She hasn’t come to eat’

at|f

[kw = o|;yJ

zG|;zG|; = ],f?



hou = ab

pwapwa = j

Oh

be.so = AGREE

grandmother = ADDRESS

at;v\

arh = ae = vdkuf = w|?

ea

me = ne = lai = ta

Aye.Hla

forget = CONT = FOLLOW = REAL

‘Oh, that’s right, grandmother. I’ve forgotten [about it]. [If Zeema keeps roaming like this, she’ll give birth in one of the houses]’ [Yin 1981: 10] The semantics of the achievement verb arh [me] ‘forget’ encodes the change in the ability of an entity to retrieve information from its memory, in such a way that from a state of ‘recollection’ the entity finds itself in the resulting state of ‘non-recollection’. The change occurs instantaneously, with no time span intervening in the transition between one state and the other. Here, &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ seems to be marking the state of ‘non-recollection’ of the character as having continued for some time, supposedly from the time frame reufu [mnka] ‘morning’ until speech time. My informant suggested that the use of &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ enhances the importance of the connec-

124

ASPECT IN BURMESE

tion between the character and the entity whose existence she has forgotten about (i.e. Zeema). The following:

qHk; = pOf (213) olh = tar u = me sou = si her = mother die = WHEN

tcg = u

at;v = u

ka = ka

ea = ka

time = FROM Aye.Hla = SUBJ

ckepf = m\pf

t],f = r\s = o|

kun = ni

j = mja = a

seven = year

age = ABOUT = ONLY

]\d = ao; = w,f/

i = e = t be = STILL = REAL

‘Aye Hla was only seven when her mother died’

tdrf & twGif;

cef; = r\|

ei-twi

ka = ma

udk,f`ynfhvuf`ynfh = rdcif = u

kobjelpje = mii = ka

house-inside

room = AT

be.pregnant = mother = SUBJ

Adkuf = e| = aw|h

nnf;nL = ae = yHk?

bai = na = t

iu = ne = pou

pregnancy = suffer.pain = BECAUSE

moan = CONT = HOW

tdrfeD;csif; = rs|;

0if&xGuf = [yD;

einidi = mja

wi-tw = pi

neighbour = PL

enter-exit-PFV

vSkyf]\|; = ae = ju = yHk?

zG|;zG|;

move.about = CONT = PL = HOW

grandmother

oua = ne = ta = pou

pwapwa

rsufm\| = r = au|if;

`zpf = ae = yHk = udk

mjna = m = kau

pji = ne = pou = ko

face = NEG1 = be.good

be = CONT = HOW = COMP

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ cyfa];a]; kajeje

`yef = [yD;

pja = jwe

rather.vaguely return = PFV

125

tr\wf] = ae = av = aw|h = w,f/ maja = ne = le = t = t

remember = CONT = EU = FINAL = REAL

‘[She] rather vaguely remembered (= was remembering) how [her] pregnant mother was moaning from inside [her] room because of the pain, how the neighbours were moving in and out, and how [her] grandmother was looking worried’ [Yin 1981: 6] is a rather complex example that appropriately describes both the aspectual and textual functions of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’. The narrator describes the character as reviewing a series of memories as if she were actually visualising them, an activity which naturally evolves over time. Each single recollection is therefore marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ to express its duration from the viewpoint of the character. The verb tr\wf] [maja] ‘remember’ (literally ‘get a memory’) is marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ to emphasise the fact that the time span relative to the activity of remembering is made up of and coincides with that of the single acts of recollection.

4.5

The use of post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ with stative verbs

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ marks states that exist at speech or reference time. For example: (214) Adkuf bai

pregnancy

e| = ae = vdkh

wtdrfvHk;

na = ne = lo suffer.pain = CONT = BECAUSE

the.whole.house

teilou

tvkyf]Skyf = ae = ju = w,f/

louou = ne = ta = t

be.very.busy = CONT = PL = REAL ‘Because [she] was suffering from pre-natal pain, the whole house was very busy’ [Yin 1981: 6]

126

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(215) tJ'g

a':av; = eJh

taz = wdk = u

da

dle = n

pe = to = ka

thus

aunt = WITH

father = PL = SUBJ

pdwfyl = ae = ju = w,f/ seipu = ne = ta = t

be.worried = CONT = PL = REAL ‘[She has been having the pain since last night, and nothing had happened till I left for school.] So, auntie and father are worried’ [Yin 1981: 6] (216) aju|ifo|;&i,f&oHk; = au|iF = udk taua--ou = kau = ko kitten-small-3 = CLASS = OBJ

vsuf = ay; = [yD; j = pe = pi

lick = BEN = PFV

vSs| = `zifh a = pwi

tongue = WITH

r\def; = ae = av = w,f/ mei = ne = le = t

be.half.asleep = CONT = EU = REAL

‘[She] licked her three kittens and was half asleep’

[Yin 1981: 20]

In these examples, the states identified by the verbs tvkyf]Skyf [louou] ‘be very busy’, pdwfyl [seipu] ‘be worried’ and r\def; [mei] ‘be half asleep’ are all extant at speech or reference time. The following is an interesting example of the combined use of the lexical verb `zpf [pji] ‘be’ used as the post-VN `zpf [pji] ‘BE’ and &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’: (217) 0rf;o|&0rf;enf; = `zpf = u| wua-wun = pji = ka be.glad-be.sorry = BE = AND

b| = udk

udkif = ] = r\ef;

ba = ko what = OBJ

kai = ja = ma

r = od = `zpf = ae = ao|fvnf;

m = i = pji = ne = l NEG1

= know = BE = CONT = ALTHOUGH

handle=CAN=THAT

q]|r

sjama

midwife

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ aw|if; = wJh

t0wf = rs|; = udk

tau = t

wu = mja = ko

ask.for=RELREAL

clothes = PL = OBJ

127

wckyD;wck tkubitku

one.after.another

,l = ay; = ae = w,f/ ju = pe = ne = t

take = BEN = CONT = REAL ‘Although [she] was feeling glad and sorry and didn’t know what to take hold of, [she] was handing one after another the clothes that the midwife had asked for’ [Yin 1981: 14-16] The structure of this complex sentence can be visualised as follows: (218)

[[[[CL

1 CL2]

= ae] = ao|fvnf;]SUB

[[NPOBJ

VCOMPL]

]

= ae]MAIN = w,f

We can decompose it into its main components, as in: (219) a)

Subordinate sentence:

[0rf;o| 0rf;enf; = `zpf] [wua wun = pji] [be.glad be.sorry = BE]

udkif = ] = r\ef;] [[b| = udk [[ba= ko kai = ja = ma] [[what = OBJ handle = CAN = THAT] b)

CL1

r = od = `zpf]

CL2

m = i = pji] NEG1

= know = BE]

Main clause

[q]|r [sjama [midwife

aw|if; = wJh

t0wf = rs|;] = udk

tau = t

wu = mja] = ko

ask.for = RELREAL

clothes = PL] = OBJ

wck[yD;wck

,l = ay;

tkubitku

ju = pe

one.after.another

take = BEN

NPOBJ

VCOMPLEX

128

ASPECT IN BURMESE

&ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ appears both in the subordinate sentence and in the main clause, where it shows different structural scope. In the main clause (219b), the activity expressed by ,l [ju] ‘take’ is modified by the post-VN operator &ay; [pe] ‘BENEFACTIVE’, derived from the full lexical verb ay; [pe] ‘give’, to show that the activity is done for the benefit of a person different from the main character (in this case, for the midwife). The combination of the main verb and &ay; [pe] ‘BENEFACTIVE’ is marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ to describe the activity (the giving of the clothes to the midwife) as ongoing at reference time. In this case, &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ has therefore scope only over the verbal complex. In the subordinate sentence (219a), on the other hand, the situation is somewhat more complex. CL1 contains two stative verbs, 0rf;o| [waa] ‘be glad’ and 0rf;enf; [wan] ‘be sorry’, whose juxtaposition expresses the combination of the character’s contrasting feelings. This combination is then marked for stativity by the operator &`zpf [pji] ‘BE’ (derived from the lexical verb `zpf [pji] ‘be’). CL2, in turn, is made up of a clause headed by the verb udkif [kai] ‘handle’ embedded into the main clause headed by the stative verb od [i] ‘know’. The latter is modified by the same operator &`zpf [pji] ‘BE’ that was used in CL1 to convey stativity. Overall, therefore, in the subordinate sentence it is &`zpf [pji] ‘BE’, rather than &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, that marks the maintenance of the states expressed by the predicates in CL1 and CL2. What is the function of &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ then? Its function is to tie the temporal specification of the subordinate clause into the wider temporal frame of the main clause, indicating that the states and events expressed there are maintained and temporally overlap with the event expressed in the main clause. In the main sentence, &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ has scope over the predicate, behaving like a nuclear operator, whereas, in the subordinate clause, it has scope over the whole sentence, and it behaves like a clausal operator. The possibility for &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ to apply to and have scope over different structural levels within sentences is a feature common to the operators in the Burmese verbal complex. Their reciprocal order vis-à-vis the main verb is relative rather than absolute, in that they do not occupy a fixed slot within the verbal complex, but they vary their position according to the scope they have over the different structural components of the sentence.

CHAPTER 5 THE DIRECTIONAL POST-VN OPERATORS &v| [la] ‘COME’ AND

&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’

5.1

Introduction

In this section, I will analyse the use of the two directional operators &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, derived from the grammaticalisation of the full lexical verbs v| [la] ‘come’ and oG|; [wa] ‘go’. The use of a third directional operator, &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’, derived from the verb vdkuf [lai] ‘follow’, will be discussed cursorily in relation to its use in alternation with &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’. Further research will be needed to discuss its function and use. According to the semantics of the main verb and the way the event is represented in the clause/sentence as well as the context of occurrence in which &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ appear (whether in dialogues or in narratives), these operators fulfil different functions. With motion verbs, they express directionality of motion, and may be considered as core operators, in that they refer to the direction of motion of the participants in the speech act. With non-motion verbs, they function as inchoative markers, and have scope over the nucleus.

5.2

The full verbs v| [la] ‘come’ and oG|; [wa] ‘go’

The full verb v| [la] ‘come’ expresses motion towards the deictic centre (DC), i.e. the location at which either the speaker or the hearer or both participants in the speech act (SAPs) were, are or will be located, or think of themselves as being located at some time or point of view. On the other hand, oG|; [wa] ‘go’ expresses motion away from the DC or motion unconnected with the DC. The following are their logical structures (adapted from VVLP 1997: 155):

130

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(220) come do′ (x, [move.towards.deictic.centre′ (x)]) & BECOME be-LOC′ (y, x) (221) go i) do′ (x, [move.away.from,deictic.centre′ (x)]) ii) do′ (x, [move.away.from,deictic.centre′ (x)]) & BECOME be-LOC′ (y, x) The logical structure of come tells us that the entity x does something so that it moves towards its definite goal y (the DC) and it is located there. It is an active accomplishment verb by combining its activity/motion element with the attainment of its goal. Unlike come, go is identified as an activity (motion) verb in (221i) if its goal is left unspecified, while it is identified as an active accomplishment verb in (221ii) if its goal y is specified. In the case of v| [la] ‘come’, the goal of motion (i.e. the DC) may be either the speaker or the hearer or both, and the source of the motion may be unknown/unspecified as in:

(222) 'D

aeh

r = v| = eJh/

di

ne

m = la = n

this

day

NEG1

= come = IMP (speaker = DC)

‘Don’t come today!’

v| = cJh = r,f/

(223) uGsr tma

la = k = m

I

come = BACK.THERE = IRR

‘I will come’ (224) ar May May

[Myint 1994: 126]

(hearer = DC)

'D = udk

v| = w,f/

di = ko

la = t

here = TO

come = REAL

‘May came here’

(speaker + hearer = DC)

[Myint 1994: 126]

&v| [la] ‘COME’ AND &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’

131

The source of motion can be expressed overtly as in: (225) ar me

May

Darwin = r\ Darwin = ma Darwin = FROM

'D = udk

v| = w,f/

di = ko here = TO

la = t come = REAL

‘May came here from Darwin In addition, v| [la] ‘come’ is also used to indicate motion of a nonparticipant in the speech act towards the DC: (226) igh = qD = udk a = si = ko my = place = TO

ol

r = v| = bl;/

u

m = la = bu

she

NEG1

= come = NEG2

‘She didn’t come to my place’

[Myint 1994: 126]

oG|; [wa] ‘go’ is used to express motion away from the DC, i.e. from either the speaker, the hearer or both. The destination may be left unspecified as in: (227) John John John

'D = u

xGufcGg = [yD;

oG|; = w,f/

di = ka

twkwa = pi

wa = t

here = FROM

leave = PFV

go = REAL

‘John left from here and went (off)’ or it can be expressed overtly as in: (228) olh = qD = udk

oG|;/

u = si = ko

wa

his = place = TO

go

‘Go to his place!’

[Myint 1994: 126]

132

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(229) olh = qD = udk

oG|; = r,f/

u = si = ko

his = place = TO

wa = m go = IRR

‘I will go to his place’

[Myint 1994: 126]

In addition, oG|; [wa] ‘go’ is used when motion occurs between two locations other than the DC, where the speaker/narrator is located: (230) i\uf = uav;  = kle bird = small

opfyif = u

ipi = ka tree = FROM

aus|uf = ay: = udk

oG|; = w,f/

tau = p = ko

wa = te

rock = ON = TO

go = REAL

‘The bird went from the tree to the rock (I can see both the tree and the rock)’ In the verbal complex, the combination of v| [la] ‘come’ and oG|; [wa] ‘go’ with a following full lexical predicate gives rise to a serialised verb construction, representing two events as sequential: (231) rif; = qD = udk mi = si = ko you = place = TO

ol

v|&ay; = r,f/

u

la-pe = m

he

come-give = IRR

‘He will come to your place and give (it to you)’

[Myint 1994: 126]

In the following example, the main character, Maung Cho, is in the city hospital, and his parents from the village go to visit him often: (232) ar|ifcsdK = ]Jh mauto = j Maung.Cho = POSS

]G| = u

jwa = ka

village = FROM

rdz = wdkh = u

rju|cE

miba = to = ka

mtakna

parent = PL = SUBJ

often

a]|uf = v| = ju = [yD;

jau = la = ta = pi arrive = COME = PL = PFV

&v| [la] ‘COME’ AND &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ ar|ifcsdK = udk

133

v|&junfh = ju = w,f/

mauto = ko

la-ti = ta = t

Maung.Cho = OBJ

come-see = PL = REAL

‘Maung Cho’s parents would often arrive from the village and come to see Maung Cho’ [Yin 1981: 24] Here, the use of the main verb v| [la] ‘come’ in the narrative coincides with the use of come in the English translation. In Burmese, narrators describe events from the viewpoint of the entities that are considered to be the centre of the narrative, the main characters around which the plot revolves, either within a particular paragraph or within the overall story. In this case, Maung Cho is the character about which the story (or a particular segment of it) is told, and, as a consequence, his location (the DC) is considered to be the one to which motion is directed. The motion event in which his parents are involved is then directed towards him, and the default choice for Burmese is v| [la] ‘come’. For the same reason, the motion verb a]|uf [jau] ‘arrive’ is marked for direction by &v| [la] ‘COME’, which again stresses the importance of the narrative role of this particular character. If the focus of the narration had been on Maung Cho’s parents, the motion event would have been seen from their DC and the narrator would have used oG|; [wa] ‘go’. English behaves similarly, in that … in pure third-person discourse (i.e. in discourse in which the identity and location of the Sender and the Addressee plays no role), the narrator is free to choose a point of view, such that movement towards the place or person whose point of view is assumed can be expressed with the verb

COME

(Fill-

more 1983: 226)

Here again, since the narrator empathises with Maung Cho whose location is the goal of motion of his parents, the narrator has chosen to use come. If the narrator had empathised with his parents, s/he would have chosen go. In the following: (233) `rifo| = [rdkh = u mjia = mjo = ka Myintha = village = FROM

igh = nD

tdrf = r\|

a = i ei = ma my = brother house = AT

134

ASPECT IN BURMESE

oG|;&tyf = ay; = r,f/ wa-a = pe = m

go-entrust = BEN = IRR

‘[We] will go [to] my brother’s house in Myintha and [I] will entrust [you to him]’ [Yin 1981: 30] the serialised verb construction [oG|; [wa] ‘go’ & tyf [a] ‘entrust’] could also have a purposive reading, ‘go in order to entrust’, a use that is well attested cross-linguistically. For example: (234) Tepo (Kru-Niger Congo) (Marchese 1986:143) mu ‘go’ > mú ‘purpose clause marker’  he

dé le come LOC

 he

mú AUX

ó him

yé see

‘He came in order to see him’ (235) Fa d’Ambu CP (Portuguese-based Creole) (Post 1992: 153) Fa d’Ambu CP ba ‘go’ (> allative preposition) > ‘(in order) to’ e 3:sg

sé go.out

ku with

naví boat

ba go

piska fish

‘He has left by boat to fish’ 5.3

The post-VN operators &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’

The full lexical verbs v| [la] ‘come’ and oG|; [wa] ‘go’ are often used as bound post-VN operators, conveying various notions according to the semantics of the verbal base they are attached to and their role in discourse. Of the two operators, only &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ undergoes clear close juncture, since its segmental and tonal features allow such a process to take place. On the other hand, &v| [la] ‘COME’ does not show close juncture overtly, be-


135

cause of its phonetic composition: [l] is already voiced and the form bears low tone that is not subject to downdrift. However, its complementary distribution with &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ and its semantic contribution as an aspectual marker indicate that it does belong to the inventory of grammatical morphemes. Another important feature in the description of directional operators is their use with motion verbs in dialogues and in narratives. In dialogues, directional operators specify the orientation of motion of the actual participants in the speech act with respect to one another as opposed to any other nonparticipant and any other location different from that of the SAPs (in my terminology, the non-DC). In narratives, it is the narrator who establishes the connections between the participants in the narrative event and their location by using these two forms to ‘manipulate text building’, an expression that Robert J. Bickner (1989: 16 ff) uses to describe their function in Thai narrative. In their directional use, &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ specify the direction of motion of the core arguments, i.e. the participants in the motion event, and are therefore considered as operators of the core. &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ are also used with verbs which express change of state as well as with stative verbs to mark the attainment of the goal of the change (i.e. the new state) either through progression in time (with &v| [la] ‘COME’) or instantaneously (with &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’). They therefore show ingressive/inchoative function and can be identified as nuclear operators. 5.3.1 &v| [la] ‘COME/&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ with motion verbs When the operators &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO follow a motion verb, they convey either of the following senses: (a) in dialogues, &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ orient motion towards and away from the location of the SAPs respectively; (b) in narratives, &v| [la] ‘COME’ orients motion towards the actual, habitual or intended location of the character(s) involved in a particular context and considered to be the narrative pivot(s). On the other hand, &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ orients motion

136

ASPECT IN BURMESE

away from the character(s) involved in a particular section of narrative discourse and from their common location. 5.3.1.1 Motion verbs with &v| [la] ‘COME’/&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ in dialogues In Burmese, motion verbs are often unmarked for orientation: 0if [wi] ‘enter’, xGuf [tw] ‘exit’, wuf [t] ‘ascend’, qif; [si] ‘descend’, etc. Because of the salience given to the SAPs and their respective location, in most cases the language requires that markers of orientation be present. In the following instances, the function of &v| [la] ‘COME’ is clear: the motion of the addressee and/or other entities is oriented towards the speaker: (236) rif; = wdkh mi = to you = PL

oWd&]\d = ,if

a]\h

wdk; = v| = ju = prf;/

e

to = la = ta = sa

courage-be = IF

front

advance = COME = PL =

ati-i = ji

URGENT

‘If you have courage, come forward all of you’ (237) rD;]x|;

mijta

train

qdkuf = r = v| = ao; = bl; = v|;/ sai = m = la = e = bu = la

arrive = NEG1 = COME = STILL = NEG2 = INT

‘Hasn’t the train arrived (here) yet?’ (238) aiG

[Yin 1981: 68]

[Okell 1969: 328]

,l = v| = yg/

we

ju = la = pa

money

take = COME = POL

‘Please bring money’

]\d = wkef;u = aw|h

igh = v,f = xJ = r\|

mi = pe

i = toua = t

you = father

be = WHEN = FINAL

a = l = t = ma my = field = INSIDE = AT

(239) rif; = taz

&v| [la] ‘COME’ AND &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ ol

137

a]|uf&a]|uf = v| = [yD;…..

u

jau-jau = la = pi

he

arrive-arrive = COME = PFV

‘When your father was alive, he used to come to my field and…..’ [Yin 1981: 72] With motion verbs, the function of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ in direct speech is to orient the motion of the SAPs away from the DC. In the following example, Maung Cho and his father are the SAPs and their trajectory will lead them away from their shared location: (240) wJ&qD = udk t-si = ko hut-place = TO

idk = [yD;

o = pi

cry = PFV

xrf;&ac: = oG|; = yg” = [k

ta-k = wa = pa” = hu

carry.on.shoulder-take = GO = POL = QUOT

a`y| = av = w,f/

pj = le = t say = EU = REAL

‘[He] said “Please, carry [me] to the farm house’

[Yin 1981: 22]

In the following example, the goal of motion, i.e. the hospital, is located away from the DC, the place where the SAPs (Maung Cho, his parents and the doctor who is examining him) are: (241) [rdKh = u mjo = ka village = FROM

aq;]kH; = udk

ac: = oG|; = [yD;

sejou = ko

k = wa = pi

hospital = TO

take = GO = PFV

uko = ju = yg” = [k

a`y| = av = w,f/

kua = ta = pa” = hu

pj = le = t

give.treatment = PL = POL = QUOT

say = EU = REAL

‘[He] said “Take [him] to the hospital in town and get a cure”’ [Yin 1981: 22]

138

ASPECT IN BURMESE

The use of &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ is neatly exemplified in the following minimal pair: (242) a)

rif;

aus|if; = udk

u|;

ar|if; = v|/

mi

tau = ko

ka

mau = la

you

school = TO

car

drive = COME

‘Drive to school [where I am]’ b)

[Myint 1994: 128]

rif;

aus|if; = udk

u|;

ar|if; = oG|;/

mi

tau = ko

ka

mau = wa

you

school = TO

car

drive = GO

‘Drive to school [where I will not be]’

[Myint 1994: 129]

5.3.1.2 Motion verbs with &v| [la] ‘COME’/&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ in third-person narratives In narratives, &v| [la] ‘COME’ orients motion towards the actual, habitual or intended location of the character(s) involved in a particular context and considered to be the narrative pivot(s). On the other hand, &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ orients motion away from the character(s) involved in a particular section of narrative discourse and from their common location. In the short story Frog, where are you? (see Appendix), the narrator describes a scene where the main character (the boy) climbs on a tree and an owl flies out of a hole in the trunk towards him: (243) vli,fuav; = u lule = ka boy = SUBJ

opf = udkif; = [uD; i = kai = ti tree = branch = big

]\d = wJh

i = t

pi = p

be = RELREAL

tree = ON

wuf = [yD;


t = pi

i = kai = t = ko

climb.up = PFV


ikHh&junfh = wJh

tcg = r\|

incline-look = RELREAL

ka = ma time = AT

ou-ti = t

tyif = ay:


ZD;uGuf = i\uf = [uD;

ysH&xGuf = v| = w,f/

ziw =  = ti

pja-tw = la = t

owl = CLASS = big

fly-exit = COME = REAL

139

‘The boy climbed on the tree where the big branch was and when [he] inclined [his] head and looked [at it], a big owl flew out [from a hole in the branch]’ [FR 19] The narrator has taken the main character and his location as her viewpoint and she describes the trajectory of motion of the owl as being oriented towards the main character by utilising &v| [la] ‘COME’. The motion event is represented holistically by the combination of manner of motion (ysH [pja] ‘fly’), motion out of a bounded region/enclosure (xGuf [tw] ‘exit’) (Haviland 1991a: 24) and deictically anchored motion (v| [la] ‘come’). In the following example: (244) '],f = vJ dj = l

deer = ALSO

vefh = [yD;

olh = csdK = udk

la = pi be.afraid = PFV

u = to = ko

its = antlers = OBJ

cwf = vdkuf = wJh

tcg

ka = lai = t toss = FOLLOW = RELREAL

ka

lule

te

time

boy

leg

vGwf = [yD;

vli,fav;

a`c

lu = pi

'],f = acgif; = ay:

csdK = ju|;

dj = kau = p

to = ta

be.free = PFV

deer = head = ON

antlers = BETWEEN

vdrfh&us = oG|; = av = aw|h = w,f/ lei-ta = wa = le = t = t

roll-fall = GO = EU = FINAL = REAL ‘The deer too was scared and when [it] tossed [its] antlers, the boy’s leg was freed and [the boy] rolled and fell between the deer’s antlers’ [FR 26]

140

ASPECT IN BURMESE

the narrative focus is still on the main character, i.e. the boy, and the motion event that involves him is seen as projecting him away from his location, the DC. A good exemplification of how &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ alternate in narrative discourse is given by the following example: (245) w = aeh = o = r\| t = ne =  = ma

ar|ifcsdK = u

okh = zcif = ]Jh


u = pki = j

1 = day = REAL = AT Maung.Cho = SUBJ

v,f = xJ = r\|

0dkif; = ul = [yD;

l = t = ma field = INSIDE = AT

wai = ku = pi

vkyf = ay; = [yD; = ae|uf

lou = pe = pi = nau

work = BEN = PFV = after

TOGETHER

his = father = POSS

= help = PFV

wJ&qD = udk t-si = ko

hut-place = TO

`yef = v| = ]|

vrf; = r\|

]dk;`ywf = tvGef = r\|

pja = la = ja

la = ma

jopja = lu = ma

return = COME = WHILE

road = AT

stubble = much = AT

a`c

acs|f = [yD;

te

t = pi

vJ&us = oG|; = av = w,f/

leg

slip = PFV

fall-go.down = GO = EU = REAL

l-ta = wa = le = t

‘One day, after Maung Cho had helped his father in the field, while returning to his farm-house, on the way on the stubby part of the field, [he] missed a step and he fell down’ [Yin 1981: 22] In this paragraph, we are informed that the two characters (Maung Cho and his father) are sharing the same (narrative) space, i.e. the field in which both of them are working. The first instance of the use of &v| [la] ‘COME’ in the entire narrative is in association with the main verb `yef [pja] ‘return’, which indicates a trajectory “… in relation to an established reference point (which may or may not be the deictic origo “here”)” (Haviland 1991a: 9). In this case, the deictic centre is not the actual location of the character but one


141

from which the character has moved away some time in the past and which constitutes the natural or expected goal of his ultimate motion (i.e. going home). It is not surprising therefore for `yef [pja] ‘return’ to have acquired grammatical status both as the post-VN operator &`yef [pja] ‘ITERATIVE’ in structures as the following: (246) a`y| = ju = `yef = av = w,f/ pj = ta = pja = le = t say = PL = RETURN = EU = REAL ‘[They] repeated [it]’


and as the pre-VN operator `yef& [pja] ‘RETURN’, as in: (247) vl[uD; = udk ludi = ko elder = TO

`yef = r = a`y| = eJh/

pja = m = pj = n

RETURN

= NEG1 = say = NEG.IMP

‘Don’t answer back to [your] elders’


The function of &v| [la] ‘COME’ is therefore extended to include motion towards the location at which the SAPs once were and where they will eventually be. In this case, the use of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ would be inappropriate, in that it identifies motion away from the DC, i.e. a location known to the SAPs, towards an unknown location whose specification is often irrelevant. In the following sentence: (248) ar|ifcsdK

r = x = mdkif = ]\d = pOf

olh = zcif = u

mauto

m = ta = nai = i = si

Maung.Cho

NEG1

= get.up = CAN = BE = WHILE

u = pki = ka

his = father = SUBJ

a`y; = v| = [yD;

qGJ = [yD;

xl = av = w,f/

pje = la = pi

sw = pi

tu = le = t

run = COME = PFV

pull = PFV

help.a.person.up = EU = REAL

‘He could not get up and his father ran [to him] and pulled him up’ [Yin 1981: 22]

142

ASPECT IN BURMESE

Maung Cho is again the centre of attention of the narrative and as such the orientation of motion of the other character is marked by &v| [la] ‘COME’. On the other hand, in the following paragraph, Maung Cho is directly referring to the goal of motion that both he and his father will share (their house), situated away from their actual location, and as a consequence the motion serial verb construction xrf;&ac: [ta-k] ‘carry (on shoulders) - take/bring’ is marked by &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’:

(249) ar|ifcsdK = u mauto = ka Maung.Cho = SUBJ

uGsefaw|f tn

I

“e| = vdkuf = w|

taz = ],f?

na = lai = ta

pe = j

hurt = FOLLOW = REAL

father = PLEAD

vrf; = r = avs|uf = mdkif = aw|h = bl;?

la = m = au = nai = t = bu road = NEG1 = walk = CAN = FINAL = NEG2

wJ&qD = udk

xrf;&ac: = oG|; = yg” = [k

t-si = ko

ta-k = wa = pa = hu

hut-place = TO

carry-take = GO = POL = QUOT

idk = [yD;

a`y| = av = w,f/

o = pi

pj = le = t

cry = PFV

say = EU = REAL

‘Maung Cho said (while) crying ‘It hurts a lot, father. I can’t walk. Please take me home’ [Yin 1981: 22] A further example of the expression of viewpoint is the use of &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ with a]|uf [jau] ‘arrive’, a verb “… of inherently directed motion” as Levin defines it (1993:263). Its logical structure is the following: (250) do′ (x, [pred′ (x)]) & BECOME be-at′ (y, x) It can be paraphrased as ‘an entity x moves so that it attains and is located at its goal y’, with the component [pred′ (x)] standing for ‘any motion verb’. Its meaning combines the indication of unspecified motion with the indication


143

of its telicity, expressed overtly by means of an adpositional phrase indicating the goal of motion or left unspecified because redundant or irrelevant to context. In Burmese, the goal of motion is shown by a postpositional phrase headed by the allative &udk [ko] (Literary &odkh [o]) ‘TO’ which favours the motional component of the combination. The semantics of a]|uf [jau] ‘arrive’ differs from that of English arrive and their counterparts in other languages. The following is the logical structure of English arrive (VVLP 1997: 155):

(251)

BECOME

be-at′ (x, y)

The activity component present in the logical structure of a]|uf [jau] ‘arrive’ is absent in the semantics of arrive, which focuses on its locative/stative component. It simply tells us that ‘an entity x has changed its location over time and it is located at y’. This observation is complemented by the fact that the goal of motion is expressed by prepositional phrases headed by the locative at or in. In English and other languages, deictic specification of motion may be rendered lexically or may be left unmarked according to context, as in: (252) He arrived here/there five minutes ago He arrived five minutes ago

(deictically specified) (deictically unspecified)

