Explaining verb stem alternation on the basis of foreground information versus background information introduces another approach for predictability regarding the use of each verb stem in discourse. Looking at verb stem alternation from a discourse perspective could help linguists to properly separate clausal- level phenomena from argument level-phenomena, if applied to other languages. The hypothesis was, that because both Henderson (1965) and King (2009) associated Stem II with subordinate clauses, that Stem II would correlate with background information in narrative discourse. Stem I, likewise, would correlate with foreground information. This paper demonstrates that foreground clauses contain verbs in Stem I except when the clause contains the comitative enclitic. As described by Peterson (2007), because the comitative is an applicative which adds a co-participant to the clause, the valency of the clause is then raised. Because this pattern occurs every time the comitative enclitic is suffixed to the verb stem, Peterson’s argumentation explains every instance of Stem II surfacing in foreground information in the data (see (3)), and the one instance of Stem II surfacing in collateral information (see (9)). Kathol (2003), Kee Shein Mang (2006), and King (2009) agree that raised valency is a function
Papers from Chula-ISSSEAL – Davis
40
that denotes the use of Stem II verbs. Indeed, Chhangte (1993:86) argues that verb stem alternation in Mizo, is “the product” of nominalization and valence change. Therefore, I posit that the Stem II occurrences in foreground information in these data are the result of valence raising, due to the COMITATIVE enclitic. As for setting clauses, the head verbs always surface as Stem II, as hypothesized. However, although collateral information clauses are also background information, the majority of verbs in its clauses surface as Stem I. Therefore, it is clear that verb stem alternation in Sizang Chin does not directly correlate to foreground information and background information. Further investigation is thus needed, to see why background information always correlates with Stem II, but collateral information does not.
This paper contains several limitations. Although Button (2011a) provides a good description of how verbs alternate in Sizang Chin, the patterns are not always predictable. Therefore, it is necessary to review every stem in a set of data with a native speaker, so no “Unknown” tokens exist in the analysis. Also, due to length constraints, only three types of information are examined in this paper. Looking back at King’s initial classifications, this paper addresses everything on the clausal level for Sizang Chin that King examined, except for relative clauses, which are treated as arguments in Sizang Chin, and benefactives, which do not appear in the corpus. So, a broader corpus with natural examples of benefactives from a narrative would help to fully address King’s hypotheses of valency. Regarding King’s interpretation of conditionals, this paper briefly demonstrates that the conditional marker with a Stem II verb denotes setting information, rather than conditional collateral information. However, further investigation into the nature of contrafactuals within Sizang is needed, as neither this corpus nor King provides adequate examples of them. Also, a further look into the nature of nominalization in Sizang is needed, as results slightly suggest that it is a large factor of Stem II surfacing at the clausal level for setting information clauses and collateral information clauses.
References
Button, Christopher. 2011a. Proto Northern Chin: Vol I. (STEDT Monograph 10). Berkeley, CA: STEDT.
Button, Christopher. 2011b. Proto Northern Chin: Vol II. (STEDT Monograph 10). Berkeley, CA: STEDT.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chhangte, Lalnunthangi. 1993. Mizo syntax. Eugene: University of Oregon.
Chung, Sandra & Alan Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect, and mood. In Language typology and syntactic description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 202-258.
DeLancey, Scott. 1987. Transitivity in grammar and cognition. In Coherence and grounding in discourse: Outcome of a symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, ed. by Russell S. Tomlin, 53- 68. (Typological Studies in Language 11).
Dooley, Robert A. & Stephen H. Levinsohn. 2001. Analyzing discourse: A manual of basic concepts. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, Vol II.Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Grimes, Joseph E. 1975. The thread of discourse. (Janua Linguarum Series Minor, 207). The Hague & Paris: Mouton.
Henderson, Eugénie J. A. 1965. Tiddim Chin: A descriptive analysis of two texts. (London Oriental Series 15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Syntax and Semantics Vol. 12, ed. by Talmy Givón, 213–241. New York: Academic Press.
Kathol, Andreas. 2003. Cooperating constructions in Lai “Lexical insertion”. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Michigan State
University, ed. by Stefan Müller, 203-221. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2003/kathol.pdf.
Kee Shein Mang. 2006. A syntactic and pragmatic description of verb stem alternation in K’chò, a Chin language. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Payap University.
King, Deborah. 2009. Structural and pragmatic functions of Kuki-Chin verbal stem alternations. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 1:141-157.
Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In Essays on the verbal and visual Arts: Proceedings of the 1966 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society, ed. by June Helm. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Li, Wendan. 2014. Clause structure and grounding in Chinese written narrative discourse. Chinese
Language and Discourse 5(2):99-145.
Payne, Doris L. 1992. Narrative discontinuity versus continuity in Yagua. Discourse Processes 15(3), 375-394.
Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative constructions. (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42