In Burmese, deictic specification of motion is obligatory and is expressed morphologically by the use of our operators &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, according to the saliency given to the participants in the speech act by the narrator. For example: (253)

a)

ae|uf

ig; = ]uf = tju| = r\|

nau

a = j = ta = ma

after

5 = day = passing = AT

oufqdkif]| = whdk = u

saija = to = ka person.in.question = PL = SUBJ

144

ASPECT IN BURMESE

tqifoifh&`yifqif = [yD;

ar|ifcsdK

sii-pjisi = pi

mauto

be.suitable-get.ready = PFV

Maung.Cho

a`y| = `y = wJh

twdkif;

ppf&wyfzGJ = [yD;

pj = pja = t

tai

si-tapw = pi

say = show = RELREAL accordance

military-form.a.unit = PFV

`zefh = [yD;

tcg

vdkuf = ju = wJh

pja = pi

lai = ta = t

ka

spread-PFV

follow = PL = RELREAL

time

wu,f = yif

ao|if;usef;ol = wdkh

ae = wJ

d = pi

audau = to

ne = t

finally = EMPH

rebel = PL

stay = RELREAL

pcef;&teD; = udk

a]|uf = oG|; = ju = av = w,f/

ska-ni = ko

jau = wa = ta = le = t

camp-vicinity = TO

arrive = GO = PL = EU = REAL

‘Five days later, after [they] had made preparations for the attack and spread out the forces [toward the place which] Maung Cho had mentioned, at last [they] arrived near the rebels’ camp’ [Yin 1981: 50] b)

ol = wdkh

a]|uf = v| = w,f = udk

u = to

jau = la = t = ko

he = PL

arrive = COME = REAL = OBJ

od = ju = wJh

tcg

ao|if;usef;o = wdkh = u

i = ta = t

ka

audau = to = ka

know = PL = RELREAL

time

rebel = PL = SUBJ

aus|if;o|; = rs|; = udk

a`ruwkwf = t`zpf

taua = mja = ko

student = PL = OBJ

mjedou = pji

earth.bunker = condition

&v| [la] ‘COME’ AND &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ a]\h = u

x|; = [yD;

145

ckcH = ju = av = w,f/

e = ka

ta = pi

kua = ta = le = t

front = FROM

put = PFV

defend = PL = EU = REAL

‘When the rebels knew that [the government forces] had arrived, they put the students in front [of them] as a sort of earth breastwork and defended [themselves]’ [Yin 1981: 50] In (253a) and (253b), the marking of the verb a]|uf [jau] ‘arrive’ for orientation varies according to the saliency the narrator ascribes to the participants in the narrative act and, as a consequence, to the locus in which the events involving the SAPs take place. In (253a), the focus is on the military whose trajectory of motion has led them to their goal away from their deictic centre, i.e. the rebels’ camp, where the students are held captive. As a consequence, the non-deictically oriented verb a]|uf [jau] ‘arrive’ has been marked by &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’. In (253b), on the other hand, the trajectory and the goal of motion of the military are seen by the narrator from the vantage point of the rebels and their location, i.e. from the end-point of motion. In order to convey this change of perspective, the narrator has marked a]|uf [jau] ‘arrive’ by &v| [la] ‘COME’. 5.3.2 &v| [la] ‘COME’/ &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ with activity verbs Soe Myint (1994) states that “When following verbs that refer to concrete actions, la and swà [i.e. &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’] retain their full lexical meaning” (Myint 1994: 127). The following sentences are an example of this use: (254) ol

xrif;

p|;&v| = w,f/

u

tmi

sa-la = t

he

rice

eat-come = REAL

‘He ate rice (and came)’

[Myint 1994: 127]

146

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(255) ar]D

xrif;

csuf&oG|; = w,f/

meri

tmi

t-wa = t

Mary

rice

cook-go = REAL [Myint 1994: 127]

‘Mary cooked rice (and left)’

In fact, these are examples of serialised verb constructions, where the two verbs in the verbal complex retain their full lexical meaning and are subcomponents of the event seen in its totality (as a consequence, the glosses ‘come’ and ‘go’ are in lower case to indicate the lexical, rather than grammatical, character of these forms). While this analysis is true of some constructions, by no means does it exhaust all possible functional uses of these predicates. For instance: (256) ae|uf&xyf

aju|if = i,fav;&w = au|if

nau-ta

tau = le-t = kau

further-again

cat = small-1 = CLASS

arG; = v| = `yef = av = w,f/ mwe = la = pja = le = t

be.born = COME = ITER = EU = REAL ‘Another kitten was born’

[Yin 1981: 20]

Here, no physical displacement or motion towards a DC is implied in the use of &v| [la] ‘COME’ (the kitten was born and came here) nor is there any idea of motion away from the DC in the following (the leg broke and [he or the leg] went away): (257) ar|ifcsKd

a`cax|uf

usdK; = oG|; = w|/

mauto

tedau

to = wa = ta

Maung.Cho

leg

break = GO = REAL

‘Maung Cho has broken [his] leg’

[Yin 1981: 24]

As we shall see, the function of &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ used with activity verbs is far more complex. In most cases, both operators mark predicates denoting a change in the state of a particular entity, the Under-


147

goer. If the change of state is seen as unfolding and evolving towards a natural end point through progression in time, the predicate will be marked by &v| [la] ‘COME’. This use of &v| [la] ‘COME’ is a natural extension of its use in a motion event: in the same way as the DC, occupied by the SAP(s), is the natural end-point of motion marked by &v| [la] ‘COME’, the attainment of a new state by the Undergoer is the natural end-point of the transformation (‘motion’) from a previous state to a new one. Therefore, the focus is placed on the Undergoer and its new state. For example: (258) an|if = udkif; = udk au = kai = ko tree = branch = OBJ

udkif = x|; = wJh

vuf = r\|

kai = ta = t

l = ma


hand = TOP

wkef = v| = [yD; = ]if…. tou = la = pi = ji

tremble = COME = PFV = WHEN ‘[Because he was scared] [his] hands holding the branches started to [Yin 1981: 110] tremble, and ….’ On the other hand, if the change of state occurs or is conceived as having occurred instantaneously, i.e. if the temporal span between the end of the previous state and the onset of the new one is considered to be negligible or irrelevant, the predicate will be marked by &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, irrespective of the Aktionsart of the main verb. For example: (259) rD;av|if = wJh milau = t burn = RELREAL

txJ = r\|

tukef

t = ma

kou

pa = wa = t

inside = AT

everything

lose = GO = REAL

‘Everything was lost in the fire’

yg = oG|; = w,f/


Again, in order to explain the use of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ to mark changes of state, we must take into consideration the semantics of its lexical source, the main verb oG|; [wa] ‘go’. The latter shows a trajectory of motion originating from the DC that may be bounded or unbounded depending on the existence or non-existence of a goal of motion. What is crucial here is that what is known is the origin of motion, not its end-point. In fact, if we look at the concept of mo-

148

ASPECT IN BURMESE

tion inherent in oG|; [wa] ‘go’ and we transpose it to events that are not motional marked by its grammaticalised metaphorical extension &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, in particular to changes of state, we will see that the change of state is seen from the viewpoint of its onset, not from its end-point. This fact bears two important aspectual consequences. Firstly, if a change of state is marked by &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, since it is only its onset that is focused on and not its end-point, it is not seen to occur by degrees (as it would if it were marked by &v| [la] ‘COME’) but as occurring punctually. In fact, native speakers often refer to the change as taking place ‘suddenly’. Secondly, in the same way as oG|; [wa] ‘go’ marks motion away from the DC, &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ marks the exit from a known or normal state, which the entity affected by the change will not be able to access again. The new state is then assumed not to change in the future, an explanation that is supported by the fact that most changes of state marked by &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ are seen as irreversible. One further interesting use of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ is seen in the following examples: (260) (a)

raehu

cGuf

uGJ = oG|; = w,f/

mnea

kw

kw = wa = t

yesterday

cup


‘Yesterday, the cup broke’ (b)

raehu

a]cJ

t]nfays|f = oG|; = w,f/

mnea

jek

jipj = wa = t

yesterday

ice


‘Yesterday, the ice melted’ The arguments ‘cup’ and ‘ice’ in the intransitive clauses (260a) and (260b) represent the entities that have undergone the change of state triggered or caused by entities that are non-existent, unknown or irrelevant to discourse. The intransitive verbs uGJ [kw] ‘break’ and t]nfays|f [jipj] ‘melt’ have different Aktionsarten (achievement and accomplishment respectively) and they are both marked by &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’.


149

Constructions (260a) and (260b) contrast with the following transitive clauses (261a) and (261b) respectively: (261) (a)

raehu

uGsefr

cGuf

cJ = vdkuf = w,f/

mnea

yesterday

tma

kw k = lai = t

I

cup

break(TR) = FOLLOW = REAL

‘Yesterday, I broke the cup’ (b)

raehu

uGsefr

a]cJ

azs|f = vdkuf = w,f/

mnea

tma

jek

pj = lai = t

yesterday

I

ice

melt(TR) = FOLLOW =REAL

‘Yesterday, I melted the ice’ which show the existence of Actors willingly and effectively performing a certain activity on the Undergoers ‘cup’ and ‘ice’. The verbs cGJ [kw] ‘break’ and azs|f [pj] ‘melt’ are the causative counterparts of the intransitives seen in (260a) and (260b) and both the core arguments of the two verbs are overt. In addition, these two groups of sentences differ in the choice of the operators marking the main verbs, &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ for the intransitive clauses, &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ for the transitive ones, derived from the full transitive verb vdkuf [lai] ‘follow’. Constructions such as (260a) and (260b) have been described in the literature at length and languages seem to adopt different strategies to show the connection between reduced causation and decreased valency in the clause. In one of the latest collections of studies on valency and transitivity, edited by Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000a), this type of structures is referred to as anticausative (Dixon and Aikhenvald 2000b: 7-8). It differs from the prototypical passive and the ‘agentless passive’, which “… both indicate that the original O (derived S) came into a certain state because of the involvement of an agent (original A)”, in that it “… implies that it came into the state spontaneously” (Dixon and Aikhenvald 2000b:8). There are languages such as Athapaskan (Rice 2000), Amharic (Amberber 2000), Dulong/Rawang (LaPolla 2000) and Creek (Martin 2000), where the anticausative is a category signalled by derivational markers. On the other hand, there are languages, like Ngan'gityemerri

150

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(Reid 2000), where the anticausative is obtained syntactically in a way interestingly similar to Burmese. In addition, there is a possibility that the choice between &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ and &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ may have been motivated by the need to maintain the same transitivity value over the whole verbal complex, a phenomenon that has been shown to occur elsewhere (e.g. in Dulong/Rawang - La Polla 2000). Once again it will be claimed that the function of our operators is modelled on the semantics of their lexical sources. In transitive clauses, the unmarked order of core arguments [ACTORSUBJ UNDERGOEROBJ VCOMPLEX], as in: (262) OD;pH = u usa = ka U.San = SUBJ

ar|ifcsdK = udk

oyf = vdkuf = w,f/

mauto = ko

a = lai = t

Maung.Cho = OBJ

kill = FOLLOW = REAL

‘U San killed Maung Cho’ may be altered to [UNDERGOEROBJ salience of arguments, as in: (263) ar|ifcsdK = udk mauto = ko Maung.Cho = OBJ

ACTORSUBJ VCOMPLEX]

to signal a change in the

OD;pH = u

oyf = oG|; = w,f/

U.San = SUBJ

kill = GO = REAL

usa = ka

a = wa = t

‘Maung Cho (It was Maung Cho who) was killed by U San’ The inversion of the order of the core arguments is accompanied by a change in the choice of the aspectual operator, &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ instead of &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’. In addition, this use of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ contrasts in the same environment with that of &v| [la] ‘COME’, which marks an activity affecting the Undergoer, and narrated by the Undergoer itself, as in: (264) “ig = wdkh = udk = aw|h a = to = ko = t I = PL = OBJ = TOP

zrf; = v| = w| pa = la = ta

capture = COME = REAL


151

r = [kwf = yg = bl;/

m = hou = pa = bu NEG1

= be.so = POL = NEG2

‘[The students said]: “We were not captured”’

[Yin 1981: 42]

As a predictable consequence, the presence of &v| [la] ‘COME’ often requires that the Undergoer be animate, since experiencing, not simply undergoing, a change of state is not accessible to inanimate entities. Finally, many of the examples in my sample support the hypothesis put forward by Eve Clark (1974) for English, according to which the verbs come and go can be used in idioms whereby … the deictic centre, corresponding to the goal of come is provided by some normal state of being, e.g. consciousness or realism as in He came round and He came down to earth. In contrast, go marks departure from a normal state, as in He went mad and He went into a daze” (Clark 1974: 316)

In Burmese, predicates marked by &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ may express the entrance in or exit from a normal or preferred state respectively. For example: (265) wpf = aeh = r\| t = ne = ma 1 = day = AT

rif; = ] Jh

pdwful;

mi = j

seiku

you = POSS

dream

tau|iftxnfay: = v| = vdrfh = r,f/ kautp = la = lei = m

materialise = COME = MAYBE = IRR ‘One day, your dream will come true’ (266) ol

rsufpd

uG,f = oG|; = w,f/

u

mjsi

kw = wa = t

he

sight

go.blind = GO = REAL

‘He went blind’

152

ASPECT IN BURMESE

Unlike their English counterparts, these expressions are the result of the normal aspectual modifications carried out by these operators, whose use is totally productive and based on iconic principles. Gandour (1978) has found similar cases in Thai and we may speculate on the existence of similar alternations in other languages (e.g. see Sango [Thornell 1997]), or Seychelles French-based Creole (Corne 1977).

&v| [la] ‘COME’ with activity verbs

5.3.2.1

The post-VN operator &v| [la] ‘COME’ occurs with activity verbs that in most part express changes of state whose goal (the new state) is attained through progression in time. The Undergoer experiences the change of state and it is precisely from its viewpoint that the change is witnessed. For instance: (267) rykjuG,f = u xdk maputw = ka to Ma.Pu.Kywe = SUBJ this

c]k = i,f = udk

kju =  = ko snail = small = OBJ

junfh = ]if;

ti = ji

see = WHEN

t|;us = v| = w,f/ ata = la = t

admire = COME = REAL ‘When Ma Pu Kywe saw the little snail, [her] admiration grew’ [Okell 1994: 97] (268) xdk

tcg

,kef = u

qif[uD; = udk

sidi = ko rabbit = SUBJ elephant = OBJ

oe|; = v| = [yD;

to

ka jou = ka

na = la = pi

that

time

pity(V)=COME=PFV

“us|; v| = rnfh ta la = m tiger come = RELIRR

aeh = r\|

xreJ&w = tdk; = o|

day = AT

tamanè-1 = pot = ONLY

ne = ma

tmn-t = o = a


153

usKd = x|; = m\ifh = yg/

to = ta = ni = pa

cook = RES = IMP = POL ‘Then, the rabbit took pity on the elephant and [said] ‘On the day the ti[Yin 1981: 114] ger will come, cook a pot of tamanè’ The verbs t|;us [ata] ‘admire’ and oe|; [na] ‘pity’ are classified as ‘verbs of psychological state’ (or psych-verbs)’ (Levin 1993: 188ff.). The psychological state of the experiencer (‘Ma Pu Kywe’ and ‘rabbit’), identified by the subject, undergoes a change triggered by the stimulus (‘snail’ and ‘elephant’), represented by the object. The function of &v| [la] ‘COME’ as an inchoative/perfective marker with change-of-state verbs is an extension from its function as a directional operator with motion verbs, both of which ultimately derive from the semantics of its source, the full verb v| [la] ‘come’. The latter describes the progression of an entity towards a location that is known, the DC, which is occupied by the SAPs, thus identifying a trajectory that is bounded/telic, with the SAPs considered as the target of motion. As Lichtenberk points out, “… the movement is TO the deictic centre, not just TOWARD it” (Lichtenberk 1991: 488). If we adopt the metaphor STATES ARE LOCATIONS and its sub-type REACHING, ENTERING A STATE IS ARRIVING AT A LOCATION (Lichtenberk 1991: 487), we can equate the trajectory of motion for come as schematised below: (269)

LOCATION1

> v| [la] ‘come’

LOCATION2

= DC = SAPs

with the trajectory of change from a previous state to a new end state: (270)

STATE1

> v| [la] ‘COME’

STATE2

The end state is the state identified by the full lexical verbs t|;us [ata] ‘admire’ and oe|; [na] ‘pity’, while the experiencers of these psychological states are located at the end of the trajectory of change in the same way as SAPs are the goals of a trajectory of motion marked by &v| [la] ‘COME’. In addition, as I have already stated, in the same way as reaching a place occurs over a

154

ASPECT IN BURMESE

period of time, the changes of state marked by &v| [la] ‘COME’ have as their goal the end-point of processes which take place gradually. The following are further examples of the use of this operator with accomplishments: (271) ae|ufqHk; = r\| nausou = ma last = AT

at|if = ] = r,f = r\|

au = ja = m = ma

be.victorious = GET = IRR = DEV

aocs| = w,f = [k

`rif = v| = w,f/

eta = t = hu

mji = la = t think = COME = REAL

be.sure = REAL = QUOT

‘[She] realised that it is sure that [one] will be victorious at last’ [Okell 1994: 97] The English translation for `rif&v| [mji-la] ‘think-COME’ used in this example is realise, whose paraphrase ‘come to a conclusion by the process of thinking’ highlights the process leading to a natural end-point and to the attainment of its goal. The same may be said of the following: (272) n a

evening

udk; = e|]D

xdk; = wJh

tcg

ol = u

ko = naji 9 = hour

to = t

ka u = ka

strike = RELREAL

time

she = SUBJ

taw|ftwef

qdk = edkif = v| = aw|h

tta

so = nai = la = t

quite.a.bit

recite = CAN = COME = BECAUSE

0rf;a`r|uf0rf;o|

`zpf = [yD;

tdyf]| = udk

wumjauwua

pji = pi

eija = ko

wi = t

be.happy

be = PFV

bed = TO

enter =REAL

0if = w,f/

‘[She had been trying to memorise the poem.] When nine o’clock struck, since she could recite quite a bit [of it], [she] was happy and [Okell 1994: 97] went to bed’ In this instance, &v| [la] ‘COME’ does not immediately follow the main verb qdk [so] ‘say, recite’, as in most examples in my sample, but it is pre-


155

ceded by the nuclear post-VN operator &mdkif [nai] ‘CAN’, which directly modifies the main verb: (273)

[[qdk = edkif] = v|] [[so = nai] = la] [[recite = CAN] = COME]

&v| [la] ‘COME’ does not have scope over qdk [so] ‘say, recite’ but it has scope over the combination [qdk = edkif] [so= nai] ‘recite-CAN’. This means that it is the ability to perform the activity (‘can recite a poem’) that is seen as having developed over time in order to produce the expected result (‘having come to the ability of reciting a poem’). The following is an interesting example of how important lexical decomposition is for the analysis of the use and function of aspectual operators in Burmese. The main character Maung Cho has to deliver a letter to the members of the village committee (the local council) and he asks an old man information on how to get there: (274) ar|ifcsdK = u mauto = ka Maung.Cho = SUBJ

p| = udk

tdwf = xJ = r\|

ei = t = ma pocket = INSIDE = AT

sa = ko

letter = OBJ

0\uf = ,l = v| = [yD;

tzdk;tdk

`y = ]|

 = ju = la = pi

poo

pja = ja

hide = TAKE = COME = PFV

old.man

show = WHEN

aus;]G| = au|frwD = ]Hk; = udk

a]|uf = oG|; = av = w,f/

tejwa = kmti = jou = ko

jau = wa = le = t arrive = GO = EU = REAL

village = committee = office = TO

‘Maung Cho hid the letter in [his] pocket and when the old man showed [him the way], [he] arrived at the office of the village committee’ [Yin 1981: 48] At first glance, it is difficult to justify the combination of a verb such as

0\uf [] ‘hide’ with the operators &,l = v| [-ju = la] ‘TAKE = COME’ that typically mark motion verbs. However, the meaning of hide does contain a component of motion or transference: someone moves an entity and places it at

156

ASPECT IN BURMESE

a particular location in order for the entity not to be found or seen. In this case, the Actor (Maung Cho) and the location at which the Undergoer (the letter) will be placed (his pocket) occupy the same physical space, the DC. This particular notion is further specified by the grammaticalised use of the full verb ,l [ju] ‘take’ (as the post-VN operator &,l [ju] ‘TAKE’), which from indicating ‘inner-directed’ motion (Matisoff 1991: 437-438) or “ … continuous causation of accompanied motion in a deictically-specified direction “ (Gropen et al. 1989, quoted by Levin 1993: 135) has been metaphorically extended to indicate activities performed for one’s own benefit, where the goal of motion is not the physical ego but the conceptual/subjective ego. In our example, although transference and objective motion do exist, it is more likely for &,l [ju] ‘TAKE’ to mark the activity as performed for the Actor’s benefit, in that he has hidden the letter in his pocket for his own safety. Moreover, even though &,l [ju] ‘TAKE’ marks in this case an abstract notion rather than an objective one, because of its inherent motional quality, it still needs to be specified as to the orientation of motion, marked by &v| [la] ‘COME’. The use of &,l [ju] ‘TAKE’ has as its semantic counterpart the use of the post-VN operator &ay; [pe] ‘GIVE’, derived from the full verb ay; [pe] ‘give’, marking activities performed for someone else’s benefit, or as the pre-VN operator ay;& [pe] ‘LET’ marking permission/causation. For example: (275) usKyf = u tou = ka I = SUBJ

r = a]; = wwf = aw|h m = je = ta = t

NEG1

= write = CAN = BECAUSE

q]| = udk,fwdkif sja = kodai Saya = oneself

a]; = ay; = ]\| = w,f/ je = pe = a = t

write = BEN = PITY = REAL ‘As I can’t write, the Saya himself wrote [it] down for me’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 120] (276) wpf = m\pf = xuf t = n = t 1 = year = OVER

ay; = r = vkyf = aw|h = bl;/

pe = m = lou = t = bu BEN

= NEG1 = work = FINAL = NEG2

‘[They] don’t allow [the Karen girls] to work for more than a year’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 120]


157

The use of give and take as markers of benefactive/causative alternation is well attested throughout South-East Asia. Lahu is a Tibeto-Burman language closely related to Burmese, which shows a close similarity with the pattern shown above. Lahu has three different forms to mark benefaction and/or causation (Matisoff 1991: 427-431; 437-438): (277) Lahu Post-head versatile verb – pî (a)

benefactive y 3sg

à ACC

chi this

qhe like

‘Tell that to him’ (b)

(source: main verb pî ‘give’)

qô tell

pî- BEN

[Matisoff 1991: 110-429]

causative ce-pî chu-pî

[fall-give] [be.fat-give]

‘make it fall; drop something’ ‘make him fat’ [Matisoff 1991: 110-429]

-pî marks benefaction with third-person entities, while benefaction with non-third person entities is marked by –lâ, derived from the main verb là ‘come’. For example: (278) ch chop

lâ

ve

BEN

INDICATIVE

‘chop for me/us/you’

[Matisoff 1988: 1347]

The alternation between the use of give and take is also seen in Thai, where the full verbs hâj ‘give’ and aw ‘take’ are used postpositionally in the same way as their Burmese counterparts (Matisoff 1991: 438):

158

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(279) phûujĭ woman

kèp pick

dkmáaj flowers

hâj give

‘The woman picked flowers [for somebody]’ (280) phûujĭ woman

kèp pick

dkmáaj flowers


aw

take

‘The woman picked flowers [for herself]’


Finally, &v| [la] ‘COME’ seems to be used in changes of state which mark (re-)entrance into a normal state of being, as Clark (1974) has shown to be happening in certain expressions in English. For example (Clark 1974: 320): (281) The motor came alive again (282) They came back to their senses The following are a few instances of the same use in Burmese:

avhv| = r\k = vnf;

(283) trsdK;o|; = p|ay mjoa = sape national = literature

lela = mu = l

study(V) = DEV = ALSO

yGifhvef; = v| = yg = w,f/ pwila = la = pa = t

flourish = COME = POL = REAL ‘Also the study of the national literature flourished [cf. ‘came to flourish after a period of cultural darkness’]’ [Okell 1994: 127] (284) wpf = aeh = r\|

rif; = ]Jh

pdwful;

t = ne = ma

mi = j

seiku

1 = day = AT

you = POSS

dream


159

tau|iftxnfay: = v| = vdrfh = r,f/ kautp = la = lei = m

materialise = COME = MAYBE = IRR ‘One day, your dream will come true’ (285) xdk

tcg

ol = ]Jh

ZeD; = u

tjuH

to

ka u = j

zni = ka

ta

that

time

wife = SUBJ

idea

he = POSS

] = v| = [yD; = ]if….

ja = la = pi = ji….

get = COME = PFV = WHEN ‘Then, his wife had an idea [cf. ‘she came up with an idea’]’ [Yin 1981: 106] (286) trsdK;orD;

rdepf&tenf;i,f&twGif;

`yefvnf

mjomi

mini-n-twi

pjal

woman

minute-a.little-duration

again

owd] = v| = cJh = w,f/ dija = la = k = t

regain.consciousness = COME = BACK.THERE = REAL ‘The woman came to in a few minutes’ (287) ol = wdkh u = to he = PL

tdyf]| = u

mdk; = v| = wJh

eija = ka

no = la = t

bed = FROM

wake.up = COME = RELREAL

tcg…… ka…

time….

‘When they woke up…[i.e. ‘came back to a state of alertness’]’ [Yin 1981:122] (288) ae|uf = xyf nau = ta further = AGAIN

aju|if = i,fav;&w = au|if tau = le-t = kau


160

ASPECT IN BURMESE


be.born = COME = ITER = EU = REAL ‘Another kitten was born [cf. ‘came into this world/to life’]’ [Yin 1981: 20] Other languages seem to use come to mark entrance of an entity into a normal state of being as in English and Burmese. For instance Thai shows instances of this use (Gandour 1978: 384): (289) kháw suùp he smoke

‘heroin’

fyýn recover

‘He recovered from his heroin trip’

maa come [Gandour 1978: 384]

as opposed to: (290) kháw suùp he smoke

‘heroin’

khlm doze

‘He tripped out on heroin’

paj go [Gandour 1978: 384]

The use of &v| [la] ‘COME’ to mark the entrance in and attainment of a state seen as the most natural/positive finds its opposite, as we will see, in the use of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ to mark the exit from states that are seen as the most natural/positive. 5.3.2.2

&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ with activity verbs

The operator &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ marks a predicate denoting a change of state perceived as occurring instantaneously, i.e. where the time span between the entity’s exiting the old state and entering the new one is negligible or irrelevant to discourse. This use of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ differs from that of &v| [la] ‘COME’ seen above, whose function is to mark a change of state attained by an entity, seen as unfolding towards a natural end-point through progression


161

in time. The difference between these two operators is shown in the following examples: (291) at;v\ = ]Jh

]if = xJ = r\|

odrfh = ceJ

ea = j

ji = t = ma

ei = kn

Aye.Hla = POSS

breast = INSIDE = AT tremble(V) = ABRUPT

wkefv\kyf = oG|; = av = w,f/ touou = wa = le = t

tremble = GO = EU = REAL [Yin 1981: 14]

‘There was a sudden stir in Aye Hla’s breast’ (292) an|if = udkif; = udk au = kai = ko tree = branch = OBJ

udkif = x|; = wJh

vuf = r\|

kai = ta = t

l = ma


hand = TOP

wkef = v| = [yD; = ]if

an|if = udkif;

tou = la = pi = ji

au = kai

tremble = COME = PFV = WHEN

tree = branch

yg&usdK; = [yD;

vdrfh&us = v| = av = w,f/

be.together-break = PFV

roll-fall = COME = EU = REAL

pa-to = pi

lei-ta = la = le = t

‘[Chaung Thu was so afraid that] when [his] hands holding the branches trembled, the branches broke and [he] fell with them’ [Yin 1981: 110] The predicates wkef/wkefv\kyf [tou/touou] ‘tremble’ “… describe a physical state of the subject that typically is a reflex of a particular psychological or physiological state” (Levin 1993: 224). In (291), the function of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ is to describe the time span between the Undergoer’s previous state and the entrance in the new state as minimal, as it is the case with punctual events. This view is supported by the discourse function of this clause, which introduces a foregrounded/perfective event, an event that advances the overall plot.

162

ASPECT IN BURMESE

In (292), on the other hand, the change of state marked by &v| [la] ‘COME’ is seen as having occurred over some time, and has the discourse function of setting the background for the scene that follows (Chaung Thu falling from the tree with the branches). One interesting use of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ is found in the following clauses:

(293) raehu

a]cJ

t]nfays|f = oG|; = w,f/

mnea

jek

jipj = wa = t

yesterday

ice


‘Yesterday, the ice melted’ (294) raehu

cGuf

uGJ = oG|; = w,f/

mnea

kw

kw = wa = t

yesterday

cup


‘Yesterday, the cup broke’ (295) raehu

AHk;

aygufuGJ = oG|; = w,f/

mnea

bou

paukw = wa = t

yesterday

bomb

explode(INTR) = GO = REAL

‘Yesterday, the bomb exploded’ The following are the logical structures of the main verbs in (293), (294) and (295): melted′ (ice) INGR broken′ (cup) INGR exploded′ (bomb)

BECOME

t]nfays|f [jipj] ‘melt’ uGJ [kw] ‘break’ aygufuGJ [paukw] ‘explode’

ACC ACH ACH

Their common structure can be visualised as follows: (296) [SUBJU

VINTR = oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ = w,f [t] ‘REALIS’]

The cause (whether an animate or inanimate Actor) that has brought about the change of state undergone by the entities involved in these events


163

(ice, cup, bomb) has been left unspecified because unknown, non-existent or irrelevant to the context of utterance. The inclusion of an Actor transforms the sentences into the following:

uGsefr

a]cJ

azs|f = vdkuf = w,f/

mnea

tma

jek

pj = lai = t

yesterday

I

ice

melt(TR) = FOLLOW =REAL

uGsefr

cGuf

cJG = vdkuf = w,f/

mnea

tma

kw

kw = lai = t

yesterday

I

cup

break(TR) = FOLLOW=REAL

(297) raehu

‘Yesterday, I melted the ice’ (298) raehu

‘Yesterday, I broke the cup’ (299) raehu

uGsefr

AHk;

mnea

tma

bou

yesterday

I

azgufcJG = vdkuf = w,f/

paukw = lai = t bomb explode(TR) = FOLLOW = REAL

‘Yesterday, I exploded the bomb’ The logical structures of the causative verbs in these examples are the following: (300) [do′ (x, ∅)] CAUSE [BECOME melted′ (ice)] [do′ (x, ∅)] CAUSE [INGR broken′ (cup)] [do′ (x, ∅)] CAUSE [INGR exploded′ (bomb)] The structures of the causative clauses are the following: (301) [SUBJA

OBJU

VTR

= vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ = w,f [t] ‘REAL’]

The semantic relation between the subject in (296) and the object in (301) is evident and brings us to the well-known discussion in the literature on which structural and semantic strategies languages adopt to signal the connection between a lower degree in agentivity and decreased valency in the clause. What is particularly interesting in these structures is the use of the two opera-

164

ASPECT IN BURMESE

tors &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ and &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’, derived from the full transitive verb vdkuf [lai] ‘follow’. The choice between these operators may be iconically/semantically motivated, in that in (296) the exit of the entity from its usual state, seen as the DC, is marked as irreversible by &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, the same operator used with motion verbs to denote the exit of an entity from its usual location (the DC) towards a destination that, in this case, is open-ended. On the other hand, the semantics of the full verb vdkuf [lai] ‘follow’, source of the post-VN operator &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’, implies the existence of two entities A and B, both moving on the same path, maintaining a particular order (A behind/after B) for a particular reason: (302)

A………..>

B………….>

The idea of spatial contiguity and sequentiality implied in the semantics of this verb has been naturally extended to include contiguity and sequentiality in time, which, in turn, have been re-analysed into a relation of direct causation and result between the entities involved. For instance, in this example: (303) Disease often follows (from) starvation because the body is weakened entity A (disease) ‘follows’ entity B (starvation), in that it comes after, i.e. it results from, entity B. The relation of temporal proximity and succession between two entities is therefore grammaticalised into a relation of direct causation and result between them, and their ordering reflects the order of causation, with A being the result of a situation triggered by B. A structure like (296), repeated here for convenience: (304)

[SUBJU

VINTR = oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ = w,f [t] ‘REAL’]

has been referred to in the literature as anticausative, in that the change of state that affects the Undergoer (in most cases an inanimate entity) takes place spontaneously, i.e. without the intervention of an Actor (‘the cup broke/has broken’). The anticausative contrasts with the prototypical passive and the ‘agentless passive’, in which the Actor is either demoted to the status of peripheral argument (such as ‘by the dog’ in ‘the cup was broken by the dog’) or omitted altogether even though considered as implied (‘the cup was broken [by


165

someone]’). What prototypical passives, agentless passives and anticausatives have in common is their use as markers of the decreased importance of the Actor and the correspondent increased salience of the Undergoer. In the collection of studies on valency edited by Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000a), many languages, such as Athapaskan (Rice 2000), and Amharic (Amberber 2000), signal the anticausative by means of derivational markers. On the other hand, the Australian language Ngan'gityemerri (Reid 2000), spoken in the Daly River region of the Northern Territory, possesses a construction that has anticausative effect and that shows an interesting similarity to our construction with &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’. In Ngan'gityemerri, there are two types of verb, simple verbs, that consist of verbs inflected for tense-aspect-modality, with prefixes cross-referencing their transitive subject and intransitive subject and suffixes cross-referencing their transitive object, and complex verbs, consisting of a simple verb (Reid calls it finite verb in its grammaticalised use, an operator in our terminology) and a lexical coverb (the main verb in our terms), mostly in that order. As Reid (2000: 337) states, usually it is not difficult to determine the semantic contribution of each verb to the overall meaning of a complex verb, as in 1 : (305) ngi-rim-fifi 1sgS-Sit-smoke ‘I’m smoking (sitting)

[Reid 2000: 338]

(306) nge-rim-Ø-kalal 1sgA-Hands-3sgO-rustle ‘I rustled it (with my hands)

[Reid 2000: 338]

However, there are many complex verbs where the use of the finite verb has been metaphorically extended to express more abstract concepts and it is precisely this use of Ngan'gityemerri finite verbs that is similar to the use of Burmese post-VN operators. In addition, Reid stresses the fact that the finite verb and the coverb have their own transitivity/valency values, namely:

1

In the following examples, the glosses S, A and O refer to intransitive subjects, transitive subjects and transitive objects respectively.

166

ASPECT IN BURMESE

Finite verbs Intransitive Transitive

(Go, Sit) (See, Slash)

Monovalent Bivalent low transitive Bivalent high transitive

(sleep) (pour) (spear)

Coverbs

When finite verbs and coverbs are used together, their combined transitivity/valency is responsible for the transitivity/valency value of the complex verbs. For the purposes of this study, I am particularly interested in one combination, namely that between intransitive finite verbs and high transitive coverbs. This combination produces intransitive clauses with the subject corresponding to the object of the transitive clause and has anticausative effect. For instance: (307) (a)

nge-rim-Ø-pal 1sgA-Hands-3sgO-break ‘I broke it’

(b)

ye-nim-pal 3sgS-Go-break ‘It is broken’ [Reid 2000: 347]

(a)

da-ngim-Ø-baty 3sgA-Poke-3sgO-sew ‘She’s sewing it’

(b)

ye-nim-baty 3sgS-Go-sew ‘He’s twisted up’ [Reid 2000: 347]

(a)

nge-rim-Ø-tum 1sgA-Hands-3sgO-bury ‘I sank it’

(b)

ngi-rim-tum 1sgS-Sit-bury ‘I’m sinking’ [Reid 2000: 347]

In (307a), high transitive coverbs (break, sew, bury) are combined with transitive finite verbs (Hands, Poke), which produce high transitive verbs with


167

A and O cross-referencing. In (307b), the same high transitive coverbs are combined with intransitive finite verbs (Go, Sit), yielding anticausative clauses, where the Undergoer of a highly transitive verb appears expressed as the only argument and where the Actor has been deleted. We have seen a similar type of alternation in Burmese (exs. 293-295 and 297-299). The non-causative/intransitive verbs uGJ [kw] ‘break’ and t]nfays|f [jipj] ‘melt’ in (293-295) are both marked by &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, although displaying different Aktionsarten (achievement and accomplishment respectively). The only argument SU in the clauses represents the entity that undergoes the change of state, while the Actor has not been specified. These constructions contrast with causative/transitive clauses (297-299), where the verbs cGJ [kw] ‘break’ and azs|f [pj] ‘melt’ are the causative counterparts of the verbs in (293-295) and where the presence of an Actor effectively performing a certain activity on the Undergoers ‘ice’, ‘cup’ and ‘bomb’, identified by the overt core arguments, is obligatory. Most importantly, these sentences differ in the choice of the operator marking the main verb, &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ for 293295) and &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ for 297-299). At first sight, the similarities between examples (307b) in Ngan'gityemerri and (293-295) in Burmese are striking: the two languages even use the same lexical source go to grammaticalise reduced agentivity. On the other hand, in Ngan'gityemerri the degree of transitivity/valency of the complex verb is determined by the combination of the degree of transitivity of both the finite verb (operator) and the coverb (main verb). In actual fact, it is the valency of the finite verb that determines the transitivity value of the whole complex verb. On the other hand, the degree of causation in Burmese may be a specific feature of the verb, signalled by the aspiration of the consonant in the onset, which originated from the assimilation of the Proto-Tibeto-Burman prefix *s-, marker of causation, or a feature of the verbal complex, morphologically marked by the productive post-VN operator &ap [se] ‘CAUSE’, derived according to Okell (1969: 406) from the full verb ap [se] ‘send, dispatch, command’. In these examples, it is not the semantic value of the operator that influences the semantic value of the whole clause and the choice between the two Burmese operators may have been motivated by the need to maintain the same transitivity value over the whole verbal complex, a phenomenon that has been shown to occur elsewhere. For instance, La Polla informs us that, in the TibetoBurman language Dulong/Rawang, the valency-reducing reflexive/middle

168

ASPECT IN BURMESE

marker -shì is used to transform transitive verbs into intransitive showing a component of volition (La Polla 2000: 289-295): (308) (a)

(b)

tvl-ò-ē roll-3+TR.N.PAST-N.PAST ‘to roll’ (transitive)

(La Polla 2000: 288)

tvl-shì-ē roll-R/M-N.PAST ‘to roll oneself (on purpose)’ (intransitive, but with intention) (La Polla 2000: 291)

There are cases, though, where –shì has the only function of intransitivising auxiliaries in order for them to match the intransitivity of the main verbs. For example: (309) àng-í 3sg-agt

shøng tree/wood

rí-mvn-ò-ē carry-continue-3+ TR.N.PAST-N.PAST

‘He is continuing to carry the wood’ (310) àng 3sg

[La Polla 2000: 293]

yøp-mvn-shì-ē sleep-continue-R/M-N.PAST

‘He is continuing to sleep’

[La Polla 2000: 294]

Interestingly, we do find in Burmese occurrences of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ marking agentive/transitive constructions: (311) (a)

csKdcsOf = udk

toti = ko

sweets = OBJ

p| = w| sa = ta

awGh = vdkh

twe = lo

eat = DEVREAL meet = BECAUSE

&v| [la] ‘COME’ AND &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ olh = u dk

]kduf = vdkuf = w,f/

u = ko

jai = lai = t beat = FOLLOW = REAL

he = OBJ

169

‘[I] beat him because [I] found him eating sweets’ (b)

csKdcsOf = udk

toti = ko

sweets = OBJ

p| = w|

twe = lo eat = DEVREAL meet = BECAUSE

sa = ta

olh = udk

]kduf = oG|; = w,f/

u = ko

jai = wa = t beat = GO = REAL

he = OBJ

awGh = vdkh

‘He was beaten (= someone beat him) because [he] was found eating sweets’ In both instances, we are dealing with ]kduf [jai] ‘beat’, a verb that entails the existence of an animate Actor performing a particular physical activity on an Undergoer. In the prototypical transitive sentence (311a), the operator &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ (derived from a transitive verb) marks the overt, iconic relation between the Actor, who is narrating the occurrence of the event, and the Undergoer. In (311b), the speaker is narrating the occurrence of the event performed on the Undergoer by an Actor that is unknown. Because the main verb implies a high degree of agentivity, and because of the need to show the reduced salience and/or individuation of the Actor, the operator &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ is replaced by &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, an operator derived from an intransitive verb and thus showing reduced valence. More interesting is the use of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ in the following example: (312) ar|ifcsdK = udk mauto = ko Maung.Cho = OBJ

ao|if;usef;ol = whdk = u

zrf; = oG|; = aju|if;

insurgent = PL = SUBJ

capture=GO=

audau = to = ka

pa = wa = tau

ABOUT

od = ] = aw|h

rs|; = pG|

mja = swa

a

know = GET = BECAUSE

much = ADV

anxiety

i = ja = t

ao|u

170

ASPECT IN BURMESE

a]|uf = ju = ] = av = w,f/ jau = ta = ja = le = t

arrive = PL = GET = EU = REAL ‘[Maung Cho’s parents] were much distressed when [they] came to know that Maung Cho was captured by the insurgents’ [Yin 1981: 33] Both the Actor (the insurgents) and the Undergoer (Maung Cho) are present in the structure, but their unmarked order of occurrence A-U has been changed into the marked U-A. Here again, the focus is no longer on the Actor, but on the Undergoer, and this change in salience is marked by a shift in the valence of the operator, which, in turn, marks the main verb as being less Actor-oriented or less ‘agentive’. The same verb zrf; [pa] ‘capture’ in the following example is interestingly marked by the operator &v| [la] ‘COME’: (313) aus|if;o|; = wdkh = u

“ig = wdkh = udk = aw|h

taua = to = ka

a = to = ko = t

student = PL = SUBJ

I = PL = OBJ = TOP

zrf; = v| = w|

r = [kwf = yg = bl; = uG|?

pa = la = ta

m = hou = pa = bu = kwa

capture = COME = DEVREAL

NEG1

= be.so = POL = NEG2 = ADDRESS

‘The students [said]: We were not captured’

[Yin 1981: 42]

The use of &v| [la] ‘COME’ here marks an activity seen from the viewpoint of the speaker, i.e. the Undergoer. It is the goal of the activity (the students who were captured) which is the focus of the sentence, not the source (the Actor). Finally, &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ is used with predicates denoting the exit from states that are seen as the most natural/positive, whose trajectory of motion away from the natural state is considered to be irreversible, in clear contrast with &v| [la] ‘COME’. One typical instance is its use with the verb aoqHk; [esou] ‘die’:

&v| [la] ‘COME’ AND &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ (314) `rif;jurf; = [uD; = u mjita = ti = ka horse = be.big = SUBJ

w = ]\def = wnf;

171

a`y; = v| = ]if;

t = ei = t

pje = la = ji

all = speed(N)

run =COME= WHILE

aw|euf = r\| = udk

a]|uf = wJh

tcg

tn = ma = ko

jau = t

ka

thick.forest = INSIDE = TO

arrive = RELREAL

time

tar|qdkh = [yD;

aoqHk; = oG|; = av = w,f/

be.choked.with.exhaustion = PFV

die = GO = EU = REAL

mso = pi

esou = wa = le = t

‘When the horse arrived in the forest running at high speed, [it] was choked with exhaustion and died’ [Yin 1981: 108] The exit from the normal or preferred state of being alive, marked by

&oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, is counterbalanced by the entry in the same state, indicated by the verb arG; [mwe] ‘be born’, marked by &v| [la] ‘COME’: (315) ae|uf = xyf nau = ta further = AGAIN

aju|if = i,fav;&w = au|if tau = le-t = kau



be.born = COME = ITER = EU = REAL ‘Another kitten was born’ Other examples of this use are the following: (316) ol

rsufpd

uG,f = oG|; = w,f/

u

mjsi

kw = wa = t

he

sight

go.blind = GO = REAL

‘He went blind’

[Yin 1981: 20]

172

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(317) uGsefaw|f = wdkh = wawG = eJh uGsefaw|f = wdkh = ]Jh tn = to = ttwe = n tn = to = j I = PL = all.the.others = AND I = PL = POSS

'D

a]uef

rdb = awG = u

miba = twe = ka

parent = PL = SUBJ

wdrfau| = oG|; = r\| = udk

di

jeka

teik = wa = ma = ko

this

pond

silt.up = GO = IRR = OBJ

pdk;]drf = ae = ju = yg = w,f/

sojei = ne = ta = pa = t

be.worried = CONT = PL = POL = REAL ‘We and our parents are afraid that this pond may silt up’ [Yin 1981: 74] (318) av = wdkuf = xJ = r\|

za,|if;wdkif = rD;

jidrf; = oG|; = w,f/

le = tai = t = ma

pjaudai = mi

ei = wa = t

wind = blow = INSIDE = AT

candle = fire

die.out = GO =REAL

‘The candle went out in the wind’ 5.3.3 &v| [la] ‘COME’ and &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ with stative verbs In my sample, most instances of stative verbs occur with &v| [la] ‘COME’: (319) ae|ufqHk; = r\| nausou = ma last-at

ol = u

pdwfysuf = v| = w,f/

u = ka she = SUBJ

seipj = la = t be.discouraged = COME = REAL

‘At last, she became discouraged’ (320) `rcif = ]Jh

atar = twGuf = vn;

mjaki = j

eme = tw = l

Mya.Khin = POSS

mother = FOR = ALSO

[Okell 1994: 97]


173

pdwfyl = v| = av = w,f/ seipu = la = le = t

be.worried = COME = EU = REAL ‘[She] became worried about Mya Khin’s mother’ (321) zdk;aw = udk pote = ko Po.Te = OBJ

[Yin 1981: 8]

qHk;r = ju = r,f = ]if

souma = ta = ji

admonish = PL = IRR = IF

vdR| = v| = mdkif = yg = w,f/ leima = la = nai = pa = t

be.wise = COME = CAN = POL = REAL ‘If [you] admonish Po Te, [he] will be able to become wise’ [Yin 1981: 42] (322) rdk;vif; = cg moli = ka dawn = time

eD; = v| = wJh

tcg = r\|……….

be.near = COME = RELREAL

ka = ma……. time = AT

ni = la = t

‘When it was almost dawn……..’ (323) a] = u je = ka water = SUBJ

[Yin 1981: 64]

ae|uf = [yD;

cef; = v| = yg = w,f/

nau = pi be.muddy = PFV

ka = la = pa = t be.scarce = COME = POL = REAL

‘The water became muddy and scarce’ (324) b[uD;&xGef; = ]Jh badi-tu = j Uncle-Thun = POSS

[Yin 1981: 70]

rsufm\| = u

0if;&xdef = v| = w,f/

mjna = ka face = SUBJ

wi-tei = la = t be.bright-be.shining = COME = REAL

‘Uncle Thun’s face brightened’

[Yin 1981: 74]

174

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(325) uGsefaw|f

[uD; = v| = ,if

tn

ti = la = ji

I

be.big = COME = WHEN

OD;OD; = vdk

vl = e| = awG = udk

uu = lo

lu = na = twe = ko

uncle = LIKE

person = be.ill = PL = OBJ

aq;uk = mdkif = wJh

yn| = rsdK;

give.treatment = CAN = RELREAL

pa = mjo knowledge = PL

seku = nai = t

wwf = csif = vdkuf = w|” = [k

a`y| = av = w,f/

know = WANT = FOLLOW = REAL = QUOT

say = EU = REAL

ta = ti = lai = ta = hu

pj = le = t

T

‘When I grow up, [I] want to learn to treat ill people like you, Uncle’ [Yin 1981: 26] In these examples, &v| [la] ‘COME’ has ingressive/inchoative function, marking the entrance of the Undergoers into a state/quality which has been attained over a period of time. The high frequency of use of &v| [la] ‘COME’ with stative verbs is counterbalanced by the low occurrence in the same context of &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’. I have found only two examples of its use with stative verbs:

taw|f (326) q]|r = u sjama = ka t teacher(fem) = SUBJ quite

tHhjo = oG|; = w,f/

a = wa = t

be.amazed = GO = REAL

‘The teacher was quite amazed’ (327) cyf = v\rf;v\rf; = r\| ka = aa = ma RATHER = be.far = AT

[Okell 1994: 102]

aoewf = udk

xrf; = [yD;

tv\nfhus

na = ko gun = OBJ

ta = pi

da

carry = PFV

in.turn

&v| [la] ‘COME’ AND &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’ ap|ifh = ae = wJh

ao|if;usef;ol&w = a,|uf = udk

sau = ne = t

audau-t = jau = ko

keep.guard = CONT = RELREAL

insurgent-1 = CLASS = OBJ

v\rf;&`rif = vdkuf = ] = wJh

tcg

a-mji = lai = ja = t

ka

reach.out-see = FOLLOW = GET = RELREAL

time

ydk = [yD;

175

pdwfnpf = oG|; = ]\| = av = w,f/

po = pi

seii = wa = a = le = t

be.in.excess= PFV

be.sad = GO = PITY = EU = REAL

‘[He] became very sad when [he] saw an insurgent standing guard at a distance with a gun on [his] shoulder’ [Yin 1981: 40] The entrance in the new state is seen as having occurred suddenly and/or unexpectedly, as in 326), or as having occurred simultaneously with another event, as in 327) (‘he became sad as he saw the insurgent’).

CHAPTER 6 THE POST-VN OPERATOR &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (RES)

6.1

The full verb x|; [ta] ‘put, place; keep’

The full verb x|; [ta] translates the English ‘put, place; keep’. It is identified as a causative accomplishment and its logical structure is characterised as follows: (328) [do′ (x, ∅)] CAUSE [BECOME be-loc′ (y, z)] It implies the presence of obligatory thematic relations, namely an Actor x that causes an Undergoer z to be placed or to be kept at a certain Location y. The Undergoer is affected by the action described by the main verb, and its resulting state is seen as permanent and, in some cases, irreversible. In Burmese, the structure of a clause containing the main verb x|; [ta] ‘put, place; keep’ is represented in its basic form as follows: (329)

#(NPSUBJ)

(NPOBJ)

PPLOC

VCOMPLEX#

The grammatical relations NPSUBJ and/or NPOBJ, representing the Actor and Undergoer respectively, may not appear within the clause if they are contextually retrievable. The presence of the PPLOC/Location is obligatory, given that it constitutes new information, and, therefore, cannot be inferred from the context. The following are examples where this verb is employed: (330) p|tkyf = udk saou = ko book = OBJ

p|;yGJ = ay: = r\|

sabw = p = ma

table = ON = AT

‘[I] put the book on the table’

x|; = w,f/ ta = t put = REAL

178

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(331) ydkufqH = udk paisa = ko money = OBJ

AD]dk = xJ = r\|

x|; = w,f/

cupboard = INSIDE = AT

keep = REAL

bijo = t = ma

ta = t

‘The money is kept in the cupboard’ Although motion is conceptually implied in the process of transference and location of an entity from one place to another, its orientation is not seen as an essential part of the semantics of this verb. On the other hand, there are verbs of putting in Burmese where orientation is embodied in their semantic specification, such as cs [ta] ‘put down’, xnfh [t] ‘put in’, xkwf [tou] ‘put out’, wif [ti] ‘put up’, etc. For instance:

(332) 'D

p|tkyf

cs = x|; = yg/

di

saou

ta = ta = pa

this

book

put.down = RES = POL

‘Put this book down, please’ The specification of location is not an obligatory part of their syntactic configuration, i.e. it is not expressed separately as a postpositional phrase, even though it is obviously incorporated into their semantic configuration. 6.2

The use of x|; [ta] ‘put, place; keep’ as a post-VN operator

The semantics of the causative accomplishment verb x|; [ta] ‘put, place; keep’ plays a major role in the determination of its aspectual function as a post-VN operator. Its logical structure is repeated here for convenience: (333) [do′ (x, ∅)] CAUSE [BECOME be-loc′ (y, z)] The semantics of this verb implies an activity [do′ … that is brought about by the Actor x and whose nature is left unspecified (∅). The result of this activity is seen as the product of a process of change in the location of the Undergoer z to its new location y, a process which occurs over a non-specified time span ([BECOME be-loc′ (y, z)]). The type of relation that holds between the states of affairs represented by the components of activity and result is one of causativ-

&x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (RES)

179

ity (CAUSE). We could paraphrase this by saying that the Actor causes the Undergoer to be placed at a certain location, and a state is produced as a result of this activity. When used post-verbally, &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ occurs with main verbs which are identified by the feature [- static], i.e. which denote a ‘happening’ (activities, accomplishment and achievements) rather than a ‘nonhappening’ (states) (VVLP 1997: 93): (334) acG; = i,fav; = udk kwe = le = ko dog = small = OBJ

olh = ]ifcGif = xJ

u = jiwi = t

ydkuf&csD = x|; = w,f/ pai-ti = ta = t

his = bosom = INSIDE hold-carry = RES = REAL

‘[When the dog jumped about happily, the boy ran out of the house and he] held the dog to his bosom and carried it’ [FR 14] In particular, &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ mostly occurs (not surprisingly) with causative accomplishments, since one of the characteristics of the resultative is to mark the affectedness of the Undergoer: (335) uGsefaw|f

`rif; = udk

tn

mji = ko

I

horse = OBJ

Zuf[udK; = m\ifh zto = ni

reins = WITH

csKyfwnf; = x|; = mdkif = w,f/

touti = ta = nai = t

control = RES = CAN = REAL ‘I can control a horse with the reins’ Its occurrence with stative verbs is barred, since states of affairs characterised by the feature [+ static] require no input of energy (i.e. no activity) by entities to maintain their status quo. In Burmese, a state may be viewed as simply existing as a quality or feature of the entity in question, as in:

180

ASPECT IN BURMESE

yef;

eD = w,f/

di

pa

ni = t

this

flower

be.red = REAL

(336) 'D

‘This flower is red’ Its existence is located by the clausal operator &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ in the universe of states of affairs in esse, while in:

yef;

eD = ae = w,f/

di

pa

ni = ne = t

this

flower


(337) 'D

‘This flower is red (now, but it could change its colour)’ the post-VN operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’, derived from the main verb ae [ne] ‘stay; live’ (see chapter 4), provides a narrower point of view on the continuation of the state as existing specifically at speech or reference time. In addition, &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ often occurs with main verbs that share the actual or metaphorically extended semantic component of location be-loc′ associated with the main verb x|; [ta] ‘put, place; keep’. For instance:

(338) aq;]kH

wif = x|; = cJh = ju = yg/

sejou

ti = ta = k = ta = pa

hospital

place = RES = BACK.THERE = PL = POL

‘Leave [him] in hospital’ (339) t0wf = qifwl wu = situ clothes = be.alike

[Yin 1981: 24]

0wf = x|; = w,f/ wu = ta = t

wear = RES = REAL

‘[They] wear [ = put and have on] similar clothes’ In many cases, this locative component is part of the inherent semantic make-up of the main verb:


181

(340) 0\uf = x|; = cJh = [yD; = ]if……  = ta = k = pi = ji

hide = RES = BACK.THERE = PFV = WHEN…. ‘When [he] hid [it] there….’ These observations suggest the following hypothesis. The semantics of the causative accomplishment verb x|; [ta] ‘put, place; keep’, as expressed by its logical structure (333), provides the basis for the reanalysis of this main verb into a resultative marker. The part of its logical structure that codes the change in the objective location in space of an entity and marks its attained state ([BECOME be-loc′ (y, z)]) is the prototypical component that is grammaticalised into indicating the change in the quality of an entity and its attained state. In accordance with the well-known metaphorical concept TIME IS SPACE, the semantic component of location that is embodied in the main verb may be thought to have metaphorically extended to mark location in time (i.e. duration). In fact, the state resulting from the activity is felt by native speakers as enduring unless it gets modified or interrupted by some other activity interfering with it. A further conceptual consequence of the grammaticalisation of x|; [ta] ‘put, place; keep’ into a resultative marker is to alter the natural tendency in Burmese towards active-like, Actor-centred constructions in favour of constructions whose perspective is focussed on the Undergoer. This is particularly true with change-of-state verbs, as we would expect it to happen, since it is the state of the entity that undergoes the change that is normally marked, not the state of the entity that causes the change. This accords with Comrie’s (1981a: 70ff.) observation of a correlation between aspect and voice, in particular between the perfect and passive voice. Comrie maintains that in language, “… there seems to be a marked bias toward A-orientation, to having A as subject in derived syntax - that is, a preference for active and accusative syntax rather than for passive and ergative syntax” (Comrie 1981a: 70). This bias can be weakened towards P-orientation (with P as the Undergoer/object of the predicate) by means of certain conditions, one set of which is aspect. Hopper and Thompson (1980) had already noted the close correlation between aspect, the degree of transitivity of the clause and the affectedness of the Undergoer. In particular, the alternation perfectivity/imperfectivity is seen to be one of the features related to a higher/lower degree of transitivity of the

182

ASPECT IN BURMESE

clause, matched by a higher/lower affectedness of the Undergoer. An important instance of this is seen in the following example in Finnish (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 271): (341) (a)

Liikemies kirjoitti businessman wrote

kirjeen letter (ACC)

valiokunnalle committee-to

‘The businessman wrote a letter to the committee’ (b)

Liikemies kirjoitti businessman wrote

valiokunnalle kirjettä letter (PART) committee-to

‘The businessman was writing a letter to the committee’ Here, the aspectual value of the two sentences depends on the higher or lower degree of affectedness of the Undergoer, shown by its marking by the accusative and partitive cases respectively. A totally affected Undergoer (marked by the accusative) is the result of an action that has fully attained its goal, i.e. a telic or perfective action. On the other hand, a partially affected Undergoer (marked by the partitive) is the result of an action seen as atelic or imperfective, i.e. it is seen as not having reached its end-point or result. The interplay between the affectedness of the Undergoer and perfectivity is clearly shown in Burmese by the use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’. In many clauses where this operator is found, we have the expression of the Undergoer overtly marked as an object, except in those cases where it is indefinite and/or inanimate, in which case it is left unmarked. On the other hand, the Actor is often syntactically understood, because retrievable from the context, or omitted altogether because irrelevant. Our sample includes various instances of the use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ in clauses where the Actor is left unspecified and where the only argument of the clause bears accusative case marking. The structures in question seem to show the same characteristics as those of (resultative) non-promotional passive constructions identified by Givón (1984, 1990) (see section 6.4.3). Researchers (Hopper and Thompson 1980, Nedjalkov 1988 among others) have been challenged over the years as to how to account for the variety of ways in which languages organise their aspectual systems in relation to the connection between perfectivity, imperfectivity and stativity. In particular, the


183

resultative has been associated with the perfect in ways that differ crosslinguistically according to the semantic ‘space’ and the functions allocated to these categories. The distinction put forward by Anderson (1982) between the general meaning of a linguistic (aspectual) category and its uses seems not to be a satisfactory one, since its uses normally are historical/metaphorical extensions of the source meaning. In addition, aspectual categories may be assigned different semantic and/or pragmatic scope: I will show how in Burmese the resultative and the perfect are to be considered as operators having scope over different structural levels within the clause. The aspectual operator &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ is a core operator, i.e. it has scope over the main verb and its core arguments. The category known in linguistic theory as ‘perfect’ is marked by the clausal operator &[yD [pi] ‘CURRENT RELEVANT STATE’ (CRS) and identifies a state of affairs as being relevant to the context of utterance 1 . To summarise: the function of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ is to mark the state of the Undergoer resulting from the activity expressed by the main verb, a state that is seen as stable and permanent. At the same time, it marks the affectedness of the Undergoer, therefore shifting the focus of attention from the entity that triggers the change to the affected entity. It should be emphasised that temporal reference takes no part in the interpretation of this form, since permanent states, conditions or qualities may be temporally located in the past, present or future alike. The concept of permanence may therefore even apply to the result of habitual activities and of events that may hold at any time (gnomic), depending on the semantics of the main verb and its context of occurrence. In addition, &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ is often found to express enduring properties or qualities of entities, typically following the verb in a prenominal relative clause, which is the common Burmese structure for the description of nominal properties/qualities. For instance:

1

I will adopt Li and Thompson’s (1981) terminology and gloss &[yD [pi] ‘Currently Relevant

State’ (abbreviated as

CRS)

in consideration of its similarity in meaning and use to the sen-

tence-final particle le in Mandarin Chinese. In addition, Burmese shows the operator &[yD; [pi] which seems to behave similarly to the Mandarin perfective marker –le. Li and Thompson warn us that “… it is important to keep the perfective aspect distinct from the sentence-final particle le…” (1981: 185) for reasons that will become clear later in my discussion.

184

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(342) 10 = wef; at|if = x|; = wJh 10 = ta au = ta = t 10 = standard pass = RES = RELREAL

uav; = awG? kle = twe

child = PL

‘children who have passed their Tenth Standard [exam]’ [Okell & Allott 2001: 99] Here again, by associating with &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’, [- static] main verbs may be used to convey qualities or properties that exist at speech or reference time. When comparing its use in relative clauses to that of the cognate form tā in a related Tibeto-Burman (Lolo-Burmese) language, Lahu (Matisoff 1973), the function of both these operators “…is precisely to convert action verbs into quasi-adjectival stative verbs” (Matisoff 1973: 324). In fact, &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ does not convert activity (or, more appropriately, [static]) verbs into ‘quasi-adjectival stative verbs’ (or [+ static] verbs), but it focuses on the result of these activities (‘having passed the exam’ in [342] above), which is seen as stable over time. One additional use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ is shown in imperative sentences, as in: (343) 'D

p|tkyf = udk

cs = x|; = yg/

di

saou = ko

ta = ta = pa

this

book = OBJ


‘Put this book down’ as opposed to: (344) 'D

p|tkyf = udk

cs = yg/

di

saou = ko

ta = pa

this

book = OBJ

put.down = POL

‘Put this book down’ How can we justify the use of this operator, given that the resultative is defined as marking the state of the Undergoer caused by a previous activity, since directives are typically performed after they have been issued? My consultant has pointed out that, unlike (344) which identifies a simple request, the


185

use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ in (343) seems to be pragmatically motivated. Since x requests or orders y to perform a certain activity z, the result of y’s performance brings about a new state of affairs. The function of a resultative may be that of de-emphasising x and y and of emphasising the resulting state of the entity involved. In pragmatic terms, this means adopting a nonconfrontational, more formal or polite style. 6.3

Status and order of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’

This operator does not seem to have undergone grammaticalisation to the same degree as other operators have. Close juncture seems to be optional, i.e. some speakers voice the initial consonant [t], others do not. In addition, it seems as if its tonal citation form does undergo downdrift, although this assumption should be considered as highly tentative, given that, to the best of my knowledge, no phonetic description of tonal sandhi mechanisms has ever been performed on Burmese, nor do the analytical tools in my possession display a sufficient degree of diagnostic reliability. Its order within the verbal complex is rigid: (345)

#(NPSUBJ)

NPOBJ

[V = x|; [ta] = …]VCOMPLEX#

It immediately follows the main verb, except when it is used in a negative clause. In this case, the negative operator r& [m] ‘NEG1’, which normally precedes the main verb, may be inserted between the main verb and &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’:

(346) #(NPSUBJ)

NPOBJ

[V - r [m] - &x|; [ta] = …]VCOMPLEX#

These features would point at its identification as the second member of a verbal compound, although its uses are definitely aspectual. 6.4

Uses of the operator &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’

6.4.1

Use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ with verbs of putting

&x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ is often found in association with verbs of putting, such as put, place, and derived forms. In each of the following exam-

186

ASPECT IN BURMESE

ples, section (a) expresses the affectedness of the Undergoer and its resulting state by means of the operator &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’. It indicates that the state of the Undergoer is maintained at speech/ reference time at a certain location, where we suppose the Undergoer still was, is and/or will be. The attention of the reader has therefore been shifted from the entity that performs the action to the entity that undergoes the results of that action. Section (b) shows the relevance of this attained state to the narrative that follows. (347) (a)

rif;o|; = m\ifh mia = ni

oabF|o|; = ig;]| = udk

iba = ja = ko

zrf;qD = ap = [yD;

prince = AND

sailor = 500 = OBJ

arrest= CAUSE=PFV

pasi = se = pi

ax|if&oGif;&tusOf;&cs = x|; = vdkuf = av = w,f/ tau-wi-ti-ta = ta = lai = le = t

jail-put.into-jail-put.down = RES = FOLLOW = EU = REAL ‘[He] had the prince and the 500 sailors arrested and put in prison’ (b)

u|v = twefi,f kala = ta

time = little

ju| = [yD; ta = pi

mia

elapse = PFV

prince

`yef = a]|uf = csdef

pja = jau = tei RETURN

rif;o|;

= arrive = time

wef = wJh

tcg

ta = t

ka

be.due = RELREAL

time

usef = ]\d = cJh = wJh

rif;orD; = u

be.left.behind = BE = BACK.THERE = RELREAL

princess = SUBJ

ta = i = k = t

mimi = ka

&x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (RES) pdwfyl = p

`yK = v| = av = aw|h = w,f/

seipu = sa

pju = la = le = t = t become = COME = EU = FINAL = REAL

be.worried = ADV

187

‘When time had passed and the prince had [not] returned, the princess, who had stayed behind, began to feel anxious’ [Yin 1981: 80-82] (348) (a)

olh = rdb = wdkh = u = vnf;

ar|ifcsdK = udk

u = miba = to = ka = l

mauto = ko

his = parent = PL = SUBJ = ALSO

Maung.Cho = OBJ

[rdKh = aq;]Hk = r\|

wif = x|; = cJh = [yD; = ae|uf

mjo = sejou = ma

ti = ta = k = pi = nau place = RES = BACK.THERE = PFV =after

village = hospital = AT

]G| = udk

`yef = v| = cJh = ju = av = w,f/

jwa = ko

pja = la = k = ta = le = t

village = TO

RETURN =

come = BACK.THERE = PL = EU = REAL

‘After Maung Cho’s parents had left him in hospital, [they] went back to the village’ (b)

`rifo| = [rdKh

aq]Hk

mjia = mjo

sejou

sjawu = ti = ka

Myintha = village

hospital

doctor = head = SUBJ

a`c&usdK; = ae = ol = uav; = udk te-to = ne = u = kle = ko

leg-break = CONT = he = small = OBJ

q]|0ef = [uD; = u

188

ASPECT IN BURMESE

juyfrwf = [yD;



kua = pe = le = t


give.medical.treatment = BEN = EU = REAL

‘The head doctor at Myintha hospital gave the boy with the broken leg careful treatment’ [Yin 1981: 24] (349) (a)

zG|;zG|;

tv\

aus|if;

oG|; = aw|h = r,f?

pwapwa

a

tau

wa = t = m

Grandma

Ah.Hla

school

go = FINAL = IRR

‘Grandma, Ah Hla [= I] is about to go to school’

zG|;zG|; = eJh

pwapwa = n

tazh = zdkh

[if = yef;uef

pe = po

hi = ba

Grandma = AND

father = BEN

curry = dish

aju|iftdrf = xJ = r\|

cyf&xnfh = x|; = cJh = w,f/

tauei = t = ma ka-t = ta = k = t

larder = INSIDE = AT spoon.out-put.in = RES = BACK.THERE = REAL ‘[I]’ve put the curry plate in the larder for grandma [= you] and father’

xrif;yGJ = vJ tmibw = l

dining.table = ALSO

`yif = x|; = cJh = [yD/

pji = ta = k = pi prepare = RES = BACK.THERE = CRS

‘[I] have also set the breakfast table’ (b)

at;v\ = u

aus|if; = vG,ftdwf = udk

ea = ka

tau = lwei = ko

Ah.Hla = SUBJ

school = bag = OBJ

&x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (RES) x]H = u

tja = ka

`zKwf = ,if;

189

tdyfcef; = xJ = u

eika = t = ka

pjou = ji

wall = FROM take.off = WHILE

bedroom = INSIDE = FROM

tzG|;&]\d&]| = udk

v\rf; = a`y| = vdkuf = av = w,f/

pwa-i-ja = ko

a = pj = lai = le = t

grandma-be-place = TO

REACH.OUT=speak=FOLLOW=EU=REAL

‘Aye Hla told [her] grandmother [who] was in [her] room while [she] was taking [her] school bag off the wall’ [Yin 1981: 2] 6.4.2

Use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ with verbs that imply ‘manner and/or intention of putting + location’

In the following examples, we find &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ used with verbs whose conceptual structure is similar to that of verbs of putting, but which differ from the latter in that the semantics of the activity of ‘putting’ that brings about a certain condition or state of the Undergoer is further specified as to its manner and/or intention: (350) ol

,laq|if = v| = cJh = wJh

u

jusau = la = k = t

he

take = COME = BACK.THERE = RELREAL

a]SG = ez|;wHk; = m\ifh

aiG = ez|;wHk; = wdkh = udk

we = npadou = ni

we = npadou = to = ko

gold = bar = AND

silver = bar = PL = OBJ

oabF|

OD;ydkif; = buf = r\|

tr\wfwrJh

ib

ubai = b = ma

matm

ship

fore.part = side = AT

casually

190

ASPECT IN BURMESE

0\uf = x|; = cJh = [yD; = vSsif

`yef = wuf = oG|; = av =./

hide = RES = BACK.THERE = PFV = WHEN

RETURN=go.up=GO=EU= REAL

 = ta = k = pi = ji

pja = t = wa = le = i

‘… [the prince came aboard the ship] with gold and silver bars and after having hid [them] casually, [he] went back up [to shore]’[Yin 1981: 80] (351) ao|if;usef;ol; = wdkh = vnf; audau = to = l insurgent = PL = ALSO

ar|ifcsdK = udk mauto = ko

Maung.Cho = OBJ

tp|;tao|ufauGs; = [yD; = ae|uf

ae = yl = xJ = r\|

saaute = pi = nau

ne = pu = t = ma

feed = PFV = after

sun = be.hot = INSIDE = AT

tvkyfjurf;

vkyf = ae = ol

aus|if;o|; = rs|; = m\ifh

louta

lou = ne = u

taua = mja = ni

hard.labour

work = CONT = he

student = PL = WITH

rv\rf;rurf; = r\| mamka = ma

short.distance = AT

]\d = wJh

i = t be = RELREAL

wJ = xJ = r\|

t = t = ma hut = INSIDE = AT

oGif; = x|; = vdkuf = ju = av = w,f/ wi = ta = lai = ta = le = t

thrust.into = RES = FOLLOW = PL = EU = REAL ‘After the insurgents had fed Maung Cho, [they] threw [him] into a hut not far from where the students were doing manual work in the heat of the sun’ [Yin 1981: 36] (352) (a)

uGsefaw|f = wdkh

aus|if; = a]\h = ]\d

tvH = wdkif = r\|

tn = to

tau = e = i

la = tai = ma

I-PL

school = front = BE

flag = pole = AT

&x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (RES) aus|if;

zGifh = wJh

tau

pwi = t

aeh = wdkif;

school

open = RELREAL

day = every

191

ne = tai

mdkifiH = aw|f = tvH = udk

naia = t = la = ko

country =APPELL = flag = OBJ

vSGifhwif = x|; = yg = w,f/ witi = ta = pa = t

put.up.flag = RES = POL = REAL ‘We put up the state flag in front of the school every day the school is open’ (b)

eHeuf

aus|if;

r = wuf = rD

nan

tau

m = t = mi

morning

school

enter = BEFORE

q]| = rs|; = m\ifh sja = mja = ni

teacher = PL =WITH

aus|if;olaus|if;o|; = rs|; = u tauutaua = mja = ka student = PL = SUBJ

xdk

tvH = udk

tav;`yK = ju = yg = w,f/

to

la = ko

lepju = ta = pa = t

this

flag = OBJ

salute = PL = POL = REAL

‘Before going in to morning school, the teachers and the students salute the flag’ [Okell 1994: 155] This last example is interesting in that it clearly shows how temporal reference is irrelevant in the use of this operator. In (352a), an activity is performed that brings about a state of affairs. Because of the presence of the temporal expression ‘every day the school is open’, this activity is seen as habitual. Not only does the use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ in this first clause highlight the result of this activity (the actual location of the flag on the pole), but it also has clear consequences on the events that follow, described in (352b) (the flag is on the pole, everybody in the school can see and salute it). This means

192

ASPECT IN BURMESE

that the focus should be placed here not on the activity that brings about a certain state, but on the latter, considered as the basis for future textual reference. Even though it is used to indicate the result of a previous activity, the latter does not necessarily have to have past time reference. The focus should instead be placed on the succession of events that cause a certain state to occur (the flag being at the top of the pole) and on the state itself, rather than on their actual temporal location, although one necessarily implies the other. 6.4.3 tions

Use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ in non-promotional passive construc-

In the preceding sections, &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ has been shown to occur in sentences where the grammatical relation NPSUBJ, representing the Actor, may or may not appear within the clause because it is contextually retrievable or because it is irrelevant to discourse. On the other hand, the presence of a NPOBJ, representing the Undergoer, is found with a high degree of regularity throughout my sample as a result of the marking by &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ of the change in perspective from the typical Burmese Actor-centred clause to a clause whose perspective is focussed on the Undergoer. While definite or referential NPOBJ are normally marked by &udk [ko] ‘OBJECT’, they are usually left unmarked if they are indefinite and/or inanimate. &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ is often used in constructions that show the presence of an overt NP object and the lack of the NP subject: (353) a`cax|uf = udk tedau = ko leg = OBJ

usyfpnf; = x|; = [yD;

tasi = ta = pi

put.in.splints = RES = PFV

‘[His] leg was put in plaster and…

[Yin 1981: 24]

As seen above, the Undergoer is syntactically marked as a direct object and, being the only argument present in the sentence, it typically precedes the verbal complex. The Actor has been suppressed, although its presence is implied in the semantics of the main verb. The use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ further strengthens this view, in that it typically occurs with causative accomplishment verbs, which, by their same nature, require the presence of both an Actor and an Undergoer in their conceptual structure. We have already shown


193

that one of the functions of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ is to stativise the event in question, by emphasising both the state of the Undergoer resulting from a previous action and the salience of the Undergoer itself. Interestingly, this is one of the functional domains of passive voice that has been exemplified by Givón (1990: 571ff). My intention is to show that &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ is used as part of the valence 2 decreasing strategies that mark a shift in the way speakers organise the structure of prototypical transitive events. In a prototypical transitive event, there are three central semantic categories: 1) the Actor, which identifies “… a volitional, controlling, initiating, active agent, ... i.e. its [the event’s] salient cause” (Givón 1990: 565); 2) the Undergoer, which identifies “… an inactive, non-volitional, non-controlling patient, one that registers the changes-of-state associated with the event, i.e. its salient effect” (Givón 1990: 566); 3) the verb, which identifies a non-durative, realis verb, i.e. one that is “… perceptually and cognitively salient” (Givón 1990: 566). The prototypical transitive event may be seen from a different perspective, whereby the Actor’s salience is pragmatically reduced in order to assign new thematic importance to the other non-Actor argument. As a result, the attention on the event shifts from the existence of a process implemented by the Actor to the existence of a state produced by it and pertaining to its target, i.e. the Undergoer, which becomes the most salient (if not the only) participant in the event. This shift in perspective is coded by different strategies. In the passive, the Actor of a transitive event is demoted from its topic position for reasons that are language-specific. One consequence of the demotion of the Actor from its topic position is that some other participant in the event may be promoted to topic salience. Both demotion and promotion can be semantically and syntactically performed in a number of ways cross-linguistically. The tendency towards the stativisation of the event is a fairly common phenomenon. It is implemented by various grammatical means, such as the use of the auxiliary be in English and other languages and other non-finite verb forms, such as adjectival, participial, perfect, resultative or nominal forms (Givón 1990: 572). 2

In my terminology, drawn from Payne (1997), valence stands for semantic valence, i.e. “…

the numbers of participants that must be ‘on stage’ in the scene expressed by the verb” (Payne 1997: 169), while transitivity stands for grammatical valence, i.e. “… the number of arguments present in any given clause” (Payne 1997: 170).

194

ASPECT IN BURMESE

What syntactic structures are involved in the marking of passive voice constructions? Three syntactic features are particularly important: (1) (2) (3)

the syntactic treatment of the demoted Actor; the syntactic treatment of the promoted non-Actor; the syntactic treatment of the passive verb

They stand in an “isomorphic relation” to the main functional features of the passive, i.e.: (1) (2) (3)

Actor demotion or deletion; Non-Actor promotion Verb stativisation

The three syntactic features tend to group together into two major clusterings (Givón 1990 575-6): (1)

full promotion of the Undergoer to subjecthood; optional occurrence of the Actor in an oblique case; a grammatically more stative verb form;

(2) -

promotional (or canonical) passive, characterised by 3 :

non-promotional (or impersonal) passive, characterised by: retention of the Undergoer’s active case-marking; obligatory deletion of the Actor; a grammatically more active verb form;

The special interest in the syntactic case-marking of the non-Actor in the passive stems from its role in determining what Givón calls a functional bind (1990: 577), i.e. a functional restriction on the morpho-syntactic options available for the marking of the non-Actor. If the latter is marked for its semantic role in the clause, then it will not reflect its pragmatic subject/topic role. On the 3

The fourth feature, i.e. the restriction on the range of non-Actor case-roles that can become

the topic of a passive, has not been included here because not relevant to my discussion.


195

other hand, if it is marked for its pragmatic role as the subject/topic of the sentence, it will not reflect its semantic role. According to Givón “The crosslinguistic typology of passives may be construed, at least from one perspective, as the range of alternative solutions to this functional bind” (1990: 577). Because of the pragmatic and functional features of passive constructions, the same language may display different de-transitivising strategies, to the extent that we should talk about the “family of de-transitive constructions” (Givón 1990: 618). The members of this family share at least one of the major functions of the prototypical passive, although some of them are ‘more passive’ than others. This situation may have been caused by the existence of passive constructions that originated from different diachronic sources within the same language. In the light of this brief discussion of passive morpho-syntax, how can we explain our Burmese examples? Are they instances of a well-defined passive type or are they idiosyncratic exceptions proving an otherwise wellestablished, balanced, transitivity-driven system? In Burmese, transitivity seems to be the preferred option. The commonest de-transitivisation strategy is conveyed lexically by the verb cH [ka] ‘endure, suffer’ followed by the post-verbal operator &] [ja] ‘GET’ derived from the full verb ] [ja] ‘get; obtain; have” as in: (354) acG;

t]dkuf

kwe

jai

dog

beating (N)

cH = ] = w,f/

ka = ja = t suffer = GET = REAL

‘The dog was beaten’ or alternatively: (355) acG;

]dkuf = `cif;

cH = ] = w,f/

kwe

jai = ti

ka = ja = t

dog

beat (V) = DEV

suffer = GET = REAL

‘The dog was beaten’ In my sample, I found one interesting instance of passive expressed periphrastically:

196

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(356) tvif;a]|if = m\ifh lijau = ni light = AND

avau|if;avoefh

au|if; = pG|

leaulea

kau = swa

fresh.air

be.good = ADV

] = wJh

ja = t

tcef; = udk

p|junfhwdkuf = t`zpf

ka = ko

satidai = pji

get = RELREAL room = OBJ

library = appearance

zGihf = x|; = `cif;

`zpf = yg = w,f/

pwi = ta = ti

pji = pa = t be = POL = REAL

open = RES = DEV

‘A room that had good light and fresh air was opened as a library’ [Okell 1994: 83] The verb `zpf [pji] ‘be; become’ is normally used to describe qualities or properties that are time-stable and unchangeable (‘He is a doctor’, ‘He is Burmese’). The segment:

zGifh = x|; = `cif;

pwi = ta = ti

open = RES = DEV shows the main verb followed by the resultative, which expresses the state of the entity and its permanence. Both these forms are followed by a deverbaliser that transforms the verbal unit into a verbal noun/gerund. This construction is an obvious calque from the English periphrastic passive; my Burmese consultant has defined it as ‘unusual and awkward’ even in formal contexts, and has rejected it altogether. This construction occurs only once in my sample, a fact that supports the idea that it is definitely the rarest and the most artificial of options. Let us consider the following examples:

&x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (RES) (357) p|tkyf = rs|; = udk saou = mja = ko book = PL = OBJ

tzHk;

197

zHk = x|; = yg = w,f/

pou

pou = ta = pa = t

cover (N)

put.a.cover.on= RES = POL = REAL

‘The books have been covered’

[Okell 1994: 83]

(358) p|zwf = ]ef sapa = ja read = TO

p|;yJG = m\ifh

ukv|;xdkif = rs|; = udk

table = AND

chair = PL = OBJ

sabw = ni

kltai = mja = ko

ae]|wus

cif;usif; = x|; = yg = w,f/

orderly

lay.out = RES = POL = REAL

nejadda

kiti = ta = pa = t

‘A table and chairs have been set out tidily so that [we can] read’ [Okell 1994: 83] (359) eH]H = r\| naja = ma wall = AT

p|ay = yn|]\if = [uD; = rs|; = ]Jh

yHk = udk

sape = pai = di = mja = j

pou = ko

literature = scholar = famous = PL = POSS

picture=OBJ

csdwfqGJ = x|; = yg = w,f/

teisw = ta = pa = t

hang = RES = POL = REAL ‘On the wall have been hung pictures of famous writers’ [Okell 1994: 83] (360) tdrf = rs|; = udk ei = mja = o house = PL = OBJ

pepfwus

aq|ufvkyf = x|; = yg = w,f/

orderly.way

build = RES = POL = REAL

snitta saulou = ta = pa = t

‘The houses are/have been built in an orderly way’ (361) p|junfhwdkuf = r\| satidai = ma library = AT

p|tkyf = rs|; = udk

saou = mja = ko book = PL = OBJ

[Okell 1994: 36]

198

ASPECT IN BURMESE

m\pf = rsdK;

cJG = x|; = w,f/

n = mjo

kw = ta = t

2 = type

divide = RES = REAL

‘In the library, the books are/have been divided into two kinds’ [Okell 1994: 83] Here, the Actor has consistently been deleted because of its irrelevance to the context. Obviously, the Actor is implicitly present in the semantics of the main verb as well as in the semantics of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’, i.e. it is part of their conceptual structure. The Undergoer has not been promoted to subjecthood, but it retains its semantic role in the clause, reflected in its syntactic marking as a direct object. In all examples, the main verb is associated with the operator &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’, which focuses on the state of the Undergoer resulting from the action expressed by the main verb. The event is reframed as a resulting state (Givón 1990: 571), although one important property of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ is to stress the agentivity/dynamicity of the process that has led to the resultant state, by implying the existence of an Actor, whose presence is not required by the context. The above-mentioned features can be summarised as follows: (1) (2) (3)

deletion of the Actor retention of the Undergoer’s active case-marking the verb shows a more ‘agentive’ verb form, identified by &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’

Features (1) (although not obligatory in Burmese) and (2) unequivocally characterise the non-promotional/impersonal passive type identified by Givón. The increased activity reading of the verb form given by &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ is a result of its semantic specification. Not only does this operator embody the specification of stativity, it also marks the conceptual specification of activity which precedes and causes the resulting state of the Undergoer. In this sense, it would be more appropriate to ascribe this feature to a more eventive process, where the focus is more on the dynamics of the event, as seems to be the case in the non-promotional/impersonal passive. The following structures show this point clearly:

&x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (RES) (362) (a)

John = u John = ka John = SUBJ

wHcg; = udk

zGifh = w,f/

door = OBJ

open (TR) = REAL

da = ko

199

pwi = t

‘John opened the door’ (b)

wHcg; = udk

zGifh = x|; = w,f/

door = OBJ

open (TR) = RES = REAL

da = ko

pwi = ta = t

‘The door has been/was opened (and still is)’ (c)

wHcg; da

door

yGifh = ae = w,f/

pwi = ne = t open (INTR) = CONT = REAL

‘The door is open’ (362a) is a prototypical transitive, active sentence, with the presence of both the Actor and the Undergoer marked for their respective case. The verb identifies a typical realised, dynamic, bound event. In (362b) the Actor has been left unspecified, while the Undergoer preserves the semantic role it had in the active sentence. The transitive verb is followed by &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ which refers to the state of the Undergoer, caused by a previous action of an unspecified Actor. (362c) shows the Undergoer in its actual, qualifying situation, with no formal specification of the circumstances that caused this situation to occur. Here, the Undergoer is unmarked for case and the intransitive verb is marked for continuation at speech time by the operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’. What we see here is the shift in perspective from a full, well-defined transitive event, where both participants are equally salient, to a state where only one of the participants in the original event maintains its salience. The use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ combines the resulting quality of the Undergoer’s state with the dynamicity of the event that brought about that state. In addition, together with the demotion of the Actor and the non-promotion of the Undergoer, we witness the semantic demotion of the event, from a prototypical activity to a state via a non-promotional/impersonal, passive-like construction. We can therefore state that one of the functions of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’

200

ASPECT IN BURMESE

is to mark de-transitivisation of a more eventive, dynamic kind, that is reflected in the way the Undergoer and the verb expressing the event are coded. Other languages show similar resultative constructions to de-transitivise clauses. In their work on resultatives, Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988) distinguish different types of resultative constructions, according to the relationship that exists between the semantic roles/syntactic arguments of the source event and those of the resultative state. For my purposes, the most interesting types are the objective resultative and the objective-impersonal resultative. In objective resultative constructions exemplified in a number of Russian dialects, the Undergoer is syntactically shown in object position in the source sentence and in subject position in the resultative (Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 9): (363) (a)

Oni pomy-li They wash-PAST

pol floor

‘They have washed the floor’ (b)

Pol floor

pomy-vši wash-GERUND

‘The floor is washed’

objective resultative

The result of the action represented in (363a) is shown in (363b), where the Undergoer is unmarked for case and the verb is nominalised by means of the gerund marker –vši. These features give this construction an intransitive, noun/objective-like, quality-related character, i.e. the focus here is not on the action and its Actor that brought about the state but on the state itself and its relation to the Undergoer. On the other hand, in constructions such as the following: (364) (a)

Podošv-u shoe.sole-ACC

otorva-li tear.off-PAST

‘(They) have torn off the shoe sole’

&x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (RES) (b)

Podošv-u shoe.sole-ACC

201

otorva-no tear.off-PAST.PASS.PART

‘The shoe sole is torn off’

objective-impersonal

the source sentence (364a) shows no overt Actor/subject and the Undergoer is marked for object case. In the resultative (364b), the Undergoer is still marked for object case, while the verb bears a passive past participle, which stativises the event while maintaining a clear connection with the action that brought this state into being. This particular form of resultative, which Nedjalkov and Jaxontov have called objective-impersonal resultative, still focuses on the Undergoer, while the Actor is contextually irrelevant as it was in the corresponding active event. An interesting parallel can be seen in Kannada. In Kannada (Siewerska 1984: 98), impersonal passives are formed only from transitive verbs: (365) (a)

Krishna-Ø-nu Krishna-NOM-3s

Rama-nannu Rama-ACC:3s

kond-an-u kill-3s-PAST

Ramu-Ø Rama-NOM

ko-pattu-nu kill-PASS-PAST

‘Krishna killed Rama’ (b)

Krishna-nu-indu Krishna-3s-INST

‘Rama was killed by Krishna’ (c)

Rama-nannu Rama-ACC:3s

kollalayitu kill:become:PAST

‘Rama was killed’ In (365b), the canonical passive is shown by the presence of both the Actor and the Undergoer in the event, respectively demoted and promoted to their respective pragmatic cases. In (365c), the Agent has been deleted, the Undergoer bears accusative case, its case in the active source structure, and the verb is followed by a verbal operator that derives from the main verb agu ‘become’, a typical source for the resultative. The same conceptual structure underlying

202

ASPECT IN BURMESE

the main verb x|; [ta] ‘put; keep’ from which &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ has originated, contains the semantic component BECOME as part of the combined activity and result of movement of a certain entity from one place to another, and its resulting locative state. In the light of what has been argued so far, the operator &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ may be seen to work as a device whose function is to alter the Burmese usual, active-like Actor-centred perspective on events. &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ emphasises the role and the state of the Undergoer while leaving the Actor unspecified. The Undergoer maintains its semantic role, identified by its object case marking, while &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ stativises an erstwhile dynamic verb. The treatment of the two participants in the event is totally consistent with the definition of the non-promotional type of passive identified by Givón, and the status of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ definitely marks a more eventive type of de-transitivisation. As it is clear from the data, these features neatly point to the primacy of the semantic specification of arguments and events over the pragmatic specification of the same. 6.4.4

&x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ in relative clauses

While introducing the different functions of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’, I pointed at its use in a pre-nominal relative clause, occurring with [- static] main verbs, to express enduring properties or qualities of entities at speech or reference time. The following are a few instances of this construction: (366) ol

arG;`rL = x|; = wJh

u

mwemju = ta = t

she

raise = RES = RELREAL

a]SG = juufwla]G; = uav;&w = au|if = udk

we = ttujwe = kle-t = kau = ko

gold = parrot = little-1 = CLASS = OBJ

oabF|

vSGifh = cJh = av = w,f/

jusau = pi

ib

wi = k = le = t

take = PFV

boat

sail = BACK.THERE = EU = REAL

,laq|if = [yD;


203

‘She carried [with her] a little golden parrot that [she] had raised and set sail’ [Yin 1981: 82] (367) uif;ap|ifhrif;o|; = vnf; kisaumia = l outpost.prince = ALSO

ol u

he

cs = x|; = cJh = wJh

a]SG&ez|wHk; = m\ifh

ta = ta = k = t

we-npatou = ni

put.down = RES = BACK.THERE = RELREAL

gold = bar = WITH

aiG = ez|wHk; = rs|; = udk

r = awGh = ] = aw|h

we = npatou = mja = ko

m = twe = ja = t

silver = bar = PL = OBJ

NEG1

olh = tqdk

= find = CAN = BECAUSE

]SkH; = ] = av = w,f/

u = so

ou = ja = le = t

his = deal

lose = GET = EU = REAL

‘The prince lost his deal because he couldn’t find the gold and silver [Yin 1981: 84] bars that he had left [on the ship]’ (368) ar|ifzdk;cif = u maupoki = ka Maung.Pho.Khin

ol = ]Jh

xrif; = xkyf = udk

u = j

he = POSS

tmi = tou = ko food-packet = OBJ

a`z = vdkuf = wJh

tcg

pje = lai = t

ka

tmi = ni

open = FOLLOW = RELREAL

time

rice = WITH

a]| = [yD; j = pi

mix = PFV

xkyf = x|; = wJh tou = ta = t

xrif; = m\ifh

juuf = uif&w = pdwf = udk

t = ki-t = sei = ko pack = RES = RELREAL chicken = roast (V)-1 = piece =OBJ

204

ASPECT IN BURMESE

awGh = ju = ] = av = w,f/ twe = ta = ja = le = t

find = PL = GET = EU = REAL ‘When Maung Pho Khin opened his lunch pack, [they] found rice with one piece of roast chicken’ [Yin 1981: 132] (369) ol

vkyf = x|; = wJh

u

lou = ta = t

p|tkyfpif = uav; = u

he

make = RES = RELREAL

bookshelf = little = SUBJ

saousi = kle = ka

tvGef

v\ = w,f/

lu

a = t be.pretty = REAL

very.much

[Okell 1994: 29]

‘The little bookshelf he made is very nice’ (370) aw|ifolv,for|; = aeh = u

aw|ifolv,for|; = rs|; = udk

tauulma = ne = ka

tauulma = mja = ko

peasant = day = SUBJ

peasant = PL = OBJ

t`rwfwmdk;

8kEf`yK = x|; = wJh

mjatno

oupju = ta = t

aeh

respectfully

honour = RES = RELREAL

day

ne

`zpf = w,f/ pji = t

be = REAL ‘Peasant’s Day is the day when [we] respectfully honour the peasants’ [Okell 1994: 147] I have also compared the use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ in relative clauses to that of the cognate form ta in Lahu, a related Tibeto-Burman (LoloBurmese) language spoken in three villages of Thailand’s Chiang Mai Province, called ‘standard Black Lahu’ (Matisoff 1973). These speakers of Black Lahu migrated from the Kentung area of the Shan State in Burma, a fact that explains the close relation existing between Black Lahu and Burmese.


205

The Lahu verb particle ta and the Burmese operator &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTAoriginated from semantically equivalent main verbs, i.e. the causative accomplishments ta/x|; [ta] ‘put, place’. Both main verbs are said to derive from a Tibeto-Burman form ta ‘place’ (see Benedict 1972: 19). In relative clauses, the function of both these operators “…is precisely to convert action verbs into quasi-adjectival stative verbs” (Matisoff 1973: 324). As I anticipated earlier in my discussion, &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ does not convert [- static] verbs into ‘quasi-adjectival stative verbs’ (or [+ static] verbs), but it extends the temporal boundary of the former to the point where they lose their distinctness and they acquire time stability. In Lahu and Burmese, relative clauses typically precede the nominal form they modify. The following is an example from Lahu (Matisoff 1973: 324):

TIVE’

(371) [jemu-qu qh in.earthen.pot

ka-ta-ve]

lachi-pi

stick-PUT-REL

fist

‘The fist that got stuck in the earthen pot’ The structure of Lahu relative clauses closely resembles that of Burmese relative clauses, and we may visualise both structures as follows: [V - ta/x|; [ta] ‘put, place’ – REL]

NPREL

In Lahu, unlike in Burmese, the combination [V + ta + REL] may be shifted to post-head position, thus conveying a property or quality of the NP whereas in Burmese, the combination [V + &x|; [ta] + REL] always precedes the head. In addition, in both Lahu and Burmese, the two operators never occur with stative verbs that express properties or qualities. The function of both operators is to show that the quality or property of the nominal form modified by the relative clause still holds at speech/reference time and that it is an essential part of the identification process of the head noun. In Burmese, the use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ highlights the dynamicity of the event that caused the resulting state, while with stative verbs, the continuation of the state is left unmarked, if it is said to hold indefinitely, or it is marked by &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ if the state is seen as holding at speech or reference time.

206

ASPECT IN BURMESE

6.4.5 &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ in imperative clauses The usual definition of a resultative as a marker of a state produced by a previous activity does not apply here, given that directives are typically performed after they have been issued. In this case, the use of this operator in imperative sentences is pragmatically motivated. Its function would be that of deemphasising both the issuer and the addressee of the directive and of emphasising the resulting state of the entity involved. Pragmatically, this means adopting a non-confrontational, more formal or polite style. For instance: (372) (a)

p|tkyf = udk saou = ko

book = OBJ

cs = yg/

ta = pa put.down = POL

‘[Where shall I put the book?] Put the book down (anywhere)’ (b)

p|tkyf = udk

cs = x|; = yg/

saou = ko

ta = ta = pa

book = OBJ


‘Put the book down’ (c)

p|tkyf = udk

cs = vdkuf = yg/

saou = ko

ta = lai = pa

book = OBJ

put.down = FOLLOW = POL

‘[You are not doing what you are being told] Put the book down’ (372a) represents an ordinary request, produced in a casual way, with emphasis put neither on the addressee nor on the entity or its location. In (372c), the use of &vdkuf [lai] ‘FOLLOW’ adds force to the request, by emphasising the role of the issuer of the request rather than that of the addressee. In (372b), the use of &x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ emphasises the resulting state of the entity involved and takes the emphasis off both the issuer of the request and the addressee, producing a less intimidating, less confrontational request. The following are examples where this operator is used in imperative sentences:

&x|; [ta] ‘RESULTATIVE’ (RES) (373) aq;]kH

sejou

hospital

207

wif = x|; = cJh = ju = yg/

ti = ta = k = ta = pa

place = RES = BACK.THERE = PL = POL

‘Leave [him] [in] hospital’ (374) 'Dr\|

ig

[Yin 1981: 24]

a`y| = w| = udk

au|if;au|if; r\wf = x|; = yg/

dima a

pj = ta = ko

kauau

ma = ta = pa

here

say = THING = OBJ

properly

note = RES = POL

I

‘Note carefully what I say here’ (375) us|;

[Yin 1981: 46]

v| = rnfh

aeh = r\|

xreJ&w = tdk; = o|

ta

la = m

ne = ma

tmn-t = o = a

tiger

come = RELIRR

day = AT

porridge-1 = pot = ONLY

usdK = x|; = m\ifh = yg/ to = ta = ni = pa

cook = RES = IN.ADVANCE = POL ‘On the day the tiger will come, please cook only one pot of porridge’ [Yin 1981: 114] (376) ap|if

vHkvHk

`cHK = x|; = yg/

sau

loulou

blanket

completely

tou = ta = pa cover = RES = POL

‘Cover yourself up with a blanket’ (377) olh = udk u = ko she = OBJ

aju|if = awG = eJh

r = up|; = zdkh?

tau = twe = n

m = kza = po

cat = PL = WITH

NEG1

= play = TO

twl

r = tdyf = zdkh

a`y| = x|; = yg/

tu

m = ei = po

pj = ta = pa

together

NEG1

= sleep = TO

say = RES = POL

‘Tell her not to play or sleep with cats’

CHAPTER 7 THE POST-VN OPERATOR &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ (PFV)

7.1

Introduction

In this section, I will be dealing with the grammatical(ised) use of the full verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ in post-verbal position. Its low frequency of occurrence as the head of the verbal complex in independent constructions is matched by its uncommon use as the post-VN operator &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ in the same syntactic environment. In fact, the latter may be found as an operator in independent constructions mainly in association with the sentential postVN operator &[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (CRS), a combination which closely resembles the association in Mandarin between the perfective operator -le and the sentence-final particle le ‘Currently Relevant State’ (Li and Thompson 1981). This specific use and function of &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ will be discussed in the section dealing with &[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (CRS) (see chapter 8). In addition to its rare appearance as a perfective marker in independent clauses, &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ is most commonly found to mark grounding in discourse, i.e. “… to mark levels of information saliency” which creates “… texture within text” (Fleischman 1990: 168). In order to ‘knit the fabric’ of narrative discourse (Berman and Slobin 1994: 19), the pragmatic alternation between salient (foregrounded) parts of discourse and non-salient (backgrounded) ones is often mapped onto grammatical devices which are part of what has been defined as the functional category of connectivity in discourse. One of its preferred formal expressions is clause-linking, whereby speakers ‘connect’ or package clauses into larger structures in which certain parts and certain participants in the narrative play a major communicative role than others, and it is precisely in clause-linking that &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ is used most effectively. My analysis has highlighted its main discourse features as follows:

210

(a) (b) (c)

ASPECT IN BURMESE

it marks sequentiality of foregrounding events in narrative discourse (action continuity); it marks subject/Actor continuity; it marks relative temporality in tail-to-head linking adverbial clauses

Before looking at these features in more detail, I shall first briefly describe the meaning and occurrence of the main verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’, and the possible reasons for its re-analysis into a grammatical marker displaying both aspectual (perfective) and discourse (grounding) characteristics. 7.2

The full verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’

The verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ is rarely used in its full lexical sense. I found no instances of its use in my sample, although, during the elicitation sessions with my consultant, she presented me with a few structures that, even though syntactically acceptable, were nevertheless considered not to be among the preferred options by native speakers. The following are instances of the lexical use of this verb: (378) tvkyf&w = ck = udk lou-t = ku = ko

work-1 = CLASS = OBJ

uGsefr

csD;juL; = r,f/

I

praise = IRR

tma

[yD; = ]if

pi = ji finish = IF

titu = m

‘If [you] finish [your] job, I’ll praise [you]’

joui

[yD; = ]if pi = ji

movie

finish = IF

(379) ]kyf]\if

yef;`cH = xJ = udk pada = t = ko park = INSIDE = TO

&[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’

211

vrf;avSs|uf = oG|; = r,f/ laau = wa = m

have.a.walk = GO = IRR ‘When the movie is over, [we] will go for a walk in the park’ These examples show the transitive and intransitive use of [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ respectively. In both cases, it occurs in a non-final clause, introduced by &]if [ji] ‘IF/WHEN’, marking predictive conditionals (Thompson and Longacre 1985: 190-194), i.e. “… those in which we predict what will be”. They are part of what the authors define as unreality conditionals, which refer to situations that have not yet substantiated at speech or reference time, a fact which is further supported in Burmese by the use of the irrealis sentential operator &r,f [m]. One possible reason for the paucity of instances of the use of the full lexical verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ is a conceptual (possibly a universal) one. In English, finish (among other verbs) has been categorised by Freed (1979) as an aspectualizer, i.e. an aspectual quasi-auxiliary (an aspectual operator in my terminology). Aspectualizers “… are characterised as verbs which take sentential complements, derived nominals or primitive (concrete) nouns as their objects” (Freed 1979: 1). Even though in English we do have instances of finish such as the following: (380) I finished the book last night what is really implied in this statement is not the termination of the object (the book) in question, but the termination of the activity or process in which the speaker was engaged and which produced such a result (the reading of the book). In Freed’s terms, “… aspectualizers take ‘events’ as complements, not propositions or objects” (quoted by Brinton 1988: 80). In addition, it is the Aktionsart of finish (and possibly its counterparts in many languages, including Burmese), an achievement verb, which influences and modifies the Aktionsart of the predicates of its complements, creating complex achievement predicates that focus on the terminal boundary of a situation (Fleischman 1990: 22). In this sense, these situations are telic in nature and, unlike accomplishments, they are perceived as punctual, i.e. their duration is considered as irrelevant.

212

ASPECT IN BURMESE

It is not surprising therefore that, in a number of languages, a lexical form such as finish has come to be grammaticalised into a marker of perfectivity, whose function is to reduce “… a situation to a blob… [which] is a threedimensional object and can therefore have internal complexity, although it is nonetheless a single object with clearly circumscribed limits” (Comrie 1976: 18). In addition, perfective markers are often used as markers of narrative sequentiality, whose function is inscribed in the broader issue of grounding in discourse, namely the way in which speakers choose to organise the distribution of narrated events on the basis of their relative saliency. As is evident from the previous discussion, the Burmese verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ seems to have followed the same developmental path that has led lexical forms to develop new specialised functions in language. This phenomenon has been referred to with the term heterosemy (Lichtenberk 1991), whereby both the lexical source and the result of its semantic extension, i.e. the new grammatical form, must share at least one component of their meaning, assuming the latter to be structurally complex and, therefore, decomposable. Its characterisation as an achievement verb, i.e. as a verb describing a situation which is [- static], [+ telic] and [+ punctual], is the determining factor in its re-analysis into a marker of perfectivity and its consequent use as a discourse operator to mark sequentiality of foregrounded events. 7.3

The use of [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ as a post-VN operator

The post-VN operator &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ is found in the verbal complex of independent clauses only in combination with the sentential operator &[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (CRS) (see chapter 8). For example: (381) igh = p|tkyf a = saou my = book

zwf = [yD; = [yD = v|;/

pa = pi = pi = la

read = PFV = CRS = INT

‘Have you read/Have you finished reading my book?’ Only rarely do we find &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ in independent clauses used as a perfective marker proper. For instance:

&[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ (382) reufzef

us = r\

mnpa

ta = ma

tomorrow

arrive = NOT.UNTIL

213

zwf = [yD; = r,f/ pa = pi = m

read = PFV = IRR

‘I won’t finish reading [it] until tomorrow’ [Okell and Allott 2001: 130] Its limited use as a ‘pure’ perfective marker in independent clauses has been specialised to include its function both as a marker of sequentiality in discourse, seen as the succession of discrete (telic) events in narration, and as a marker of subject continuity within the same context. Sequentiality of telic events is said to ‘move narrative time forward’ (Dry 1983) since it is their identification as points on the narrative time line that gives the reader the impression that the plot is advancing. For this reason, telic events in sequence have been identified as being part of the foreground, i.e. “… that material which supplies the main points of the discourse” (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 280 ff.) as opposed to the background, i.e. “… that part of a discourse that does not immediately contribute to a speaker’s goal, but which merely assists, amplifies or comments on it” (see also Hopper 1979, Givón 1982a, Hopper 1982, Berman and Slobin 1994). Therefore, foregrounded events are seen to form the backbone of the narrative as opposed to backgrounded events that provide additional, optional information to the plot. Two interesting characteristics have emerged from my analysis which support the identification of &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ as a discourse-oriented operator. Firstly, &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’, unlike other Burmese operators, seems not to be sensitive to the semantics and/or Aktionsart of the verb it attaches to. It can occur with activity verbs (a`y; [pje] ‘run’) as well as with accomplishment verbs (a]ao|uf [jeau] ‘drink water’), achievement verbs (uGJ [kw] ‘break’) and stative verbs (vefh [la] ‘be afraid’, od [i] ‘know’). Its insensitivity to verbal semantics/Aktionsart could be explained by its acquisition of the status of pure discourse/syntactic operator, further supported by the virtual disappearance of instances of its use as a lexical verb. Secondly, because what comes into focus with the perfective is the rightmost/terminal boundary of an event, the meaning of the perfective has often been equalled to the expression of past time reference and/or completion. Past time reference and completion are not part of the meaning of the perfective but are only implicatures (Fleischman 1990: 19), which are typically con-

214

ASPECT IN BURMESE

text-dependent (Lyons 1995: 169). For instance, &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ is found in structures with non-past time reference, such as: (383) aehvnfp|

p|; = [yD;

nelza

sa = pi

lunch

eat = PFV

oG|; = yg/

wa = pa go = POL

‘Eat your lunch and go’ (384) euf`zefcg = r\

ig

ac: = [yD;

tpDpOf = udk

npjaa = ma

a

k = pi

sisi = ko

tomorrow = FROM

I

call = PFV

programme = OBJ

a`y| = `y = r,f/

pj = pja = m

say = SHOW = IRR ‘I’ll call [you] tomorrow and I’ll tell [you] the programme’ The function of &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ is therefore temporally nondeictic, i.e. it shows the succession of narrated events without referring to their (relative) location in time. Rather, it is the function of the sentence-final operators &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ and &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ to locate the events described in a clause/sentence in either the real world of events in esse or the non-real world of events in posse respectively. The function of &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ as a marker of sequentiality of foregrounding events will bring us to the issue of connectivity, i.e. “… how to syntactically package clauses into larger constructions in which some clauses play structurally and discoursively subordinate roles” (Berman and Slobin 1994: 124). We will see how &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ is most commonly found in post-verbal position in non-final clauses, where it functions both as a perfective marker and a marker of what seems to be an instance of co-subordination (Foley and Van Valin 1984, Van Valin and LaPolla 1997). Furthermore, it seems to share many features of converbs found in languages belonging to different families, such as Turkish, Tamil, Limbu and Japanese. On the other hand, the notion ‘converb’ has been assimilated to the notion of medial verb in clause-linking structures (Longacre 1985), and they have been shown to have


215

some features in common. I will analyse these different issues only briefly in the following sub-sections, since all of them carry their own theoretical implications that would require too much time and space for me to appropriately describe and expand on. To summarise, I will discuss the use of [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ as a perfective form marking sequentiality of foregrounding events in narrative discourse (action continuity) as well as maintaining ‘actor-continuity’. I will also discuss its role in the marking of relative temporality in adverbial clauses, whose function in narrative has been defined by Thompson and Longacre as tail-head linkage, i.e. “… something mentioned in the last sentence of the preceding paragraph is referred to by means of back-reference in an adverbial clause in the following paragraph” (Thompson and Longacre 1985: 209). 7.4

Analysis of the data

Because of the importance of this form as a discourse marker, I will concentrate my analysis on one piece of narrative that I elicited from my language consultant, Daw May Thet Tun. We chose to use a wordless picture-book by Mercer Mayer (1974) that had already been used by Berman and Slobin (1994) to describe, among other issues, the use of temporal forms to encode and organise events in narrative discourse. The analysis was performed on elicitation of the same narrative from native speakers of five languages (English, German, Spanish, Hebrew and Turkish), who were included in three main age ranges: pre-school children (3- to 5-year-olds), school-age children (9-year-olds) and adults. This study provides important insights in the development of linguistic forms and form-function relations, and it would be of great interest if a similar study were centred on Burmese and on other South-East Asian languages. In addition to my elicited text, data from other narratives have been utilised to support and prove my findings. The complete elicited text with glosses and translation can be found in the Appendix. 7.5

Syntax of constructions with &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’

The following model represents the basic form of a sentence containing

&[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’:

216

ASPECT IN BURMESE

[(P

(385)

ERIPHERY) NPSUBJ

[[CL ]=[yD; [pi] 1

CL2

]]=CL.OP

As shown in the model above, &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ occurs at the end of non-final clauses in multi-clausal constructions (sentences), where it attaches to the nucleus, simple or complex, appearing in its root form, i.e. occurring with no other aspectual or modal specification. In Burmese (as well as in other languages), non-final clauses show none of the post-verbal clause-final operators that are required for each independent clause/sentence to be well-formed. On the other hand, final predicates are often accompanied by additional nuclear and/or core operators and they are always followed by one (or more) of the final sentential operators. In addition, this model shows one of the crucial features of sentential structures containing &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’, namely the presence of one single NP subject in a multi-clausal construction, which entails the presence of the same actor performing the activities expressed by the verb forms for each clause within the sentence. This is one of the reasons why &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ is used mainly in narrative discourse, where the need for reference tracking/topic continuity is vital to the denouement of the plotline, especially in a language like Burmese, where reference to the participants in discourse is usually made redundant by context. Finally, the sentence may contain a periphery, whose slot is usually filled by locational or temporal structures that fulfil the discourse function known as tail-head linkage, providing cohesion between sections and paragraphs of the same narrative. Its discussion will occupy one of the following sections.

7.6

&[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ as a marker of sequentiality in narrative discourse

The model introduced in the previous section, which I repeat here for convenience:

(386)

[(P

ERIPHERY) NPSUBJ

[[CL ]=[yD; [pi] 1

]]=CL.OP

[CL2]

accounts for constructions containing &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ as a sequential marker, such as the following:

&[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ (387) vli,fav; = u lule = ka boy = SUBJ

ta0; = udk

217

`caw|ifydkh = ay: = udk

wuf = [yD;

tataubo = p = ko

t = pi

ant.hill = ON = TO

climb.up = PFV

v\rf;&junfh = w,f/

we = ko

a-ti = t

distance = TO

reach.out-look = REAL

‘The boy climbed onto the ant hill and looked in the distance’ [FR 24] Sequentiality in discourse is considered as the succession of (telic) events in narration, which are identified as points on the narrative time line and contribute to the advancement of the plot. Because of their special discourse function, telic events have been identified as being part of the foreground, namely that part of the narrative that focuses on those parts that are considered by the narrator as being pragmatically salient, therefore necessary for building up a well-organised and interesting text. Foregrounded events succeed one another in an order that reflects their actual occurrence in the real world, i.e. they are ordered iconically, while backgrounded events, on the other hand, “… are not in sequence to the foregrounded events, but are concurrent with them” (Hopper 1979: 214), and their function is to “… usually amplify or comment on the events of the main narrative” (Hopper 1979: 214). A clear instance of the alternation between foregrounded and backgrounded events is shown in the first two paragraphs of our narrative (388394). The first paragraph contains sentences (388-390), which introduce two of the three characters of the story, a boy, Maung San Tun, and his dog. The second paragraph (391-394) introduces the third character, a small frog that the boy keeps in a jar full of water. It contains the first main event of the narrative, i.e. the disappearance of the frog from the boy’s room: (388) w]Ha]|tcg

]G|o| = ]G| = r\|

ar|ifqef;xGef;


jwaa = jwa = ma

mausatu

once.upon.a.time

Ywatha = village = AT

Maung.San.Thun

218

ASPECT IN BURMESE

ac: = wJh

vli,fav;&w = a,|uf

]\d = w,f/

k = t

lule-t = jau boy-1 = CLASS


call = RELREAL

‘Once upon a time, in the village of Ywatha, there was a boy called Maung San Tun’ [FR 1] (389) olh = r\| u = ma he = AT

tvGef

cspf = zG,f

au|if; = wJh

lu

ti = pw love = DEV

kau = t

a.lot

acG; = uav;&w = au|if

]\d = w,f/

kwe = kle-t = kau

i = t

dog = small-1 = CLASS

be = REAL

be.good = RELREAL

‘He had a dog that he loved very much’ (390) 'D

acG; = uav; = u

di

kwe = kle = ka

this

dog = small = SUBJ

vdkuf = avh = ]\d = wJh

lai = le = i = t

[FR 2]

vli,fav;

oG|; = ]| = udk

lule

wa = ja = ko

boy

go = place = TO

t`yif

vli,fav; = eJh = twl lule = n = tu

pji

follow = HAB = BE = RELREAL outside

boy = WITH = together

tdyf]| = ay: = r\|

tdyf = avh = ]\d = w,f/

eija = p = ma

ei = le = i = t sleep = HAB = BE = REAL

bed = ON = AT

‘Apart from following the boy [everywhere], the little dog slept with [him] on [his] bed’ [FR 3] (391) ar|ifqef;xGef; = r\| mausatu = ma Maung.San.Tun = AT

zg; = uav;&w = au|if = vJ

pa = kle-t = kau = l frog = small-1 = CLASS = ALSO


219

]\d = ao; = w,f/ i = e = t

be = STILL = REAL ‘Maung San Tun had a small frog too’ (392) 'D

zg; = i,fuav; = udk

[FR 4]

a] = ykvif; = xJ

di

pa = le = ko

je = pli = t

this

frog = small = OBJ

water = jar = INSIDE

xnfh = [yD; t = pi

olh = ]Jh

ckwif

a`c]if; = r\|

u = j

di

teji = ma

put.in = PFV

he = POSS

bedstead

base = AT

x|; = ]\d = w,f/ ta = i = t

put = BE = REAL ‘[He] had put the small frog into a jar [full of] water and put [it] at the [FR 5] foot of [his] bed’ (393) eHeufcif;&w = ]uf = r\| nanki-t = j = ma morning-1 = CLASS = AT

vli,fav; lule

boy

tdyf]| = u

mdk; = aw|h

olh = ckwif

eija = ka

no = t

u = di

bed = FROM

wake.up = WHEN

his = bedstead

a`c]if; = r\|

x|; = wJh

zg; = i,fuav; = udk


ta = t

pa = le = ko

base = AT

put = RELREAL

frog = small = OBJ

220

ASPECT IN BURMESE

tdyf]| = ay: = u

ae = [yD;

junfh = w,f/

eija = p = ka

ne = pi

ti = t

bed = ON = FROM

stay = PFV

look.at = REAL

‘One morning, when the boy woke up, he looked at the small frog that [he] had put at the base of his bedstead’ [FR 6] (394) ykvif; = xJ = r\| pli = t = ma jar = INSIDE = AT

zg; = uav;

r = ]\d = aw|h

pa = le

m = i = t

frog = small

NEG1

olh = ]Jh

tcef;&w = ck = vHk; = xJ

u = j

ka-t = ku = lou = t

he = POSS

room = all = CLASS = INSIDE

arSGam\|fu = [yD;

]\| = w,f/

mwenau = pi

a = t

rummage = PFV

look.for = REAL

= be = SINCE

‘The little frog wasn’t in the jar and he rummaged about his room and looked for [it]” [FR 7] The temporal frame of the whole narrative is set in (388) by the adverbial form w]Ha]|tcg [tjajka] ‘once upon a time’, which appears at the periphery of the clause, as most temporals do in Burmese. In (390), the aspectual operator &avh [le] ‘HABITUAL’, most probably derived from the full verb avh [le] ‘practise; acquire a habit; become accustomed to’, marks a situation “… which is characteristic of an extended period of time, so extended in fact that the situation referred to is viewed not as an incidental property of the moment but, precisely, as a characteristic feature of a whole period” (Comrie 1976: 2728). This event is seen as unbounded and protracted at the time of the narrated events, and while it contributes information to the plot, it does not introduce new facts that are essential to the unfolding of the story. So far, reference tracking has been maintained by the use of deictic/anaphoric forms, which appear at the beginning of each clause/sentence, backtracking the referent at the end of the preceding structure. The introduction of a new character in (391), the frog, marks the beginning of a new narrative section, signalled by the use of the boy’s full name. In


221

the following clause (392), we find the first instance in discourse of a foregrounded event, marked by &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’. Semantically, the non-final clause marked by &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ describes the event as being temporally bounded and sequenced vis-à-vis the event shown in the final clause. In addition, the use of this operator marks identity of actor/subject throughout the sentence; the actor performs two different actions that are not part of the same event, and each clause conveys this by displaying its own set of arguments. In the periphery, tail-head linkage applies to the first argument in the sentence by means of a deictic form that links it to the last argument of (391). The temporal gap between two sequenced events may be further reduced, as in (393), repeated here for convenience: (395) eHeufcif;&w = ]uf = r\| nanki-t = j = ma morning-1 = CLASS = AT

vli,fav; lule

boy

tdyf]| = u

mdk; = aw|h

olh = ckwif

bed = FROM

wake.up = WHEN

his = bedstead

eija = ka

a`c]if; = r\|

no = t

x|; = wJh

u = di

zg; = i,fuav; = udk


ta = t

pa = le = ko

base = AT

put = RELREAL

frog = small = OBJ

tdyf]| = ay: = u

ae = [yD;

[unfh = w,f/


ne = pi

ti = t

bed = ON = FROM

stay = PFV

look.at = REAL

‘One morning, when [he] woke up, the boy from [his] bed, he looked at the small frog that [he] had put at the base of his bedstead’ [FR 6] The whole event would have normally been decomposed as follows: i) ii)

the boy stays on the bed from the bed, he looks at the frog

which would have had the following structure:

and

222

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(396)

[boy

SUBJ

[[bed = ON stay]&[yD; [pi] [frog

OBJ

]]= CL.OP

bed = FROM look.at]

as opposed to the actual structure: (397)

[boy

SUB

]]= CL.OP

[

frogOBJ [bed = ON = FROM stay]=[yD; [pi] [look.at]

The semantic representation of stay requires an entity to be placed at some location for a certain period of time, while look at requires an entity (the observer) to voluntarily use one of its senses to recognise the existence of another entity (the stimulus). The structural difference between (396) and (397) underlines a difference in function. In (396), the two events are described as chronologically self-contained, i.e. as occurring in sequence with clear temporal boundaries between the two. In (397), on the other hand, the temporal gap between the two has been further reduced in order for the narrator to convey a sense of immediacy, if not of partial overlap. The amount of information on arguments in each clause has been compacted and has been shifted to the left of the predicates. Thus, we obtain the unmarked word order in Burmese sentences, namely [SUBJ + OBJ + LOCATIVE/DIRECTIONAL]. Locative and directional markers have been collapsed onto their referent (‘bed’) and their order matches the order of occurrence of the two predicates which govern them. Although the narrator has conflated two events into one compact structure, by using &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ she nonetheless wants to maintain a certain temporal distance between the two events, since they are not considered to be integral parts of the same global event. Once again, iconicity plays a major role in Burmese syntax. Two events that are seen as integral parts of the same global event are normally expressed in Burmese by serial verb constructions (SVCs), i.e. by clauses that show uninterrupted complex nuclei. Most SVCs in our narrative typically involve motion of some kind. For example:

aju|ufvefh = [yD;

`ywif;ayguf = ay: = u

kwe = kle = l

taula = pi

bdibau = p = ka

dog = small = ALSO

be.scared = PFV

window = ON = FROM

(398) acG; = uav; = vJ


223

ckef&us = vdkuf = w,f/

kou-ta = lai = t

jump.over-fall.down = FOLLOW = REAL ‘The dog too got scared and jumped over from the window and fell down’ [FR 12] (MOTION-MOTION) (399) vli,fuav; = vJ lule = l boy = ALSO

vefh = [yD; la = pi be.afraid = PFV

opfyif = at|uf = udk

ipi = au = ko

tree = UNDER = TO

yufvuf

vef&us = oG|; = w,f/

pl

la-ta = wa = t

supine

be.turned.up-fall.down = GO = REAL

‘The boy too got scared and [he] fell down on [his] back’

[FR 20]

(STATE-MOTION) (400) zg; = uav; = awG pa = kle = twe frog = small = PL

opfwHk; = ay: itou = p

tree.log = ON

wef;pD&wuf&junfh = w| = udk

`rif = wJh

tcg

tazi-t-ti = ta = ko

queue-climb.up-look.at = THING = COMP

mji = t ka see = RELREAL time

vli,fuav;

ar|ifqef;xGef;

vuf`y&m\kwfquf = [yD;

lule

mausatu

lpja-nous = pi

boy

Maung.San.Tun

wave-bid.farewell = PFV

224

ASPECT IN BURMESE

olh = tdrf

`yef = oG|; = av = aw|h = w,f/

u = ei

pja = wa = le = t = t

his = home

return = GO = EU = FINAL = REAL

‘When [he] saw the frogs climbing up on the log, [sitting] in a row and looking [at him], Maung San Tun waved goodbye and went back home’ [FR 36] (ACTIVITY-ACTIVITY) In (398), the final-clause nucleus ckef&us [kou-ta] ‘jump.overfall.down’ represents a complex situation, composed of two distinct motion events which follow one another so closely that the temporal gap between the two is considered minimal as well as irrelevant to the narrative. In (399), the nucleus vef&us [la-ta] ‘be.turned.up-fall.down’ tells us that the boy reached the ground on his back, i.e. it describes the entity’s orientation in space vis-à-vis the goal of motion. In (400), the non-final nucleus vuf`y&m\kwfquf [lpja-nous] ‘wave-bid.farewell’ conflates two activity verbs which are seen as simultaneous, i.e. ‘while waving [his hand] he bid farewell’. In all cases, the order of the two predicates reflects their order of occurrence in realworld situations. As for the operator &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’, it never occurs between the two predicates, following a general rule in Burmese, whereby in SVCs, the two predicates in the complex nucleus are never separated by their core arguments nor are they individually marked by operators. Core arguments appear to the left of the nucleus and the appropriate operators follow and have scope over the whole nucleus as they would with all other predicates. &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ follows a SVC nucleus only in non-final clauses as a discourse/foreground marker as in (400) above and in the following:

(401) acG; = av; kwe = le

0rf;o| = pG| = eJh

ckefayguf = wJh

tcg

wua = swa = n

koupau

be.happy = ADV = WITH

jump.about = RELREAL time

=

t

ka

dog = small

vli,fuav;

tdrf = xJ = u

a`y;&xGuf = [yD;

lule

ei = t = ka

boy

home = INSIDE = FROM

pje-tw = pi run-exit = PFV


225

acG; = i,fav; = udk

olh = ]ifcGif = xJ

dog = small = OBJ

his = bosom = INSIDE hold-carry = PUT = REAL

kwe = le = ko

u = jiwi = t

ydkuf&csD = x|; = w,f/

pai-ti = ta = t

‘When the dog happily jumped around, the boy ran out of the house and [FR 14] [he] held and carried the dog in his bosom’ Here, the non-final SVC is followed by &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ linking it to the final SVC, which is marked by the post-VN resultative operator &x|; [ta] and by the clausal post-VN operator &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’. One interesting use of &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ is shown in the following examples:

vefh = [yD;

olh = csdK = udk

dj = l

la = pi

u = to = ko

deer = ALSO

be.afraid = PFV

its = antlers = OBJ

(402) '],f = vJ

cwf = vdkuf = wJh

tcg

ka = lai = t

ka


time

vli,fav;

a`cvGwf = [yD;

'],f = acgif; = ay:

lule

telu = pi

dj = kau = p

boy

lose.hold = PFV

deer = head = ON

csdK = ju|;

vdrfh&us = oG|; = av = aw|h = w,f/

to = ta

lei-ta = wa = le = t = t

antlers-in.between(N)

roll-fall = GO = EU = FINAL = REAL

‘The deer too got scared and when [it] tossed [its] antlers, the boy lost hold and [he] rolled and fell between the antlers’ [FR 26] (403) zdk;aw = u pote = ka Po.Te = SUBJ

aeh = pOf ne = si day = every

olh = mG|;tkyf[uD; = udk

u = nwaouti = ko his = cattle = OBJ

226

ASPECT IN BURMESE

v|&v| = [yD;

'D

a]uef = r\|

di

jeka = ma

la-la = pi

this

pond = AT

come-come = PFV

a]csdK = ay; = ae = w| = rdkh

a] = u

bathe = BEN = CONT = THING = BECAUSE

water = SUBJ

jeto = pe = ne = ta = mo

je = ka

ae|uf = [yD;

cef; = v| = yg = w,f/

nau = pi

ka = la = pa = t

be.muddy = PFV

be.scarce = COME = POL = REAL

‘Water has become muddy and scarce because Po Te comes to this pond every day and bathes his cattle’ [Yin 1981: 70] In both examples, &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ occurs with the non-final stative predicates vefh [la] ‘be afraid’ and ae|uf [nau] ‘be muddy’, a fact which would constitute an exception to Hopper’s prediction (1979) according to which perfective/foregrounding events mainly involve ‘dynamic, kinetic events’ (Hopper 1979: 216). On the other hand, in Burmese, as in a few other languages, perfective forms marking stative predicates may convey inchoative meaning (Comrie 1976: 19-20) as is clear from the examples above. In this sense, the function of &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ is to make stative predicates less stative and more dynamic as well as to keep foregrounded information flowing. It is interesting to note that in (403), the non-final predicate ‘be muddy’ and the final predicate ‘be scarce’ draw their inchoative character from different operators, the former from &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’, the latter from the operator &v| [la] ‘COME’. This fact proves once again that non-final predicates/clauses do not share post-VN/inner operators with final predicates, they only share those operators that have scope over the whole sentence.

7.7 ity

Use of &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ in non-final clauses marking temporal-

In Burmese, the expression of temporality is most commonly found in the periphery of sentences and it is shown by relative clauses headed by the nouns ae|uf [nau] ‘back’ and tcg [ka] ‘time’ and by temporal clauses marked by &]if [ji] ‘WHEN’ (realised as &vSsif [ji] in literary texts). They ful-


227

fil the discourse function known as tail-head linkage, one of many devices employed “… to provide cohesion between successive paragraphs of a discourse” (Thompson and Longacre 1985: 209). Their regular occurrence in discourse was noted for the first time by Longacre (1968) in linguistic material from the Philippines and successively noted in other languages, in particular in Papua New Guinea. In two contiguous paragraphs P1 and P2, the subject matter of the last sentence of P1 is referred to by a dependent clause in P2, i.e. the dependent clause in P2 back-references the content of the last sentence in P1. &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ may occur in the periphery, although not commonly, to express an increased chronological depth between the time frame of P1 and that of P2 and to stress the completion of the event. For example:

(404) atv\ = u ea = ka Aye.Hla = SUBJ

t0wf = pkwf&w = ck = udk

P1

wu = sou-t = ku = ko

cloth = rugged-1 = CLASS = OBJ

qkwf = vdkuf = [yD; = ]if sou = lai = pi = ji

tear = FOLLOW = PFV = WHEN

avSs|uf&ywf = [yD;

olh = vuf = udk

u = l = ko her = finger = OBJ

0rf;qGJ = q]|r = ]Jh

au-pa = pi

wazw = sjama = j

circulate-wrap = PFV

midwife = female = POSS

vuf&pGy&tdwf = m\ifh

wl = at|uf

l-su-ei = ni

tu = au be.the.same = TO

glove-put.on = WITH

vkyf = ae = av = w,f/ lou = ne = le = t

do = CONT = EU = REAL ‘After [she] had torn out a piece of rag and wrapped her fingers, Aye Hla did the same as the midwife does when she puts on gloves’

228

ASPECT IN BURMESE

vuf = ig; = acs|if; = pvHk;

ywf = [yD; = wJh

tcg

l = a = tau = slou pa = pi = t

finger = 5 = CLASS = all

ka

wrap = PFV = RELREAL

time

olh = b,f = vuf = `zifh

ZDr = ]Jh

Adkuf = udk

zima = j

bai = ko

u = b = l = pji

Zeema = POSS

stomach = OBJ

her = left = hand = WITH

to| udkif = [yD;

rodro|

a

kai = pi

mima

P2

prf;&junfh = [yD;

ae|uf

sa-ti = pi

nau

gently handle = PFV imperceptibly feel-look = PFV

after

t0wd = pkwf = rs|;

ywf = x|; = wJh

b,f = vuf = `zifh

cloth = rugged = PL

wrap = RES = RELREAL

b = l = pji left = hand = WITH

wu = sou = mja pa = ta = t

aju|if = i,f = uav; = ]Jh

a`c|uf = m\pf = acs|if; = udk

tau =  = kle = j

tau = n = tau = ko

cat = little(N) = small = POSS

leg = 2 = CLASS = OBJ

to|

qGJ&,l = vdkuf = ]|

a

sw-ju = lai = ja

gently

pull-take = FOLLOW = THING

avSs|&xGuf&us = v| = av = w,f/ -tw-ta = la = le = t

slide.down-exit-fall = COME = EU = REAL “When [she] had wrapped [her] fingers, [she] gently handled Zeema’s stomach with [her] left hand and after delicately feeling and looking, with her left hand that was wrapped up with rags, [she] pulled the legs of the kitten gently and [it] came out” [Yin 1981: 18] The presence of &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ increases the time span between the preceding sentence/paragraph and the following as well as maintaining activity and subject continuity.

CHAPTER 8 THE SENTENTIAL POST-VN OPERATOR &[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (CRS)

8.1

Introduction

In addition to being grammaticalised as the post-VN operator &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’, the full verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ seems to have provided the semantic source for an additional grammatical form, namely the sentential post-VN marker &[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (CRS), whose description will be the topic of the present section. The operator &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ indicates that “… a state of affairs has special current relevance with respect to some particular situation” (Li and Thompson [LT] 1981: 240). Alternatively, according to a more recent definition, it “… indicates that the point of realisation or fulfilment has been reached in relation to a given time” (Okell and Allott 2001: 128). This category is usually labelled as PERFECT (Comrie 1976, Dahl 1985, etc.) or ANTERIOR (Bybee et al. 1994) in most grammars of Indo- and non-Indo European languages. However, the label CRS, coined by Li and Thompson (1981: 238-300) to describe the sentencefinal particle le in Mandarin, seems to be preferable to the term PERFECT in that the latter has often been used to refer to categories that no longer have current relevance as part of their meaning and, by dropping it, have therefore acquired past meaning, i.e. they have lost their relational quality and have acquired deictic status. This development can be observed in a few Romance languages, such as the colloquial varieties of French and Italian. For instance, the French Passé Composé (Compound Past) and the Italian Passato Prossimo (Near Past) have replaced the Passé Simple (Simple Past) and the Passato Remoto (Remote Past) respectively in the expression of past time reference. For instance:

230

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(405) Italian (a)

Passato Prossimo L’anno scorso Last year

sono andata (I) am gone(fem)

in Francia in France

‘Last year, I went to France’ (b)

Passato Remoto L’anno scorso Last year

andai (I) went

in Francia in France

‘Last year, I went to France’ (406) French (a)

Passé Composé L’année passée Last year

je suis allée I am gone(fem)

en France in France

‘Last year, I went to France’ (b)

Passé Simple L’année passée Last year

j’allai I went

en France in France

‘Last year, I went to France’ In English, on the other hand, the relational component of the perfect is still very much alive, and its grammaticalisation into a marker of the preterite has not occurred (although it must be said that [407b] is acceptable in many sub-standard varieties of English):

&[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (407) (a) (b)

231

Last year I broke my leg *Last year I have broken my leg

At the same time, though, its tense component is strong because of the very nature of its tense/aspect system configuration, which is typical of tenseprominent languages (Bhat 1999), where tense shows a greater degree of “… grammaticalisation, obligatoriness, systematicity and pervasiveness … as compared to aspect or mood” (Bhat 1999: 104). It is precisely on the component of temporality that we should not focus our attention, in order to provide a description of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ in a language like Burmese, which is definitely not a tense-prominent language. One additional reason for adopting the label CRS is that in this way we avoid the possible terminological confusion caused by the existence of the terms perfective and perfect. In Burmese, it is imperative that a clear distinction be drawn between the nuclear/discourse post-VN operator &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ and the clausal post-VN operator &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’, since, although they derive from the same lexical source [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’, they have scope over different clause/sentence layers. As I specified in chapter 7, &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ has followed a developmental path that has brought it from being a purely aspectual operator, only rarely found in independent clauses, to being used as a discourse operator marking sequentiality of events in narrative discourse. On the other hand, although &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ still retains evidence of its source in its less common aspectual function as a perfective/inchoative-type operator with stative verbs, its function as a sentential marker shows an extension of its basic meaning to more abstract semantic levels, which is matched by its increased ‘physical’ distance from the predicate in the verbal complex. Further research will be needed to investigate the factors that have caused one lexical item ([yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’) to be re-analysed into two functionally different operators, both of which maintain a clear semantic link with their source, and yet have acquired their own specific status within the system. Various hypotheses are possible. Firstly, because of the universal tendency for pitch to mark the boundaries of syntactic units (Ladefoged 1993: 251-253), and in particular, because of the fact that, in many languages, as it seems to be the case in Burmese, “… the completion of a grammatical unit such as a normal sentence is signalled by a falling pitch” (Ladefoged 1993: 252), we could think of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ as being the result of the phonetic development of &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’ from showing high tone if occurring

232

ASPECT IN BURMESE

clause/sentence-internally to showing a lower pitch if occurring clause/sentence-finally. Secondly, we could hypothesise that, because &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ shows further semantic extension, an increased structural distance from the nucleus in addition to phonological erosion vis-à-vis &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’, it may have originated earlier, or alternatively, the two operators might have followed different developmental paths for reasons that would need a separate discussion. It suffices now to have raised the issue.

8.2

&[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ as a sentential post-VN operator

The sentence-final operator &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ marks a clause/sentence referring to a situation which is either telic/bounded (accomplishment/achievement) or extant (state), whose existence is considered by the participants in the speech act to be relevant to their discourse frame at speech or reference time. The telicness/boundedness of the situation may be inherent (achievement/accomplishment) as well as lexically marked (causative achievement/accomplishment), or alternatively the situation may be made telic by perfective operators (post-VN operators), which may co-occur with either of the above-mentioned options (Burmese, too, is not immune from grammatical redundancy). Furthermore, as I have discussed elsewhere (see &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’), because what is focussed on with the perfective is the terminal boundary of an event, its meaning has often been equated with the expression of past time reference and/or completion. The latter, though, are only contextdependent implicatures; rather it is the function of the sentence-final operators to locate events in either the real world or the non-real one. In our case, &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ asserts that the time frame of the telic or existing situation which may belong either to the real or the non-real world is linked to and exists at the time frame that includes the speech act. Telic situations have also been considered to express change of state, since “… the very fact of an action’s having already eventuated implies that there has been a change from a prior state of not-yet-eventuatedness” (Matisoff 1973: 341). This is true in principle, but the change of state may be conveyed differently, according to the type of message that the speakers want to convey. For example:

&[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (408) (a)

'D

yef;

eD = w,f/

di

pa

ni = t

this

flower

be.red = REAL

233

‘This flower is red’ (b)

'D

yef;

eD = v| = w,f/

di

pa

ni = la = d

this

flower

be.red = COME = REAL

‘The flower became/has become red’ (c)

'D

yef;

eD = oG|; = w,f/

di

pa

ni = wa = d

this

flower

be.red = GO = REAL

‘The flower became/has become red’ In (408a-c), the use of &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ indicates that the speaker is simply asserting the existence at some indefinite point prior to speech/reference time of the quality of the entity (its being red) as a consolidated state of affairs (408a), as having taken place as a process over a period of time (408b) or as having eventuated some time prior to speech time, with no salience given to the process that brought about the change (408c). By using &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’, speakers describe events as having attained or as being in the process of attaining their point of realisation. Speakers are either witnessing the process as it unfolds or acknowledging it from their viewpoint and, at the same time, they make it relevant to the speech situation. For example: (409) (a)

'D

yef;

eD = [yD/

di

pa

ni = pi

this

flower

be.red = CRS

‘[A few minutes ago, the flower was pink. Now,] the flower is red’

234

(b)

ASPECT IN BURMESE

'D

yef;

eD = v| = [yD/

this

flower

be.red = COME = CRS

di

pa

ni = la = pi

‘[A few minutes ago, the flower was pink. Now,] the flower is becoming red’ (c)

'D

yef;

eD = oG|; = [yD/

di

pa

ni = wa = pi

this

flower

be.red = GO = CRS

‘The flower has (already) become red’ In (409a), the speaker informs his/her interlocutor that the change in the state of the entity has occurred, and that s/he is there to confirm the occurrence of the change, without having necessarily witnessed the unfolding of the event. In (409b), on the other hand, the speaker is witnessing the change in the colour of the entity, which is marked as progressing towards its end result (the flower being red) by the operator &v| [la] ‘COME’. The use of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ ties the unfolding of the event to the presence of the speaker and to the speech situation and makes it relevant to the actual context of communication. In (409c), the change in the state of the entity is being acknowledged by the speaker and it is marked as complete by the operator &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’. The time frame within which the speaker and the situation are located may be specified by time adverbials or locutions, such as ,ck/tck/ck [jku/ku/ku] ‘now; at present’, 'D 8aeh [di ne] ‘today’ or 'D m\pf [di ni] ‘this year’, all of which occupy the periphery and, as such, most commonly occur at the beginning of the clause/sentence. For example: (410) tck

arG; = vJ

ku mwe = l

now

give.birth = TOO

arG; = cg

eD; = yg = [yD/

mwe = ka give.birth = time

ni = pa = pi

‘Now, the time of birth is (= has become) near”

be.near = POL =CRS [Yin 1981:14]

The presence of time adverbials/locutions in association with &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ contributes to the organisation of discourse by providing a breaking point in the flow of events presented in their (unmarked) succession by a detached narrator

&[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’

235

and by introducing a narrator reporting the event as if he/she were watching it unravel under his/her eyes. The latter is seen as the product of the shift from a state of affairs that held some time prior to speech time (before now, today, this year) to a new state of affairs that holds at and includes that same speech time. Moreover, my sample contains several instances of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ occurring with the verbs ju| [ta] ‘be a long time (since); elapse, pass’, and ]\d [i] ‘be; exist’ as in: (411) tck

ol

qHk; = w|

ju| = [yD/

ku

u

sou = ta

ta = pi

now

he

die = THING

be.a.long.time = CRS

‘It’s been a long time since [your father] died’ (412) tJ'g

[Yin 1981: 74]

0,f = x|; = w|

ig; = m\pf = av|uf

]\d = [yD/

da

w = ta = ta

a = n = lau

i = pi

that

buy = RES = THING

5 = year = ABOUT

be = CRS

‘[I] have had that [camera] for five years now’ These constructions establish the existence of a time span between the terminal boundary of a given event which occurred prior to speech time and speech time itself. With ju| [ta] ‘be a long time (since); elapse, pass’, the time span can be left unspecified (e.g. ‘it’s been a long time since the pond has been fixed’), while with ]\d [i] ‘be; exist’, it must be specified (e.g. ‘three days have passed’). In both cases, it is the use of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ that makes the time span be relevant to and includes the speaker’s speech/reference time. Finally, the time frame may be left unexpressed if both participants in the speech act view the situation directly from the same vantage point, i.e. if they are both actually witnessing the occurrence of the same event, and therefore are both located within the defining limits of the same physical and temporal space. For example: (413) junhf = prf; ti = sa look = URGENT

a]

b,fav|uf

je

blau

water how.much

‘Look how much water has dried up!?’

cef; = ae = [yD = vJ/

ka = ne = pi = l

dry.up=CONT=CRS=INTWH [Yin 1981: 66]

236

ASPECT IN BURMESE

Interestingly, the function of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ brings to mind what Fleischman (1990) thought about the Passé Composé in French, i.e. it privileges the “… TEXTUAL function, the signaling of a particular type of discourse, at the expense of its REFERENTIAL function, the signaling of past time” (Fleischman 1990: 31). The difference that we note in French (or Italian) between the Passé Composé (Passato Prossimo) and the Passé Simple (Passato Remoto) is one of subjectivity and it is similar in Burmese to the difference between the use in narrative discourse of the clausal post-VN operator &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ and the use in the same context of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’. The former “… is felt to be the vehicle of objective discourse from which all traces of speaker subjectivity have been eradicated”, while the latter “… marks the discourse of a speakerobserver whose psychological centre permeates that discourse” (Fleischman 1990: 31). This is one of the reasons why structures marked by &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ are often accompanied by reference either to generic (‘in the past’, ‘before’, etc.) or specific (‘in 1945’, ‘yesterday morning’, etc.) points in the past, while, as we have seen, structures marked by &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ involve the temporal location of the speakers in their physical ‘here/now’ and their speech act as their vantage point. Before analysing the different occurrences of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’, it will be of use to describe its position in the clause/sentence and its relation to the other components of the verbal complex.

8.3

Syntax of structures marked by &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ The following is the pattern of structures marked by &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’:

(414)

[(PERIPHERY) [(CL ) 1

]] = [yD [pi] ‘CRS’

CL2

Unlike the aspectual forms that constitute the topic of this research, &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ is a sentence-final operator which has scope over the whole proposition. As a clausal/sentential operator, it stands in a paradigmatic relation to other clausal post-VN markers, namely &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’, &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’, ∅ ‘IMPERATIVE’, &eJh [n] ‘NEGATIVE IMPERATIVE’, and &bl; [bu] ‘NEGATIVE2’, whose presence is necessary for the well-formedness of the host structure, and their complementarity is explained by the fact that they identify contrasting means of human verbal interaction. The function of these operators is to con-


237

vey concepts related to the speakers’ knowledge of the actuality of events (realis/irrealis, negative) as well as to the speakers’ involvement (and the nature of their involvement) in their actualisation (imperative). These semantic specifications have been traditionally included in the domain of mood/modality, within which we should distinguish three different categories: modality, status and illocutionary force (Foley and Van Valin 1984: 213-224). Particularly interesting for our present purposes is the distinction between status (ST), a “… peripheral operator; it expresses the reality status of the entire proposition and bears no direct relation to the nucleus or to any of its core arguments. The entire proposition is within its scope…” (Foley and Van Valin 1984: 215) and illocutionary force (IF), which “… refers to whether an utterance is an assertion, a question, a command or an expression of a wish” (Van Valin and La Polla 1997: 41). The authors consider IF to be the outermost operator, thus governing the entire periphery and all the operators within its scope. If we add aspect as a nuclear operator and modality as a core operator to the overall operator system, their supposed order of occurrence is the following:

(415)

[[[

NPSUBJ

[

NPOBJ V - ASPECT

]

] - MOD] - ST] - IF

Overall, the Burmese verbal complex seems to conform to this pattern, although a few remarks are in place. The sentence-final operators &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ and &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ locate events in either of only two possible worlds, the real world of events in esse and the non-real world of events in posse respectively. Therefore, they belong on the one hand to the category of status together with the negative operator &bl; [bu] ‘NEGATIVE2’, while, on the other hand, they are markers of assertion, a notion that has been included in the scope of illocutionary force, which includes operators such as ∅ ‘IMPERATIVE’, and &eJh [n] ‘NEGATIVE IMPERATIVE’. Interestingly, the interrogative markers &v|; [la] and &vJ [l] (the latter used only in WH-questions), IF operators themselves, occupy a slot which is obligatorily external to the rest of the IF operators. In other words, &v|; [la] and &vJ [l] must follow &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’, &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’, &bl; [bu]

238

ASPECT IN BURMESE

‘NEGATIVE2’ and &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’. In this case, &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’, &r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ are used in their reduced form &o [] and &r [m]. For example: (416) a]

euf = o = v|;/

n =  = la water be.deep = REAL = INT

je

‘Is/was the water deep?’ (417) b,faw|h


[yD; = r = vJ/

bd

pi = m = l

when

finish = IRR = INTWH

‘When will it finish?


(418) r = [kwf = bl; = v|;/ m = hou = pu = la NEG1 = be.so = NEG2 = INT ‘Isn’t that so?’ (419) xrif;


p|; = [yD; = [yD = v|;/

tmi

sa = pi = pi = la

rice

eat = PFV = CRS = INT

‘Have you eaten?’


The fact that &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ occupies the same slot as these operators with which it entertains a paradigmatic relation is in part proof of the nature of its function. In particular, not only does it assert the reality of the situation that lies in its scope, but it also ties it to the reality of the participants in the speech act and establishes pragmatic co-ordinates among them in a system of shared linguistic practice. It combines the reality status of the situation with the actuality of the speakers and the context in which they communicate. While a situation marked by &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ is simply asserted as being located in the speaker’s real/known world, whether specified or not by temporal forms, a situation marked by &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ specifies that the speaker’s goal is “… only


239

to offer it [the situation] as relevant to the current moment” (Bybee et al. 1994: 61), i.e. as relevant to speech or reference time. 8.4

Burmese &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ and Mandarin sentence-final particle le ‘CRS’: same label, similar function

The aim of this section is to compare the Burmese clausal operator &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ and the Mandarin sentence-final particle le ‘CRS’, which seem to be used similarly in certain contexts. For Li and Thompson (1981: 238-300), the Mandarin sentence-final particle le, derived itself from the main verb le ‘finish’ signals a ‘Currently Relevant State’ (CRS), i.e. it marks a state of affairs as being currently relevant to some situation (LT 1981: 243). Li and Thompson explain the meaning of each part of the label CRS by using the following example:

(420) [Someone calls X, who is out; a person answers the phone and says:] tā she

chū exit

qu go

măi buy

‘She’s gone shopping’

dōngxi thing

le CRS

[LT 1981: 240]

Le marks the situation as being current to some other situation, located at a different temporal point, either in the past, in the future or even in a hypothetical world. In this case, it is the present one, i.e. the situation which is actually taking place between the two participants in the speech act. In this respect, Mandarin le ‘CRS’ behaves differently from Burmese &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’, which ties the situation exclusively to speech time. At the same time, the situation is relevant for the speaker and the hearer and “… it is assumed that they can infer from the context in just what ways it is relevant” (LT 1981: 242). The fact that x has gone shopping is relevant to the caller and his need to talk to her. Finally, by marking an activity (‘go out shopping’) by le, speakers focus on the state resulting from the activity (x having gone shopping) and its current relevance to the situation at speech or reference time. In what follows, I will compare the uses of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ and le ‘CRS’ to mark current relevance of a state of affairs that either represents “… a change

240

ASPECT IN BURMESE

from an earlier state. This means that some state of affairs holds now which didn’t hold before” (LT 1981: 244) or “… brings the hearer up to date on the progress made so far in a more extensive project or venture about which both speaker and hearer know” (LT 1981: 270). 8.4.1

Change of state

With situations identified by stative predicates, the function of Burmese &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ and Mandarin le ‘CRS’ is to indicate that the state of affairs in esse has entered a new ‘stage of stativeness’ at, and is relevant to, speech/reference time, having thus inchoative function. For instance: (421) (a)

ar|ifcsdK

ta`z = udk

mauto

pje = ko

Maung.Cho

answer = OBJ

od = w,f/

i = t know = REAL

‘Maung Cho knows/knew the answer’ (a1)

ar|ifcsdK

ta`z = udk

mauto

pje = ko

Maung.Cho

answer = OBJ

od = [yD/

i = pi know = CRS

‘Maung Cho knows the answer [now] [he didn’t before]’ (b)

tā 3sg

zhīdao know

nèi that

ge CL

xiāoxi news

‘S/he knows about that piece of news’ (b1)

tā 3sg

zhīdao know

nèi that

ge CL

xiāoxi news

[LT 1981: 245] le CRS

‘S/he knows about that piece of news now [s/he didn’t before]’ [LT 1981: 245] (421a) and (421b) are simple statements asserting the existence of a state, [+ knowledge]. In (421a1) and (421b1), &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ and Mandarin le ‘CRS’ mark the change from a previous state of [- knowledge] to the state of [+


241

knowledge] as having occurred some time prior to speech time and, at the same time, as having direct relevance to the speech situation. Burmese &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ and Mandarin -le are often used with stative verbs denoting qualities. They both indicate that the entities’ quality is new, and therefore is the result of change, as opposed to a quality that is described as general, habitual and/or known/old. For example: (422) (a)

arG; = vJ

arG; = cg

mwe = l

give.birth = TOO

mwe = ka give.birth = time

eD; = yg = w,f/ ni = pa = t

be.near =POL=REAL

‘The time of birth is near’ (a1)

tck

arG; = vJ

ku mwe = l

now

give.birth = TOO

[Yin 1981:14]

arG; = cg mwe = ka give.birth = time

eD; = yg = [yD/ ni = pa = pi

be.near = POL = CRS ‘Now, the time of birth is (= has become) near” [Yin 1981:14] (b)

zhèi this

ge CL

dìfang place

hěn very

ānjìng peaceful

‘This place is very peaceful’ (b1)

zhèi this

ge CL

dìfang place

[LT 1981: 251] hěn very

ānjìng peaceful

‘This place has become very peaceful’

le CRS

[LT 1981: 251]

The following is an interesting example of the use of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ with a stative verb describing a quality: (423) 'D8aeh = vJ dine = l today = ALSO

a]uef = r\| jeka = ma pond = AT

ao|ufa] auje

drinking.water

242

ASPECT IN BURMESE

oG|;&cyf = w|

a] = awG

wa-ka = ta

je = twe water = MUCH

go-spoon.out = RELREAL

ae|ufusd = ae = `yef = [yD/

nauti = ne = pja = pi

be.muddy = CONT = ITER = CRS ‘Today too the drinking water [I] scooped at the pond is muddy again’ [Yin 1981: 54] The structure of this sentence in its simplified version is the following: (424) SENTENCE CLAUSE

PERIPHERY

CORE ARG

NUCL PRED

ADV

NP

today

water

V

be.muddy& CONT – ITER - CRS V

NUCL

NUCL

ASP

ASP

CORE CLAUSE

IF


243

Here, the predicate ae|ufusd [nauti] ‘be muddy’ is marked by the aspectual operator &ae [ne] ‘CONTINUOUS’ which indicates that the state (the water is muddy) exists at and is focussed on at speech time. This state of affairs is narrated by the speaker as having been instantiated earlier by means of two different strategies: 1) the restrictive relative clause ‘water that I scooped at the pond’ and 2) the use of the operator &`yef [pja] ‘ITERATIVE’, which marks the state (the water being muddy) as having already occurred in the past. As for &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’, it tells us that the time frame of the proposition, shown by the temporal adverbial 'D8aeh [dine] ‘today’ is the same as that of its utterance, i.e. the ‘now’ of speech time is seen as included in the time frame ‘today’. The function of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ is therefore time-oriented rather than aspectual, since it does not mark a change in the state of the entity, but it links the latter to the time of the context in which this assertion has been uttered. My informant has suggested that the combination [be muddy - `yef [pja] ‘ITERATIVE’- [yD [pi] ‘CRS’] contains an element of surprise on the speaker’s part, since it is the speaker’s expectation that the water be clean, contrary to what the reality of the situation is. Here, the use of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ is definitely pragmatic rather than aspectual. To explain this point more clearly, let us compare this example with the following modified versions of the same: (425) (a)

a]uef = r\| jeka = ma

pond = AT

ao|ufa]

oG|;&cyf = w|

a] = awG

auje


je = twe

drinking.water go-spoon.out = RELREAL

water = PL

ae|ufusd = ae = `yef = w,f/

nauti = ne = pja = t

be.muddy = CONT = ITER = REAL ‘The drinking water [I] scooped at the pond is muddy again’

244

(b)

ASPECT IN BURMESE

a]uef = r\| jeka = ma

pond = AT

ao|ufa] = awG

ae|ufusd = v| = w,f/

auje = twe

nauti = la = t

drinking.water

be.muddy = COME = REAL

‘The drinking water [I] scooped at the pond has become muddy’ (*c)

'D8aeh = vJ

a]uef = r\|

ao|ufa]

dine = l

jeka = ma pond = AT

drinking.water

today = ALSO

auje

oG|;&cyf = w|

a] = awG

ae|ufusd = [yD/


je = twe water = PL

nauti = pi be.muddy = CRS

go-spoon.out = RELREAL

‘Today too the drinking water [I] scooped at the pond has become muddy’ With (425a) the speaker, by using &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’, is simply stating that a state of affairs exists that has already existed before, with no personal involvement nor with any other implication or reference to speech time. In (425b), the operator &v| [la] ‘COME’ has inchoative function, and associated with &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’, it marks that a change of state, involving progress over time, occurred prior to speech time. Again, there is no mention of its possible current relevance to the speech act or to its participants. (425c) has been rejected by my informant as unacceptable. The expression is ruled out by the fact that &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ with a stative verb has inchoative function (old state > new state), and more importantly, that the change of state is directly witnessed by the speaker. Therefore, the direct experience of a change of state is incompatible with the existence of a state of affairs occurring prior to speech time, and marked as such by the relative clause and the adverbial ‘today’. In this case, then, the functions of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ are both aspectual and pragmatic. So far, &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ has been seen to refer to states in relation to speech time. In my sample, there are three instances of its use to mark change of state which is relevant not to speech time but to some time in the future. For example:


245

(426) rif;

oG|; = mdkif = w,f

qdk = ,if = yJ

ig = wdkh

mi

wa = nai = t go = CAN = REAL

so = ji = p say = IF = INDEED

a = to

you

I = PL

auseyf = yg = [yD/ tena = pa = pi

be.pleased = POL = CRS [Yin 1981: 38]

‘We will be pleased if you say that you can go’ (427) ol

`yef = a]|uf = wJh

u

pja = jau = t

he

RETURN

tcg ka

= arrive = RELREAL

p|;p]| = awG

at; = ukef = [yD/

sasja = twe

e = kou = pi

food = PL

be.cold = ALL = CRS

time

‘[My brother is late for dinner]. When he arrives, the food will be cold’ [Dahl 2000: 790] (428) ae|uf = wywf nau = tpa next = week

ae = ]if

aq;]kH = u

ne = ji

sejou = ka hospital = FROM

stay = IF

qif; = mdkif = [yD/

si = nai = pi

leave = CAN = CRS ‘If you stay one more week, you can leave the hospital’ [Yin 1981: 26] In these cases, the change of state marked by &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ is contingent on the actualisation of the event expressed in the dependent clauses ‘If you say that you can go, … ’, ‘When he arrives … ’ and ‘If you stay one more week…’ respectively. These clauses refer to a temporal frame that does not include speech time, even though the speaker is still part of the speech act. The same use may be found in Mandarin, as in:

246

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(429) tāmen de they GEN

xuéxiào school

nüshēng woman.student

míngnián next.year

jiu then

yào will

zhāo recruit

le CRS

‘Next year (the changed state will be that) their school will be open to women students’ [LT 1981: 257] (430) nĭ you

bă BA

zhèi this

yixià yìsi once meaning

liăng ge two CL jiu then

jùzi sentence

qīngchŭ clear

huàn change

le duō much CRS

‘If you reverse these two sentences, (the changed situation will be that) [LT 1981: 257] the meaning will then be much clearer’ The change of state has been made relevant to a point in time that is not that of actual speech. Only at that point in time will the actualisation of the change be acknowledged as relevant to it. 8.4.2

Progress so far

Both Burmese &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ and Mandarin le are often used when the duration of some state of affairs, which occurred prior to speech time, extends to and encompasses speech or reference time. In addition to &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ and le ‘CRS’, both languages use different strategies to express these concepts. For example: (431) (a)

'D = r\|

ae = w|

ckm\pf = m\pf

di = ma

ne = ta stay = NOM

kun = ni

i = pi

7 = year

be = CRS

this = AT

‘I’ve lived here for seven years (now)’

]\d = [yD/

[Dahl 2000: 804]

&[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (b)

wŏ I

zài at

nàli zhù there live

le PFV

liăng two

247

ge

yuè le month CRS

CL

‘I’ve lived there for two months (now)

[LT 1981: 270]

In Burmese, the main verb ]\d [i] ‘be; exist’ is accompanied by the specification of the duration of the state in question. The verb which denotes the type of event whose duration is referred to is nominalised by the derivational form &w| [ta] ‘NOMINALISER’. According to Okell (1969: 414-416), the operator &w| [ta] ‘NOMINALISER’ in (431a) is thought to derive from the fusion of &wJh [t] ‘REALIS RELATIVISER’, derived from the clausal post-VN operator &w,f [t] ‘REALIS’, with the noun [| [ha] ‘thing’. Its association with a verb could be glossed into English as ‘that which is V-ed, thing that was V-ed, V-ing’ (Okell and Allott 2001: 74), with &r\| [ma] ‘that which will be V-ed, thing that has to be V-ed, V-ing’ (Okell and Allott 2001: 171) as its irrealis counterpart. In Okell and Allott’s words, &w| [ta] “… converts a verb clause to a ‘nominalised clause’, a noun-like entity that can be used as a noun in a larger sentence” (Okell and Allott 2001: 74). We can visualise their proposed diachronic development as follows: (432) (a)

&w,f [t] ‘REALIS’ > &wJh [t] ‘RELATIVISER’ ↓

&wJh [t] ‘RELATIVISER’ + [| [ha] ‘thing’ > &w| [ta] (b)

&r,f [m] ‘IRREALIS’ > &rJh [m] ‘RELATIVISER’ ↓

&rJh [m] ‘RELATIVISER’ + [| [ha] ‘thing’ > &r\| [ma] Temporal structures of the same type as (431), repeated here for convenience: (433) 'D = r\| di = ma this = AT

ae = w|

ckm\pf = m\pf

ne = ta stay = NOM

kun = ni

i = pi

7 = year

be = CRS

‘I’ve lived here for seven years (now)’

]\d = [yD/

[Dahl 2000: 804]

248

ASPECT IN BURMESE

can be accounted for if we consider &w| [ta] as being a nominaliser changing the clause: (434) uGsefr tma

I

'D = r\|

ae = w,f/

di = ma this = AT

ne = t stay = REAL

‘I stay here’ into the nominal structure: (435) uGsefr tma

I

'D = r\|

ae = w|

di = ma this = AT

ne = ta stay = NOM

‘My staying here’ which represents the subject of the sentence. The temporal adverbial ckm\pf&m\pf [kuni-ni] ‘seven years’ specifies the duration of the state in question, duration which is conveyed by the main verb ]\d [i] ‘be; exist’. Altogether, the sentence can be paraphrased as ‘My staying here has existed for seven years’. As I have already anticipated, &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ is used when the duration of some state of affairs, which occurred prior to speech or reference time, extends to and encompasses speech or reference time. To say that a state exists at speech time and that its existence is prior to speech time and encompasses it is to assume that the spatial/temporal limits of this state are well defined, i.e. that its terminal boundary is specified as extending to the ‘now’ of the speaker’s reality. It is precisely the reference to the boundedness/anteriority of the event that is part of the meaning of &w| [ta], which combines the modality component of realis with the perfective feature conveyed by a temporal restrictive relative clause. The following are further examples of this use: (436) tJ'g

0,f = x|; = w|

ig; = m\pf = av|uf

]\d = [yD/

da

w = ta = ta

a - n = lau

i = pi

that

buy = RES = NOM

5-year = ABOUT

be = CRS

‘[I] have had that [camera] for five years now’

&[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (437) n

r = tdyf = w|

a

m = ei = ta

night

NEG1

oHk; = n

= sleep = NOM

249

]\d = [yD/

ou = a

i = pi

3 = night

be = CRS

‘[Why do you look so tired?] I haven’t slept for three nights’ [Dahl 2000: 804] My sample presents instances of the same pattern where, instead of the main verb ]\d [i] ‘be’, the main verb ju| [ta] ‘be a long time (since); elapse’ occurs. For example: (438) b[uD; = vJ badi = l Uncle = ALSO

r = od = ] = yg = bl;?

m = i = ja = pa = bu NEG1

= know = GET = POL = NEG2

‘Uncle doesn’t know [about it]’

]G| = xJ = udk

jwa = t = ko

r = a]|uf = w|

ju| = [yD/

m = jau = ta

ta = pi

village = INSIDE = TO

NEG1

= arrive = NOM

be.a.long.time=CRS

‘[He] hasn’t been to the village for a long time’ (439) tck

[Yin 1981: 71]

ol

qHk; = w|

ju| = [yD/

ku

u

sou = ta

now

he

die = NOM

ta = pi be.a.long.time = CRS

‘It’s been a long time since [your father] died’ (440) cifAs|;

'D = r\|

ap|ifh = ae = w|

kibja

di = ma

sau = ne = ta

you

this = AT

wait.for = CONT = NOM

ju| = [yD = v|;/ ta = pi = la

be.a.long.time= CRS = INT T

‘Have you been waiting here long?’

[Yin 1981: 74]

250

ASPECT IN BURMESE

The following are other instances of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ used in the indication of chronological time: (441) tcsdef

]\d = [yD = vJ/

b,fav|uf

tei

blau

i = pi = l

time

how.much

be = CRS = INTWH

‘What’s the time?’

]\d = [yD/

oHk; = e|]D ou = naji

i = pi

3 = hour

be = CRS

‘It’s 3 o’clock’ (442) rifh = touf mi =  your = age

b,fav|uf

]\d = [yD = vJ/

blau

i = pi = l

how.much

be = CRS = INTWH

‘How old are you?’ 8.5

&[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ with achievements and accomplishments

So far, the discussion on &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ has focused on its use as an inchoative marker in combination with stative verbs. My sample also includes instances of its use with accomplishment verbs: (443) a] = amG; je = nwe

ql = [yD?

vufzuf]nf

azs|f = ] = r = v|;/

su = pi

lpje

pj = ja = m = la

tea

make = GET = IRR = INT

water = warm boil = CRS

‘The water is boiling. Shall I make tea?’

[Dahl 2000: 812]

&[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (444) yef;oD; = rs|; pai = mja apple = PL

tyif = ay: = r\|

ykyf = ukef = [yD/

tree = ON = AT

rot = ALL = CRS

pi = p = ma

251

pou = kou = pi

‘[Look, what a shame!] The apples are rotting on the tree’ [Dahl 2000: 812] In both cases, ql [su] ‘boil’ and ykyf [pou] ‘rot’ are accomplishment verbs which represent processes that bring about changes in the state of the entities affected by them. The function of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ is twofold: 1) it signals the passage from an existing state of affairs to a new one (inchoative function) and 2) it links the existence of this state to the reality of the speaker, whose report is the result of his/her witnessing of the event. Although we might argue that boil and rot are verbs that represent processes whose duration spans over time segments that differ in length, by using &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ the length of the process becomes irrelevant. What is relevant, on the contrary, is that the speakers (and possibly their interlocutors) witness both the achievement of the terminal point (the boiling of the water and the rotting of the apples) as well as the existence of the new state, which is ongoing at speech time. On the other hand, English favours the dynamic quality of accomplishments by disregarding the terminal point at which the old state gives way to the new state and by marking the predicate that conveys the change of state (and its witnessing by the speakers) with the progressive, called by Fleischman ‘visualising PRESENT’, which reports “... descriptions of ongoing process situations” (Fleischman 1990: 37). The function of &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ with achievement verbs is not dissimilar from its function with accomplishments. Achievement verbs “… code instantaneous changes, usually changes of state but also changes in activities as well; they have an inherent terminal point” (Van Valin and La Polla 1997: 92). For example: (445) cJwH

usdK; = oG|; = [yD/

kda

to = wa = pi

pencil

break(INTR) = GO = CRS

‘The pencil has broken [Go and find another one]’

252

ASPECT IN BURMESE

rdk;

wdwf = oG|; = [yD/

ku

mo

tei = wa = pi

now

rain(N)

stop = GO = CRS

(446) tck

‘[Let’s go out]. It’s stopped raining/It’s not raining now’ [Dahl 2000: 814]

aw|ifwufor|; (447) aw|ifxdyf = udk tautma tautei = ko mountain.peak = TO climber

a]|uf = oG|; = [yD/ jau = wa = pi arrive = GO = CRS

‘The climber has reached the top of the mountain [now]’ [Dahl 2000: 811] All the instances in my sample refer to punctual events which are signalled as having occurred prior to speech time by the perfective operator &oG|; [wa] ‘GO’, marking the total affectedness of the Undergoer (the pencil is broken) or the completion of the event (the rain has stopped). Again, &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ relates the situation to the context of utterance. 8.6

The combination &[yD;&[yD [pi-pi] ‘PFV-CRS’

While analysing the function of the post-VN operator &[yD; [pi] ‘PERFECTIVE’, I stated that its rare occurrence in the verbal complex of independent clauses was matched by the rarity of instances of its lexical source, the full verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’ in the same syntactic environment. On the other hand, I anticipated the fact that, in independent clauses, it may be found in association with the post-VN operator &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’. For example: (448) [Q: Has your brother done what his teacher told him to do today? A: Yes,]

'D

p|tkyf

ol

zwf = [yD; = [yD/

di

saou

u

pa = pi = pi

this

book

he

read = PFV = CRS

‘He’s read this book [as he was told]’

[Dahl 1985: 200]

&[yD [pi] ‘CURRENTLY RELEVANT STATE’ (449) b|[uD; = ]Jh v,f = uGuf = xJ = r\| badi = j l = kw = t = ma uncle = POSS field = area = INSIDE = AT

'D

a]uef = u

di

jeka = ka

this

pond = FROM

yg&0if = ae = w| = rdkh

b|[uD; = udk

be.in-enter = CONT = REAL = BECAUSE

badi = ko uncle = TO

pa-wi = ne = ta = mo

0dkif;0ef;

cGifhaw|if; = [yD;

waiwu

kwitau = pi

together

ask.permission = PFV

`yK`yif = zdkh pjupji = po repair = TO

uGsefaw|f = wdkh

qHk;`zwf = [yD; = [yD/

tn = to

soupja = pi = pi decide = PFV = CRS

I = PL

253

‘We have decided to ask Uncle’s permission and repair [the pond] together because this pond lies in Uncle’s field’ [Yin 1981: 76] (450) uGsefr = u tma = ka I(fem) = SUBJ

qufoG,f = ]ef sw = ja

get.in.touch = TO

eHeuf = wcsdefvHk;

nDnD = m\ifh

nan = tteilou

ii = ni

morning = all.the.time

Nyi.Nyi = WITH

[udK;p|; = [yD; = [yD/

toza = pi = pi try = PFV = CRS

‘I’ve tried all morning to get in touch with Nyi Nyi’ (451) uGsefr = u tma = ka I(fem) = SUBJ

xyfwvJvJ

olh = udk

a`y| = [yD; = wJh

pu|; = udk

u = ko

pj = pi = t

sa = ko

he = OBJ

say = PFV = RELREAL

word = OBJ

a`y| = [yD; = [yD/

tatll

pj = pi = pi

repeatedly

say = PFV = CRS

‘I have told him the [same] word over and over again’

254

ASPECT IN BURMESE

(452) rjunf = eJh mti = n Ma.Chi = AND

tar = wdkh

v| = ju = yg?

me = to

la = ta = pa

Mother = PL

come = PL = POL

aq;

0,f = [yD; = [yD/

se

w = pi = pi

medecine

buy = PFV = CRS

‘Ma Kyi, Mother, please come. I’ve bought the medicine’ (453) p|rsufm\|

b,fm\pf

]Guf

a]; = [yD; = [yD = vJ/

samjna

bn

jw

je = pi = pi = l

page

how.many

sheet

write = PFV = CRS = INTWH

‘How many pages have you written so far?’

t]Guf

ig; = q,f

jw

a = s

je = pi = pi

page

5 = 10

write = PFV = CRS

‘I’ve written 50 pages’

a]; = [yD; = [yD/

[Dahl 2000: 803]

Here, the combination &[yD;&[yD/ [pi-pi] ‘PFV-CRS’ occurs with causative accomplishments, i.e. events which are best characterised by the features [static], [+ telic], [- punctual], [+ causative], and therefore processes that do not occur spontaneously but are brought about (Van Valin and La Polla 1997: 84) by an Actor affecting an Undergoer. The feature [+ telic] may be inherent in the basic meaning of the verb (e.g. decide, try, buy), in that its arguments, which are the goal of the activity expressed by the verb, are obligatorily part of its lexical entry. The presence of the same feature [+ telic] may also be induced on the predicate in question by its context of occurrence. For example, read the book and write fifty pages are examples of the activity verbs read and write, which, in this particular context, are assigned the specific core arguments the book and fifty pages, which constitute the end-point or goal of the activity expressed by the two verbs. As stated elsewhere (see chapter 7), the use of &[yD; [pi] ‘PFV’ transforms these same processes into punctual events, i.e. it describes them as (causative) achievements and reduce them to single, unanalysed objects with clear-cut boundaries, a function that derives from the Ak-


255

tionsart of its lexical source, the achievement verb [yD; [pi] ‘finish; come to an end’. Therefore, &[yD; [pi] ‘PFV’ may be described as an operator that changes the type of state of affairs in question from a [- punctual] to a [+ punctual] one, by focussing the attention on the completion of the event, i.e. on its terminal boundary. The relevance to actual time reference is then marked by &[yD [pi] ‘CRS’ which ties the existence of a well-defined event to the reality of the speakers and their linguistic environment.

CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION

The goal of this study was to present an overview of the aspectual system of Burmese, with particular attention given to the analysis of some of the commonest aspectual operators. The analysis has highlighted a few important issues of this system. Firstly, aspect in Burmese is identified by markers which typically follow the main verb, although a few operators may precede their verbal head. Secondly, most operators that mark aspect derive from full lexical verbs, many of which are still used. This is a key factor in my discussion, since the explanation of the function of these operators lies in the importance of the combination of the inherent semantic features of their lexical sources with the inherent semantic features of the verbs which they modify, a combination that ultimately determines the structure of the verbal complex and that of the clause. Thirdly, much insight has been gained by analysing the position of the aspectual operators vis-à-vis the main verb as well as other grammatical markers within the verbal complex. It is the semantics of the operators that, in most cases, determines 1) their order vis-à-vis the main verb and 2) their order vis-à-vis the other operators within the verbal complex. It is the interplay between semantics, syntax and pragmatics that has surfaced as the most interesting and enlightening feature of this study, whose identification has been made easier and more elegant by the adoption of the descriptive approach provided by Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997). Much still needs to be done. Future research should focus on the description of the entire aspectual system of Burmese, together with an analysis of its modal system and the expression of temporal reference. In addition, verbal semantics should be further investigated in order to describe the interface between lexical semantics and syntax and, ultimately, the structure of events.

REFERENCES

Amberber, M. 2000. Valency-changing and valency-encoding devices in Amharic. In Changing valency. Case studies in transitivity, R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 312-332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, L. B. 1982. The "Perfect" as a universal and as a language-specific category. In Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, P. J. Hopper (ed), 227-264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Benedict, P. K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan. A Conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berman, R. A., and D. Slobin. 1994. Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates. Bernot, D. 1980. Le Prédicat en Birman Parlé. Paris: SELAF. Bhat, D.N.S. 1999. The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bickner, R. J. 1989. Directional modification in Thai fiction: the use of 'come' and 'go' in text building. In South-East Asian Syntax, D. Bradley (ed), 1579. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Bradley, D. (ed). 1997. Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics. Tibeto-Burman Languages of the Himalayas. Canberra: Australian National University. Brinton, L. J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Aspectualizers and Post-Verbal Particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, J., R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

260

REFERENCES

Chung, S., and A. Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect and mood. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, T. Shopen (ed), vol. III, 202-258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, E. V. 1974. Normal states and evaluative viewpoints. Language 50: 316332. Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. 1981a. Aspect and voice: some reflections on perfect and passive. In Tense and Aspect, P. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen (eds), 65-78. New York: Academic Press. Comrie, B. 1981b. On Reichenbach's approach to tense. In Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 24-30. Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. (ed). 1987. The Major Languages of East and South-East Asia. London: Routledge. Corne, C. 1971. Le patois créole franais de la Guyane (St. Laurent-duMaroni): Esquisse de grammaire. In Te Reo 14: 81-103. Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Dahl, Ö. (ed). 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dixon, R. M. W., and A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds). 2000a. Changing valency. Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R. M. W., and A. Y. Aikhenvald. 2000b. Introduction. In Changing valency. Case studies in transitivity, R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 1-29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dowty, D. R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Dry, H. 1983. The movement of narrative time. Journal of Literary Semantics 12: 19-53.

REFERENCES

261

Enfield, N. J. 2000. On the Polyfunctionality of 'Acquire' in Mainland Southeast Asia. PhD Dissertation, University of Melbourne. Enfield, N. 2001. On genetic and areal linguistics in Mainland South-East Asia: parallel polyfunctionality of 'acquire'. In Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds), 255-290. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fillmore, C. J. 1983. How to know whether you're coming or going. In Essays on Deixis, G. Rauh (ed), 219-227. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Fleischman, S. 1990. Tense and Narrativity. From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. Austin: University of Texas Press. Foley, W. A., and R. D. J. Van Valin Jr., 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freed, A. F. 1979. The Semantics of English Aspectual Complementation. Dordrecht: Reidel. Gandour, J. 1978. On the deictic use of verbs of motion come and go in Thai. Anthropological Linguistics 20: 381-394. Givón, T. 1982a. Tense-aspect-modality: the creole prototype and beyond. In Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, P. J. Hopper (ed), 115-163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, T. 1982b. Transitivity, topicality and the Ute impersonal passive. In Studies in Transitivity, P. J. Hopper and S. A. Thompson (eds), 143-160. New York: Academic Press. Givón, T. 1990. Syntax: a Functional-Typological Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haviland, J. B. 1991a. The Grammaticalization of Motion (and Time) in Tzotzil. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Haviland, J. B. 1991b. Projections, Transpositions, and Relativity. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Heine, B. 1993. Auxiliaries - Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

262

REFERENCES

Heine, B., U. Claudi, and F. Hunnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heine, B., and T. Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, P. J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Discourse and Syntax, T. Givón (ed), 213-242. New York: Academic Press. Hopper, P. J. (ed). 1982. Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hopper, P. J., and S. A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251-299. Jackendoff, R. S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press. Ladefoged, P. 1993. A Course in Phonetics. Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. LaPolla, R. J. 2000. Valency-changing derivations in Dulong/Rawang. In Changing valency. Case studies in transitivity, R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 283-311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Li, C. N., and S. A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese - A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lichtenberk, F. 1991. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67: 475-509. Longacre, R. E. 1968. Philippine Languages: Discourse, Paragraph and Sentence Structure. Santa Ana: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Longacre, R. E. 1985. Sentences as combinations of clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, T. Shopen (ed), vol. II, 235-286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES

263

Lyons, J. 1995. Linguistic Semantics. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marchese, L. 1986. Tense/Aspect and the Development of Auxiliaries in Kru Languages [Summer Institute of Linguistics, Publications in Linguistics, 78]. Arlington, TX: SIL and University of Texas. Martin, J. B. 2000. Creek voice: beyond valency. In Changing valency. Case studies in transitivity, R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 375403. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matisoff, J. A. 1973. The Grammar of Lahu. Berkeley: University of California Press. Matisoff, J. A. 1988. The Dictionary of Lahu. Berkeley: University of California Press. Matisoff, J. A. 1991. Areal and universal dimensions of grammaticization in Lahu. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), vol. II, 383-453. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mayer, M. 1974. A Boy, a Dog and a Frog. London: Collins. Morrissey, M. D. 1973. The English perfective and 'still'/'anymore'. Journal of Linguistics 9: 65-69. Mufwene, S. S. 1984. Stativity and the Progressive. Bloomington: IULC. Myint, S. 1994. A semantic study of deictic auxiliaries in Burmese. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 17(1): 125-139. Nedjalkov, V. P. (ed). 1988. Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nedjalkov, V. P., and S. Jaxontov. 1988. The typology of resultative constructions. In Typology of Resultative Constructions, V. P. Nedjalkov (ed), 3-62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Noonan, M. 1985. Complementation. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, T. Shopen (ed), vol. II, 42-140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

264

REFERENCES

Okell, J. 1969. A Reference Grammar of Colloquial Burmese. London: Oxford University Press. Okell, J. 1979. Still and anymore in Burmese: another look at /thei`/, /ou`n/ and /to'/. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 4: 69-82. Okell, J. 1994. Burmese. An Introduction to the Literary Style. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University. Okell, J., and A. Allott. 2001. Burmese/Myanmar Dictionary of Grammatical Forms. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon. Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman. Payne, T. E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax. A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Post, M. 1992. The serial verb construction in Fa d’Ambu. In Actas do Colóquio Sobre Crioulos de Base Lexical Portuguesa, Edioes Colibri (ed), 153. Lisboa. Rapoport, T. R. 1999. Structure, aspect, and the predicate. Language 75: 653677. Reid, N. 2000. Complex verb collocations in Ngan'gityemerri: a nonderivational strategy for encoding valency alternations. In Changing valency. Case studies in transitivity, R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 333-359. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rice, K. 2000. Voice and valency in the Athapaskan family. In Changing valency. Case studies in transitivity, R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 173-235. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siewierska, A. 1984. The Passive. A Comparative Linguistic Analysis. London: Croom Helm. Steele, S. 1975. Is it "possible"? Stanford University Working Papers on Language Universals 18: 35-58. Thompson, S. A., and R. E. Longacre. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, T. Shopen (ed), vol. II, 171-234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES

265

Thornell, C. 1997. The Sango Language and Its Lexicon (Sêndâ-yângâ tî sängö). Lund: Lund University Press. Traugott, E. C., and B. Heine. (eds) 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van Valin Jr., R. D. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, R. D. Van Valin Jr. (ed), 1163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van Valin Jr., R. D., and R. J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax - Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Wheatley, J. K. 1987. Burmese. In The Major Languages of East and SouthEast Asia, B. Comrie (ed), 106-126. London: Routledge. Yin, N. (1981). A Flower of Beauty and Other Tales. Yangon: Nu Yin.

APPENDIX LITTLE FROG, WHERE ARE YOU?

zg; = i,fuav;

rif;

b,fr\| = vJ/

pa = le

mi

bma = l

frog = small

you

where = INTWH

‘Little frog, where are you?’

(1)

[FR]

w]Ha]|tcg

]G|o|&]G| = r\|

ar|ifqef;xGef;


jwaa–jwa = ma

mausatu

once.upon.a.time

Ywatha-village = AT

Maung.San.Thun

ac: = wJh

vli,fav;&w = a,|uf

]\d = w,f/

k = t

lule–t = jau

i = t

call = RELREAL

boy-1 = CLASS

be = REAL

‘Once upon a time, in the village of Ywatha, there was a boy called Maung San Tun’ (2)

olh = r\|

tvGef

cspf = zG,f

au|if; = wJh

u = ma

lu

ti = pw

kau = t

he = AT

much

love (V) = NOM

be.good = RELREAL

acG; = uav;&w = au|if

]\d = w,f/

kwe = kle–t = kau

i = t

dog = small-1 = CLASS

be = REAL

‘He had a dog that [he] loved very much’ (3)

'D

acG; = uav; = onf

vli,fav;

oG|;&]| = udk

di

kwe = kle = i

lule

wa–ja = ko

this

dog = small = SUBJ

boy

go-place = OBJ

270

LITTLE FROG, WHERE ARE YOU?

vdkuf = avh = ]\d = wJh

t`yif

vli,fav; = eJh

lai = le = i = t

pji

follow = HAB = BE = RELREAL

exterior

lule = n boy = WITH

twl

tdyf]| = ay: = r\|

tdyf = avh = ]\d = w,f/

tu

eija = p = ma

together

bed = ON = AT

ei = le = i = t sleep = HAB = BE = REAL

‘The small dog followed the boy [everywhere] he went and slept with [him] on [his] bed’ (4)

ar|ifqef;xGef; = r\|

zg; = uav;&w = au|if = vJ

mausatu = ma

pa = kle–t = kau = l frog = small-1 = CLASS = ALSO

Maung.San.Tun = AT

]\d = ao; = w,f/ i = e = t be = AS.WELL = REAL

‘Maung San Tun had a small frog too’ (5)

'D

zg; = i,fuav; = udk

di

pa = le = ko je–pli = t

t = pi

this

frog = small = OBJ

water-jar = INSIDE

put.in = PFV

ckwif

a`c]if; = r\|

x|; = ]\d = w,f/

u = j

di

teji = ma

ta = i = t

he = POSS

bedstead

base = AT

put = BE = REAL

olh = ]Jh

a]&ykvif; = xJ

xnfh = [yD;

‘[He] had put the small frog into a jar [full of] water and put [it] at the foot of [his] bed’ (6)

eHeufcif;&w = ]uf = r\|

vli,fav;

tdyf]| = u

nanki–t = j = ma

lule

eija = ka

morning-1 = CLASS = AT

boy

bed = FROM

APPENDIX

271

mdk; = aw|h

olh = ckwif

a`c]if; = r\|

no = t

u = di his = bedstead


wake.up = WHEN

x|; = wJh

zg; = i,fuav; = udk

tdyf]| = ay: = u

ta = t

pa = le = ko


put = RELREAL

frog = small = OBJ

bed = ON = FROM

ae = [yd;

junfh = w,f/

ne = pi

ti = t look.at = REAL

stay = PFV

base = AT

‘One morning, when [he] woke up, the boy from [his] bed, he looked at the small frog that [he] had put at the base of his bedstead’ (7)

ykvif; = xJ = r\|

zg; = uav;

r = ]\d = aw|h

pli = t = ma

pa = kle

m = i = t

jar = INSIDE = AT

frog = small

NEG1

olh = ]Jh

tcef;&w = ck = vHk; = xJ

u = j

he = POSS

ka– t = ku = lou = t room-ALL = CLASS = ALL = INSIDE

arSGam\|uf = [yD;

]\| = w,f/

mwenau = pi

a = t

rummage = PFV

look.for = REAL

= be = WHEN

‘The little frog wasn’t in the jar and he rummaged about his room and looked for [it]” (8)

tJ'D = vdk

]\| = ae = wkef;

acG; = i,fav; = u

di = lo

a = ne = tou look.for = CONT = WHILE

kwe = le = ka dog = little = SUBJ

this = LIKE

272


ykvif; = xJ

acgif;

xnfh = [yd;

a]

ao|uf = w,f/

pli = t

au

ti = pi

jar = INSIDE

head

put.in = PFV

je au = t water drink = REAL

‘While [he] was looking for [the frog], the little dog put [his] head into the jar and drank the water’ (9)

a]

ao|uf = [yD; = wJh

tcg

olh = acgif; = udk

je

au = pi = t ka water drink = PFV = RELREAL time

u = au = ko his = head = OBJ

ykvif; = xJ = u

r = ] = bJ/

xkwf = vdkh

pli = t = ka

tou = lo jar = INSIDE = FROM take.out = COMP

m = ja = b NEG1

= can = INDEED

‘After [he] had drunk the water, [he] couldn’t take his head out of the jar’ (10)

ykvif; = r\|

wpf = ae = w,f/

pli = ma

ti = ne = t be.stuck = CONT = REAL

jar = AT

‘[He] was stuck in the jar’ (11)

vli,fuav; = vJ

b|

vkyf = ] = r\ef;

lule = l

ba

lou = ja = ma

boy = ALSO

what

do = GET = COMP

r = od = `zpf = [yD;

ae|ufqHk; = aw|h

tcef; = xJ = r\|

m = i = pji = pi

nausou = t

ka = t = ma

last = FINAL

room = INSIDE =AT

NEG1

= know = BE = PFV

]\d = wJh

`ywif;ayguf = udk

zGifh = [yD;

acG; = uav; = udk

i = t

bdibau = ko window = OBJ

pwi = pi

kwe = kle = ko

open = PFV

dog = small = OBJ

be = RELREAL

APPENDIX

273

`ywif;ayguf&ab|if = ay:

wif = x|; = vdkuf = w,f/

bdibau–bau = p

ti = ta = lai = t put.on = RES = FOLLOW = REAL

window-sill = ON

‘The boy didn’t know what to do and at last [he] opened the window in the room and [he] put the little dog on the window sill’ (12)

acG; = uav; = vJ

aju|ufvefh = [yD;

`ywif;ayguf = ay: = u

kwe = kle = l

taula = pi be.scared = PFV

bdibau = p = ka window = ON = FROM

dog = small = ALSO

ckef&us = vdkuf = w,f/ kou–ta = lai = t

jump.over-fall = FOLLOW = REAL ‘The dog too was scared and jumped over from the window and fell down’ (13)

a`r[uD; = ay:

us = oG|; = wJh

tcg

ykvif; uGJ = oG|; = w,f/

mjedi = p ta = wa = t

ka pli kw = wa = t

ground = ON fall = GO = RELREAL

time

jar

break = GO = REAL

‘When [he] fell down, the jar broke’ (14)

acG; = av;

0rf;o| = pG| = eJh

kwe = le

wua = swa = n

dog = small

be.happy = ADV = WITH

ckefayguf = wJh

tcg

vli,fuav;

koupau = t

ka

lule

jump.about = RELREAL

time

boy

tdrf = xJ = u

a`y; = xGuf = [yD;

acG; = i,fav; = udk

ei = t = ka

pje = tw = pi run-exit = PFV

kwe = le = ko dog = small = OBJ

home = INSIDE = FROM

274


olh = ]ifcGif = xJ

ydkuf&csD = x|; = w,f/

u = jiwi = t

pai–ti = ta = t hold-carry = RES = REAL

his = bosom = INSIDE

‘When the dog jumped about happily, the boy ran out of the house and [he] held the dog to his bosom and carried it’ (15)

xdk

ae|uf vli,fav; = u

acG; = uav; = eJh

twl

to

nau lule = ka

that

after

kwe = kle = n dog = small = WITH

together

boy = SUBJ

zg; = i,fuav; = udk

vdkuf&]\| = ju = w,f/

pa = le = ko

lai–a = ta = t go.after-look.for = PL = REAL

frog = small = OBJ

tu

‘Then, the boy and the dog went after the frog’ (16)

ol = wdkh = twl

ys|;tHk;

]\d = wJh

u = to = tu

pjaou

i = t

he = PL = together

bee.hive

be = RELREAL

opfyif&w = yif = at|uf

a]|uf = wJh

tcg

ipi–t = pi = au tree-1 = CLASS = UNDER

jau = t arrive = RELREAL

time

zg; = i,fuav; = udk

awGh = w,f/

pa = le = ko

twe = t

frog = small = OBJ

come.across = REAL

ka

‘When they arrived under a tree where a bee hive was, [they] found the frog’ (17)

ar|ifqef;xGef; = u

zg; = i,fuav; = udk

“b|aju|ifh

mausatu = ka

pa = le = ko frog = small = OBJ

Why

Maung.San.Tun = SUBJ

bada

APPENDIX

275

olh = tdrf = u

xGuf&a`y; = oG|; = o = vJ” = vdkh

u = ei = ka

tw–pje = wa =  = l = lo exit-run = GO = REAL = INTWH = QUOT

his = house = FROM

ar; = ae = wkef

acG; = uav; = u

ys|;tHk = udk

me = ne = tou

kwe = kle = ka

pjaou = ko

ask = CONT = WHILE

dog = small = SUBJ

bee.hive = OBJ

ar|h&junfh = [yD;

a[|if = ae = w,f/

m–ti = pi

hau = ne = t bark = CONT = REAL

go.up-look = PFV

‘While Maung San Tun was asking the frog “Why did you run away from home?”, the dog went up and looked at the bee hive and barked’ (18)

te|; = r\|

]\d = wJh

ae|uf&opfyif = [uD;&w = yif = r\|

na = ma

i = t

nau–ipi = ti–t = pi = ma

vicinity = AT be = RELREAL

back-tree = be.big-1 = CLASS = AT

opf = udkif; = [uD;

]\d = w,f/

i = kai = ti


tree = branch = be.big

‘On a big tree nearby, there was a big branch’ (19)

vli,fuav; = u

opf = udkif; = [uD;

]\d = wJh

lule = ka

i = kai = ti

i = t

boy = SUBJ

tree = branch = big

be = RELREAL

tyif = ay:

wuf = [yD;


pi = p

t = pi

i = kai = t = ko

tree = ON

climb.up = PFV


ikHh&junfh = wJh ou–ti = t

tcg = r\|

ka = ma incline-look = RELREAL time = AT

ZD;uGuf = i\uf = [uD; ziw =  = ti owl = CLASS = be.big

276


ysH&xGuf = v| = w,f/ pja–tw = la = t

fly-exit = COME = REAL ‘The boy climbed on the tree where the big branch was and when [he] inclined [his] head and looked, a big owl came out and flew [away]’ (20)

vli,fuav; = vJ

vefh = [yD;

opfyif = at|uf = odkh

lule = l


ipi = au = o

boy = ALSO

yufvuf

vef&us = oG|; = w,f/

pl

la–ta = wa = t

supine

be.turned.up-fall = GO = REAL

tree = UNDER = TO

‘The boy too got scared and [he] turned up and fell down on [his] back’ (21)

w = csdef = xJ = r\| = bJ

ys|; = awG = u = vJ

t = tei = t = ma = b

pja = twe = ka = l

one = time = INSIDE = AT = INDEED

bee = PL = SUBJ = ALSO

acG; = uav; = ae|uf

vdkuf&ysH = vdkh

acG; = uav; = vJ

kwe = kle = nau dog = small = BEHIND

lai–pja = lo kwe = kle = l follow-fly = BECAUSE dog = small = ALSO

xGuf&a`y; = ] = ]\| = w,f/ tw–pje = ja = a = t

exit-run = GET = PITY = REAL ‘At that moment, because the bees flew behind the dog, he too had to run’ (22)

tJ'D

ae|uf = udk

vli,fav; = vJ

]| = u

di

nau = ko back = TO

lule = l boy = ALSO

ja = ka ta = pi place = FROM rise = PFV

that

x = [yD;

APPENDIX

277

a`y; = vdkuf = oG|; = w,f/ pje = lai = wa = t

run = FOLLOW = GO = REAL ‘After that, the boy rose from his place and ran’ (23)

acG; = i,fuav;

`caw|ifydk&ta`c = r\|

kwe–le

tataubo–te = ma

dog = small

ant.hill-base = AT

0yf = ae = w,f/ wu = ne = t

crouch = CONT = REAL ‘The dog crouched at the base of an ant hill’ (24)

vli,fav; = u

`caw|ifydkh = ay: = udk

wuf = [yD;

lule = ka

tataubo = p = ko

t = pi

boy = SUBJ

ant.hill = ON = TO

climb.up = PFV

ta0; = udk

v\rf; = junfh = w,f/

we = ko

a = ti = t

distance = TO

REACH.OUT

= look = REAL

‘The boy climbed onto the ant hill and looked in the distance’ (25)

`caw|ifydkh&xdyf = e|; = r\|

opf = udkif = eJh

tataubo–tei = na = ma

i = kai = n

ant.hill-summit-vicinity = AT

tree = branch = WITH

wl = wJh

'],f&csdK = udk

tu = t

dj–to = ko deer-antlers = OBJ

resemble = RELREAL

v\rf; = udkif = vdkuf = w,f/ a = kai = lai = t REACH.OUT

= hold.in.hand = FOLLOW = REAL

‘[He] held [in his hands] a deer’s antlers that looked like tree branches’

278

(26)


'],f = vJ

vefh = [yD;

olh = csdK = udk

dj = l


u = to = ko

deer = ALSO

its = antlers = OBJ

cwf = vdkuf = wJh

tcg

ka = lai = t

ka lule

vli,fav;

te


time

leg

boy

a`c

vGwf = [yD;

'],f&acgif; = ay:

csdK = ju|;

lu = pi

dj–kau = p deer-head = ON

to = ta

be.free = PFV

antlers = BETWEEN

vdrfh&us = oG|; = aw|h = av = w,f/ lei–ta = wa = t = le = t

roll-fall = GO = FINAL = EU = REAL ‘The deer too got scared and when [it] tossed [its] antlers, the boy’s leg was freed and [he] rolled and fell between the antlers’ (27)

'],f = vJ

txdwfwvefh = eJh

a`y; = rd = a`y; = ]|

dj = l

teitla = n sudden.fright = WITH

pje = mi = pje = ja run = INADV = run = place

deer = ALSO

a`y; = oG|; = av = aw|h = w,f/ pje = wa = le = t = t

run = GO = EU = FINAL = REAL ‘The deer ran in all directions aimlessly’ (28)

xdkodkh

a`y; = oG|; = ]|

a]&acs|if;&urf;pyf = odkh

too

pje = wa = ja

je–tau–kaza = o

thus

run = GO = NOM

water-stream-shore = TO

]kwfw]uf

a]|uf = oG|; = w,f/

joutj

jau = wa = t

at.once

arrive = GO = REAL

‘Thus, while running [it] arrived to the bank of a stream’

APPENDIX

(29)

'],f

`zKef;ceJ

]yf = vdkuf = wJh

279

tcg

vli,fuav;

dj bjoun

ja = lai = t

ka lule

deer

stop = FOLLOW = RELREAL

time

suddenly

a] = xJ = odkh

us = oG|; = w,f/

je = t = o

ta = wa = t

water = INSIDE = TO

fall = GO = REAL

boy

‘When the deer suddenly stopped, the boy fell into the water’ (30)

acG; = uav; = u = vJ

t]\def = r = owf = mdkif = wJh

kwe = kle = ka = l

ei = m = a = nai = t

dog = small = SUBJ = ALSO

slow.down = NEG1 = CAN = RELREAL

twGuf

a] = xJ = odkh

tw

je = t = o

reason

vli,fav; = eJh = twl

lule = n = tu water = INSIDE = TO boy = WITH = together

us = oG|; = w,f/ ta = wa = t

fall = GO = REAL ‘Because the dog couldn’t slow down, [it] fell into the water with the boy’ (31)

vli,fav;

acG; = av; = udk

a] = xJ = r\

lule

kwe = le = ko

je = d = ma

boy

dog = small = OBJ

water = INSIDE = FROM

q,f = [yD;

olh = acgif;

ay:

wif = [yD;

s = pi

u = au

p

ti = pi

take.out = PFV

his = head

surface

put.on = PFV

w = buf&urf;

a]

t = b–ka

je

1 = side-stream

wdrf&buf = udk

ul; = oG|; = w,f/

tei–b = ko ku = wa = t water be.shallow-side = TO cross = GO = REAL

‘The boy took the dog out of the water, took its head on the surface and crossed [the stream] to the side [of the stream where] the water was shallow’

280

(32)


tJ'D

urf;pyf = r\|

opfwHk; = [uD;&w = ck

]\d = w,f/

di

kaza = ma

that

shore.line = AT

itou = ti–t = ku tree.log = big-1 = CLASS


‘On that shore, there was a big tree log’ (33)

tJ'D

opfwHk; = e|;

eD;uyf = v| = wJh

tcg

di

itou = na

nika = la = t

ka

that

tree.log = vicinity

be.close = COME = RELREAL

time

acG; = uav; = udk

wdwfwdwf

ae&cdkif; = [yD;

kwe = kle = ko

teitei

ne–kai = pi

dog = small = OBJ

quietly

stay-ask.to = PFV

opfwHk; = [uD;

tay: = udk

wuf = w,f/

itou = ti

p = ko

t = t

tree.log = be.big

summit = TO climb.up = REAL

‘When [they] got close to the log, [he] asked the dog to stay quiet and [he] climbed on the log’ (34)

opfwHk; = [uD;&tay: = r\|

cG&xdkif = [yD;

at|uf = udk

itou = ti–p = ma

kwa–tai = pi sit.astride-sit = PFV

au = ko below = TO

tree.log = big-summit = AT

ikHh&junfh = wJh

tcg

zg; = [uD;

ou–ti = t

ka

pa = ti

hold.head.down-look = RELREAL

time

frog = be.old

zg; = i,f

trs|; = [uD; = udk

ol

`rif = w,f/

pa = 

mja = ti = ko

u

mji = t

frog = small

other = be.old = OBJ he

see = REAL

‘When he sat astride on the log and held [his] head down [= looked down], he saw young and old frogs’ (35)

vli,fav;

zg;&rdo|;pk&twl

ays|fays|f]GSif]SGif

lule

pa–miazu–tu

pjbjwiwi

boy

frog-family-together

merrily

APPENDIX

ae = w|

awGh = wJh

ne = ta

twe = t ka u = kwe = le see = RELREAL time his = dog = small

stay = NOM

tcg

281

olh = acG; = av;

ac: = zdkh k = po call = TO

]nf]G,f = w,f/ jijw = t

intend = REAL ‘When the boy saw the family of frogs staying together merrily, he intended to call his dog’ (36)

zg; = uav; = awG

opfwHk; = ay:

pa = kle = twe

itou = p

frog = small = PL

tree.log = ON

wef;pD&wuf&junfh = w| = udk

`rif = wJh

tcg

tazi–t–ti = ta = ko

mji = t

ka

queue.up-climb.up-look.at = NOM = OBJ

see = RELREAL time

vli,fuav;

ar|ifqef;xGef;

vuf`y&m\kwfquf = [yD;

lule

mausatu

lpja–nous = pi

boy

Maung.San.Tun

wave-bid.farewell = PFV

ol

tdrf

`yef = oG|; = av = aw|h = w,f/

u

ei

he

home

pja = wa = le = t = t return = GO = EU = FINAL = REAL

‘When [he] saw the frogs climbing up on the log, [sitting] in a row and looking [at him], Maung San Tun waved goodbye and went back home’

INDEX A accomplishments, 27, 28, 32 achievements, 27, 28 activities, 27, 28, 30, 49 Aikhenvald, 179, 202 Aktionsart, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33 Allott, 51, 56, 59, 60, 62, 65, 67, 69, 71-75, 77, 78, 80-83, 87-92, 94, 104-106, 108-111, 114, 167, 177, 189, 263, 274, 275, 284 Amberber, 179, 202 Amharic, 179, 202 Anderson, 211 anterior, 263 anticausative, 179, 202 aspect 1, 2, 9 aspectualizer, 244 Athapaskan, 179, 202 B back there, 73, 74 backgrounded events, 246, 251 BENEFACTIVE, 78, 115, 116, 158 Berman, 241, 246, 248, 249 Bernot, 73, 74 Bhat, 1, 266 Brinton, 244 Bybee, 104, 111, 116, 119, 120, 122, 263, 275 C CAN,

52, 54, 71, 75-78, 85-87, 89, 93, 95-97, 111, 113, 116 cause, 60, 89 Chung, 107, 125, 126 Clark, 181, 182, 193 Claudi, 104

284

INDEX

clause structure, 13 clause-linking, 241, 248 close juncture, 2, 5, 40-44 COME, 60-66, 73-74, 78, 85, 88-89, 93, 101, 104-105, 107, 111, 115-116, 127, 137, 140, 142-143,149-160, 162-167, 169-171, 173-177, 181-187, 191, 193195, 197-198, 212-214, 216, 218, 220 Comrie, 1, 103, 111-113, 120, 122, 147, 210, 245, 255, 262-263 connectivity, 241, 248 continuative, 120, 122 CONTINUOUS, 60, 67-69, 103-104, 111, 113, 120, 122, 125-128, 130-145, 147149, 151, 152, 154, 156-158 continuousness, 113, 120, 123, 124, 127, 131 converbs, 248 Corne, 182 co-subordination, 248 coverbs, 204 Creek, 179 CURRENT RELEVANT STATE, 71, 212, 263, 266-268, 270-278, 280-283, 285, 287, 289, 290, 292, 293 D Dahl, 104, 105, 120, 127-130, 133, 137, 263, 282-283, 285-286, 288-292 Dixon, 179, 202 Dowty, 14, 28 Dry, 246 Dulong/Rawang, 179, 180, 206 E EMPHATIC, 92, 111, 117 Enfield, 83, 85-87

F Fa d’Ambu, 155 Fillmore, 154 FINAL, 59, 64, 72, 94, 98-100, 108, 113, 116 Finnish, 210 Fleischman, 241, 245, 247, 272, 289 Foley, 13, 28, 43, 248, 273 FOLLOW, 52, 56-57, 60, 64, 73, 107, 111, 139-140, 144-145, 147, 149, 152, 157, 165, 169, 172, 178-181, 200-201, 209-210, 220-221

INDEX

285

foreground, 246, 251, 260 foregrounded events, 245, 246, 251 Freed, 244 French, 263, 265, 272 G Gandour, 182 GET, 58, 77, 81-87, 101, 105, 107-108, 114, 116 GIVE, 153, 162, 219 Givón, 211, 224-227, 231, 237, 246 gnomic, 116-119 GO, 55-57, 60-62, 64-67, 73, 78, 81-82, 85-86, 95, 101, 108, 110, 113-114, 116, 134-136, 139-140, 142-143, 149-150, 152-157, 160, 162-163, 165-167, 169-171, 173-182, 188, 196, 198-199, 201-202, 206, 210, 213-216, 220, 222 H HABITUAL,

62, 69, 71, 103, 111, 113-116, 119, 145 habituality, 103, 112-116, 119-120, 124, 147 Haviland, 164, 167 Heine, 104 heterosemy, 2, 245 Hopper, 210, 211, 246, 251, 262 Hünnemeyer, 104 I

illocutionary force, 273-274 imperative, 97, 107, 116, 213, 242 imperfectivity, 103, 111-113, 120, 147 interrogative, 90, 108, 116 interrogativeWH, 105, 108, 116 IRREALIS, 52, 89, 90, 92-95, 98, 103, 113, 116, 130, 135 Italian, 263, 265, 272 ITERATIVE, 74, 116, 167 J Jackendoff, 106 Jaxontov, 234, 236

286

INDEX

K Kannada, 236 L Ladefoged, 266 Lahu, 3, 5-6, 120, 122, 213, 240-241 Langacker, 114, 128 Lao, 85 LaPolla, 13, 16, 27-28, 33, 179-180, 206, 248, 273, 289, 293 LET, 51, 59, 60, 80, 115 Levin, 170 Li, 212, 241, 263, 275 Lichtenberk, 2-3, 245 logical structure, 26-28, 30, 47-49 Longacre, 244, 248, 263 Lyons, 247 M Mandarin, 33, 212, 241, 263, 275-277, 282-283 Marchese, 155 Martin, 179 Matisoff, 3, 6, 83-85, 89, 120, 122, 191, 193, 213, 240-241 medial verb, 248 modality, 1, 2, 273, 285 Morrissey, 94 motion, 127, 131, 138-140, 142-143 Myint, 150-153, 162, 174-175 N negative imperative, 97, 100, 107 non-progressive, 113, 120 non-states, 120, 130-131 Ngan'gityemerri, 180, 202-203, 206 Nedjalkov, 211, 234, 236 NEGATIVE1, 51-56, 59-60, 75, 77, 82-83, 88, 92-93, 96-97, 99, 100, 103-105, 107-108, 110-111, 113-115 NEGATIVE2, 51-52, 59, 75, 88, 92, 96, 99, 103, 105, 108, 113-114, 116

INDEX

287

O OF COURSE, 113, 117 OK?, 80, 108-110, 116

Okell, 2, 51-52, 56, 59-60, 62, 65-67, 69, 71-75, 77-78, 80, 81-83, 87-100, 104114, 158, 167, 177, 183, 185-186, 189, 193, 206, 216, 220, 263, 274-275, 284 open juncture, 41 operators, 14-16, 18, 20, 25-26, 32, 34, 37, 42, 44-45, 49-51 P Palmer, 71, 75, 77 Passato Prossimo, 264, 265, 272 Passato Remoto, 264, 265, 272 Passé Composé, 263, 265, 272 Passé Simple, 264-265, 272 passive, 210-211, 223-227, 229, 231, 234, 236-237 Payne, 224 perfect, 210, 211, 225, 263, 265-266 perfective, 60, 71-72, 101-103, 116, 241-242, 245-250, 255, 257, 260-263, 266-267, 285, 290 perfectivity, 111, 138, 139, 210, 211 PITY, 113-114, 117 PLURAL, 80, 81, 116 POLITE, 110, 111, 117 Post, 155 Post-VN operators, 60-61, 73, 78, 89, 94, 103, 117 Pre-VN operators, 51, 115 progressive, 107, 112-113, 120, 122, 125-128, 130-131 R REACH OUT, 51, 57, 115 REALIS, 52, 89-90, 92, 94-95,

98, 103, 105, 111, 113-114, 116, 119, 125, 128, 130, 135, 151 Reid, 180, 202, 203 relative clauses, 212-213, 237-238, 240-241 resultative, 60, 72, 103, 117, 137-138, 205, 207-214, 216, 220, 223-225, 229, 231, 233-234, 236-238, 240-242 RETURN, 51, 56-57, 115 Rice, 179, 202 Role and Reference Grammar, 13

288

INDEX

Romance, 263 S sandhi, 40-41 Sango, 182 sequentiality, 246, 251 serial verb constructions, 257, 260-261 Siewerska, 236 Simple Past, 117-119, 124-125 Simple Present, 117-119, 124-125 Slobin, 241, 246, 248-249 Spanish, 110 states, 27, 30, 49, 103, 106-107, 110, 112-113, 115, 117-120, 122-127, 130131, 138, 149, 151-152, 154, 156, 158 stative verbs, 109, 120, 130-131, 149, 154, 158 status, 263, 266, 273-275 Steele, 75 STILL, 52, 55, 94-98, 100, 107, 116 T tail-head linkage, 248, 250, 256, 263 tense, 1, 5 Tepo, 155 Thai, 156, 182 Thompson, 210-212, 241, 244, 246, 248, 263, 275 Thornell, 182 Timberlake, 107, 125, 126 transitivity, 210, 224, 227 V verbal complex, 37-38, 42, 44, 49 verbs of communication, 104, 147 verbs of perception, 143 valence, 224 Van Valin, 13-14, 16, 27-28, 33, 43, 248 Vendler, 14, 27 W Wheatley, 9

INDEX

289

Y Yin, 106, 136, 139, 140-144, 148-149, 151-152, 154-158, 160, 162, 166, 169170, 173-175, 176, 181, 184, 188, 194-196, 198, 212-214, 216-218, 220, 222

Studies in Language Companion Series A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 97 Dollinger, Stefan: New-Dialect Formation in Canada. Evidence from the English modal auxiliaries. xxii, 355 pp. Expected January 2008 96 Romeo, Nicoletta: Aspect in Burmese. Meaning and function. 2008. xv, 289 pp. 95 O’Connor, Loretta: Motion, Transfer and Transformation. The grammar of change in Lowland Chontal. 2007. xiv, 251 pp. 94 Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemäki and Fred Karlsson (eds.): Language Complexity. Typology, contact, change. xiv, 340 pp. + index. Expected January 2008 93 Schalley, Andrea C. and Drew Khlentzos (eds.): Mental States. Volume 2: Language and cognitive structure. xiii, 350 pp. + index. Expected December 2007 92 Schalley, Andrea C. and Drew Khlentzos (eds.): Mental States. Volume 1: Evolution, function, nature. xi, 306 pp. Expected December 2007 91 Filipović, Luna: Talking about Motion. A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. vi, 180 pp. + index. Expected December 2007 90 Muysken, Pieter (ed.): From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics. vii, 274 pp. + index. Expected February 2008 89 Stark, Elisabeth, Elisabeth Leiss and Werner Abraham (eds.): Nominal Determination. Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence. 2007. viii, 370 pp. 88 Ramat, Paolo and Elisa Roma (eds.): Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas. Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective. 2007. xxvi, 364 pp. 87 Verhoeven, Elisabeth: Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya. A typologically based analysis of a functional domain in a Mayan language. 2007. xiv, 380 pp. 86 Schwarz-Friesel, Monika, Manfred Consten and Mareile Knees (eds.): Anaphors in Text. Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference. 2007. xvi, 282 pp. 85 Butler, Christopher S., Raquel Hidalgo Downing and Julia Lavid (eds.): Functional Perspectives on Grammar and Discourse. In honour of Angela Downing. 2007. xxx, 481 pp. 84 Wanner, Leo (ed.): Selected Lexical and Grammatical Issues in the Meaning–Text Theory. In honour of Igor Mel'čuk. 2007. xviii, 380 pp. 83 Hannay, Mike and Gerard J. Steen (eds.): Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar. In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie. 2007. vi, 393 pp. 82 Ziegeler, Debra: Interfaces with English Aspect. Diachronic and empirical studies. 2006. xvi, 325 pp. 81 Peeters, Bert (ed.): Semantic Primes and Universal Grammar. Empirical evidence from the Romance languages. 2006. xvi, 374 pp. 80 Birner, Betty J. and Gregory Ward (eds.): Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning. Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn. 2006. xii, 350 pp. 79 Laffut, An: Three-Participant Constructions in English. A functional-cognitive approach to caused relations. 2006. ix, 268 pp. 78 Yamamoto, Mutsumi: Agency and Impersonality. Their Linguistic and Cultural Manifestations. 2006. x, 152 pp. 77 Kulikov, Leonid, Andrej Malchukov and Peter de Swart (eds.): Case, Valency and Transitivity. 2006. xx, 503 pp. 76 Nevalainen, Terttu, Juhani Klemola and Mikko Laitinen (eds.): Types of Variation. Diachronic, dialectal and typological interfaces. 2006. viii, 378 pp. 75 Hole, Daniel, André Meinunger and Werner Abraham (eds.): Datives and Other Cases. Between argument structure and event structure. 2006. viii, 385 pp. 74 Pietrandrea, Paola: Epistemic Modality. Functional properties and the Italian system. 2005. xii, 232 pp. 73 Xiao, Richard and Tony McEnery: Aspect in Mandarin Chinese. A corpus-based study. 2004. x, 305 pp. 72 Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Adam Hodges and David S. Rood (eds.): Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories. 2005. xii, 432 pp. 71 Dahl, Östen: The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. 2004. x, 336 pp. 70 Lefebvre, Claire: Issues in the Study of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 2004. xvi, 358 pp.

69 Tanaka, Lidia: Gender, Language and Culture. A study of Japanese television interview discourse. 2004. xvii, 233 pp. 68 Moder, Carol Lynn and Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds.): Discourse Across Languages and Cultures. 2004. vi, 366 pp. 67 Luraghi, Silvia: On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. 2003. xii, 366 pp. 66 Nariyama, Shigeko: Ellipsis and Reference Tracking in Japanese. 2003. xvi, 400 pp. 65 Matsumoto, Kazuko: Intonation Units in Japanese Conversation. Syntactic, informational and functional structures. 2003. xviii, 215 pp. 64 Butler, Christopher S.: Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories. Part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond. 2003. xiv, 579 pp. 63 Butler, Christopher S.: Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories. Part 1: Approaches to the simplex clause. 2003. xx, 573 pp. 62 Field, Fredric: Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts. With a foreword by Bernard Comrie. 2002. xviii, 255 pp. 61 Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.): Meaning and Universal Grammar. Theory and empirical findings. Volume 2. 2002. xvi, 337 pp. 60 Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.): Meaning and Universal Grammar. Theory and empirical findings. Volume 1. 2002. xvi, 337 pp. 59 Shi, Yuzhi: The Establishment of Modern Chinese Grammar. The formation of the resultative construction and its effects. 2002. xiv, 262 pp. 58 Maylor, B. Roger: Lexical Template Morphology. Change of state and the verbal prefixes in German. 2002. x, 273 pp. 57 Mel’čuk, Igor A.: Communicative Organization in Natural Language. The semantic-communicative structure of sentences. 2001. xii, 393 pp. 56 Faarlund, Jan Terje (ed.): Grammatical Relations in Change. 2001. viii, 326 pp. 55 Dahl, Östen and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages. Volume 2: Grammar and Typology. 2001. xx, 423 pp. 54 Dahl, Östen and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages. Volume 1: Past and Present. 2001. xx, 382 pp. 53 Fischer, Olga, Anette Rosenbach and Dieter Stein (eds.): Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English. 2000. x, 391 pp. 52 Torres Cacoullos, Rena: Grammaticization, Synchronic Variation, and Language Contact. A study of Spanish progressive -ndo constructions. 2000. xvi, 255 pp. 51 Ziegeler, Debra: Hypothetical Modality. Grammaticalisation in an L2 dialect. 2000. xx, 290 pp. 50 Abraham, Werner and Leonid Kulikov (eds.): Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity. Essays in honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov. 1999. xxxiv, 359 pp. 49 Bhat, D.N.S.: The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood. 1999. xii, 198 pp. 48 Manney, Linda Joyce: Middle Voice in Modern Greek. Meaning and function of an inflectional category. 2000. xiii, 262 pp. 47 Brinton, Laurel J. and Minoji Akimoto (eds.): Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. 1999. xiv, 283 pp. 46 Yamamoto, Mutsumi: Animacy and Reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. 1999. xviii, 278 pp. 45 Collins, Peter C. and David Lee (eds.): The Clause in English. In honour of Rodney Huddleston. 1999. xv, 342 pp. 44 Hannay, Mike and A. Machtelt Bolkestein (eds.): Functional Grammar and Verbal Interaction. 1998. xii, 304 pp. 43 Olbertz, Hella, Kees Hengeveld and Jesús Sánchez García (eds.): The Structure of the Lexicon in Functional Grammar. 1998. xii, 312 pp. 42 Darnell, Michael, Edith A. Moravcsik, Michael Noonan, Frederick J. Newmeyer and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume II: Case studies. 1999. vi, 407 pp.

41 Darnell, Michael, Edith A. Moravcsik, Michael Noonan, Frederick J. Newmeyer and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I: General papers. 1999. vi, 486 pp. 40 Birner, Betty J. and Gregory Ward: Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. 1998. xiv, 314 pp. 39 Wanner, Leo (ed.): Recent Trends in Meaning–Text Theory. 1997. xx, 202 pp. 38 Hacking, Jane F.: Coding the Hypothetical. A comparative typology of Russian and Macedonian conditionals. 1998. vi, 156 pp. 37 Harvey, Mark and Nicholas Reid (eds.): Nominal Classification in Aboriginal Australia. 1997. x, 296 pp. 36 Kamio, Akio (ed.): Directions in Functional Linguistics. 1997. xiii, 259 pp. 35 Matsumoto, Yoshiko: Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese. A frame semantic approach. 1997. viii, 204 pp. 34 Hatav, Galia: The Semantics of Aspect and Modality. Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew. 1997. x, 224 pp. 33 Velázquez-Castillo, Maura: The Grammar of Possession. Inalienability, incorporation and possessor ascension in Guaraní. 1996. xvi, 274 pp. 32 Frajzyngier, Zygmunt: Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence. A case study in Chadic. 1996. xviii, 501 pp. 31 Wanner, Leo (ed.): Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing. 1996. xx, 355 pp. 30 Huffman, Alan: The Categories of Grammar. French lui and le. 1997. xiv, 379 pp. 29 Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder, Lars Heltoft and Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen (eds.): Content, Expression and Structure. Studies in Danish functional grammar. 1996. xvi, 510 pp. 28 Herman, József (ed.): Linguistic Studies on Latin. Selected papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest, 23–27 March 1991). 1994. ix, 421 pp. 27 Abraham, Werner, T. Givón and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.): Discourse, Grammar and Typology. Papers in honor of John W.M. Verhaar. 1995. xx, 352 pp. 26 Lima, Susan D., Roberta L. Corrigan and Gregory K. Iverson: The Reality of Linguistic Rules. 1994. xxiii, 480 pp. 25 Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.): Semantic and Lexical Universals. Theory and empirical findings. 1994. viii, 510 pp. 24 Bhat, D.N.S.: The Adjectival Category. Criteria for differentiation and identification. 1994. xii, 295 pp. 23 Comrie, Bernard and Maria Polinsky (eds.): Causatives and Transitivity. 1993. x, 399 pp. 22 McGregor, William B.: A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. 1990. xx, 618 pp. 21 Coleman, Robert (ed.): New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987. 1990. x, 480 pp. 20 Verhaar, John W.M. S.J. (ed.): Melanesian Pidgin and Tok Pisin. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Pidgins and Creoles in Melanesia. 1990. xiv, 409 pp. 19 Blust, Robert A.: Austronesian Root Theory. An essay on the limits of morphology. 1988. xi, 190 pp. 18 Wierzbicka, Anna: The Semantics of Grammar. 1988. vii, 581 pp. 17 Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.): Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Bologna, 1–5 April 1985. 1989. xxix, 691 pp. 16 Conte, Maria-Elisabeth, János Sánder Petöfi and Emel Sözer (eds.): Text and Discourse Connectedness. Proceedings of the Conference on Connexity and Coherence, Urbino, July 16–21, 1984. 1989. xxiv, 584 pp. 15 Justice, David: The Semantics of Form in Arabic. In the mirror of European languages. 1987. iv, 417 pp. 14 Benson, Morton, Evelyn Benson and Robert F. Ilson: Lexicographic Description of English. 1986. xiii, 275 pp. 13 Reesink, Ger P.: Structures and their Functions in Usan. 1987. xviii, 369 pp. 12 Pinkster, Harm (ed.): Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam, April 1981. 1983. xviii, 307 pp. 11 Panhuis, Dirk G.J.: The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence. A study of Latin word order. 1982. viii, 172 pp.

10 Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl and Wolfgang Ullrich Wurzel: Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. 1988. ix, 168 pp. 9 Lang, Ewald and John Pheby: The Semantics of Coordination. (English transl. by John Pheby from the German orig. ed. 'Semantik der koordinativen Verknüpfung', Berlin, 1977). 1984. 300 pp. 8 Barth, E.M. and J.L. Martens (eds.): Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation. Containing the Contributions to the Groningen Conference on the Theory of Argumentation, October 1978. 1982. xviii, 333 pp. 7 Parret, Herman, Marina Sbisà and Jef Verschueren (eds.): Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979. 1981. x, 854 pp. 6 Vago, Robert M. (ed.): Issues in Vowel Harmony. Proceedings of the CUNY Linguistics Conference on Vowel Harmony, May 14, 1977. 1980. xx, 340 pp. 5 Haiman, John: Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. 1980. iv, 550 pp. 4 Lloyd, Albert L.: Anatomy of the Verb. The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity. (Part I: Theory; Part II: Application). 1979. x, 351 pp. 3 Malkiel, Yakov: From Particular to General Linguistics. Selected Essays 1965–1978. With an introduction by the author, an index rerum and an index nominum. 1983. xxii, 659 pp. 2 Anwar, Mohamed Sami: BE and Equational Sentences in Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. 1979. vi, 128 pp. 1 Abraham, Werner (ed.): Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations. Workshop studies prepared for the 12th International Congress of Linguists, Vienna, August 29th to September 3rd, 1977. xiv, 729 pp. Expected Out of print

Aspect in Burmese: Meaning and function (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Studies on German-Language Islands (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Aspect and Modality in Kwa Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Linguistic Diversity And Language Theories (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Linguistic Diversity And Language Theories (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Aspect In Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Study (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Language Complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series)

i> in Slavic (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Grammatical Relations in Change (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture

A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Cross-Linguistic Semantics (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Passivization And Typology: Form And Function (Typological Studies in Language)

Mental States: Volume 1: Evolution, function, nature (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Mental States: Volume 1: Evolution, function, nature (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Form Miming Meaning (Impact: Studies in Language and Society)

The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew (Studies in Language Companion Series 34)

The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew (Studies in Language Companion Series)

On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Language, Meaning and Mind in Locke’s Essay

Mental States: Volume 2: Language and cognitive structure (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English (Studies in Language Companion)

Mental States: Volume 2: Language and cognitive structure (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Gender, Language and Culture: A Study of Japanese Television Interview Discourse (Studies in Language Companion Series)

'Subordination' versus 'Coordination' in Sentence and Text: A Cross-linguistic Perspective (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses (Studies in Language Companion)

Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Focus and Background in Romance Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse across Languages and Cultures (Studies in Language Companion)

Aspect in Burmese: Meaning and function (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Studies on German-Language Islands (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Aspect and Modality in Kwa Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Linguistic Diversity And Language Theories (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Linguistic Diversity And Language Theories (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Aspect In Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Study (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Language Complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series)

i> in Slavic (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Grammatical Relations in Change (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture

A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Cross-Linguistic Semantics (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Passivization And Typology: Form And Function (Typological Studies in Language)

Mental States: Volume 1: Evolution, function, nature (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Mental States: Volume 1: Evolution, function, nature (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Form Miming Meaning (Impact: Studies in Language and Society)

The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew (Studies in Language Companion Series 34)

The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew (Studies in Language Companion Series)

On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Language, Meaning and Mind in Locke’s Essay

Mental States: Volume 2: Language and cognitive structure (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English (Studies in Language Companion)

Mental States: Volume 2: Language and cognitive structure (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Gender, Language and Culture: A Study of Japanese Television Interview Discourse (Studies in Language Companion Series)

'Subordination' versus 'Coordination' in Sentence and Text: A Cross-linguistic Perspective (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses (Studies in Language Companion)

Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Focus and Background in Romance Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse across Languages and Cultures (Studies in Language Companion)

Recommend Documents