S R: R J

Anton A & Guillaume J

INALCO-CRLAO CRLAO-EHESS-INALCO-CNRS95 rue des Grands Moulins 75013, Paris 2 rue de Lille 75007, Paris

anton.antonov@inalco.fr rgyalrongskad@gmail.com

S W’ L VI

Pavia 10 September 2014

S R

2 / 23

T R � Rtau (locally known as rəsɲəske) is a Rgyalrongic language spoken inRtau county (道孚县 Dàofú xiàn), Sichuan province (四川省 Sìchuānshěng), China.

3 / 23

T R

� Previous work on Rtau includes Huang (1991), Sun (2007) andespecially Sun and Tian (to appear).

� e variety presented here represents the dialect of Khang.gsar(qʰərŋe) village spoken in the North of Rtau county, and differsslightly from the varieties studied by other authors.

� e data presented here is based on ongoing fieldwork by theauthors.

4 / 23

P

(1) tʂaɕi-wBkrashis-

dʐʚmaSgrolma

de

nə-f-se(-sə)--kill(-)

Bkrashis killed Sgrolma.

(2) tə-w3-

dʐʚmaSgrolma

de

nə-f-se(-sə)--kill(-)

He killed Sgrolma.

(3) ŋa1

dʐʚmaSgrolma

de

nə-se-w-kill-1>3

I killed Sgrolma.

(4) ɲi2

dʐʚmaSgrolma

de

nə-se-j(-sə)-kill-2>3(-)

You killed Sgrolma.

5 / 23

� It is important to note that contrary to what happens in some otherSino-Tibetan languages (esp. in Tibetan languages and some othermembers of the Rgyalrongic branch) ergative marking is normallyblocked on .

6 / 23

S

� In Rtau, there are two main ways of reporting what someone elsehas said, direct speech () and semi-direct speech (, cf.Aikhenvald 2008, also called ‘hybrid speech’ by Tournadre 2008).

� We have been unable to ascertain the existence of any other type ofreported speech, such as indirect speech () which is reported to beunaested in Tibetan languages as well (Tournadre 2008).

7 / 23

S

(5) tʂaɕi-wiBkrashis-

ŋa-gi1-

jə-rə-gesay--

[tə-wj3-

dʐʚmaSgrolma

de

nə-f-se-sə]--kill-

jə-rəsay-

Bkrashisi told me (that) hej (6= Bkrashis) had killed Sgrolma.

(6) tʂaɕi-wiBkrashis-

ŋa-gi1-

jə-rə-gesay--

[ədəi

dʐʚmaSgrolma

de

nə-se-w]-kill-1>3

jə-rəsay-

Bkrashisi told me that hei had killed Sgrolma.

8 / 23

S

� in Rtau is of type II in Aikhenvald (2008)’s terms, i.e. the currentspeaker () reports an original speaker ()’s words (or thoughts) bypartly adjusting them to their () perspective.� absence of coreference in case of a third person is signalled by the

use of the ordinary third person pronoun tə (cf. 7)

(7) tʂaɕi-wiBkrashis-

ŋa-gi1-

jə-rə-gesay--

[tə-wj3-

dʐʚmaSgrolma

de

nə-f-se-sə]--kill-

jə-rəsay-

Bkrashisi told me (that) hej (6= Bkrashis) had killed Sgrolma.

9 / 23

S

� in Rtau is of type II in Aikhenvald (2008)’s terms, i.e. the currentspeaker () reports an original speaker ()’s words (or thoughts) bypartly adjusting them to their () perspective.

� coreference between the as subject of the reporting (or cognitive)verb and (one o) the participant(s) in the reported speech is signalledby the (logophoric) use of the reflexive pronoun ədə(qʰʚ) ‘onesel’instead of the first person pronoun ŋa (cf. 8)

(8) tʂaɕi-wiBkrashis-

ŋa-gi1-

jə-rə-gesay--

[ədəi

dʐʚmaSgrolma

de

nə-se-w]-kill-1>3

jə-rəsay-

Bkrashisi told me that hei had killed Sgrolma.

10 / 23

S

� in Rtau is of type II in Aikhenvald (2008)’s terms, i.e. the currentspeaker () reports an original speaker ()’s words (or thoughts) bypartly adjusting them to their () perspective.

� third and second person pronouns referring to the are shied to firstperson pronouns (cf. 9)

(9) tʂaɕi-wBkrashis-

jə-rə-gesay--

[ŋa-w1-

dʐʚmaSgrolma

de

nə-f-se-sə]--kill-

jə-rəsay-

Bkrashis said that I had killed Sgrolma.

� Crucially, however, the verb does not shi to the ’s perspective butretains the ’s one (cf. 6 through 9).

11 / 23

S

� Furthermore, is used not only with verbs of reporting, but alsowith some verbs denoting cognitive activities such as ntsʰə ‘think’ (cf.10a through 11b).

(10) a. ŋa1

tə-se-a-die-1

//tə3

tə-se-die

I am dead. / He is dead.

b. ŋa1

[tʂaɕiBkrashis

tə-se]-die

ntsʰə-w-rəthink-1>3-

I think Bkrashis is dead.

c. tʂaɕi-wBkrashis-

[ŋa1

tə-se]-die

ntsʰə-rəthink-

Bkrashis thinks I am dead.

12 / 23

S

� Furthermore, is used not only with verbs of reporting, but alsowith some verbs denoting cognitive activities such as ntsʰə ‘think’ (cf.10a through 11b).

(11) a. ŋa1

[tə-w3-

jɞhouse

tə-spɞ]-move

ntsʰə-w-rəthink-1>3-

I think he has moved.

b. tə-w3-

[ŋa-w1-

jɞhouse

tə-spɞ]-move

ntsʰə-rəthink-

He thinks I have moved.

13 / 23

� e most striking feature of in Rtau is that it is the onlyconstruction in the language in which the first person singularpronoun is ergative case marked when the agent of a transitive verb(cf. 12 against 13).

(12) tʂaɕi-wBkrashis-

[ŋa1

tə-se]-die

ntsʰə-rəthink-

Bkrashis thinks I am dead.

(13) tə-w3-

[ŋa-w1-

jɞhouse

tə-spɞ]-move

ntsʰə-rəthink-

He thinks I have moved.

14 / 23

S

� seems to be of the obligatory subtype in Aikhenvald (2008)’sterms whenever the is the first person and the addressee or theobject within the speech report is coreferent either with them (i.e.,the ) or with their (i.e., the ’s) addressee. It is not a stylisticdevice and seems reasonably frequent in the appropriate speech orthought reporting contexts.

15 / 23

S J

16 / 23

T J � Japhug (locally known as kɯrɯ skɤt) is a Rgyalrongic languagespoken in Mbarkham county (马尔康Mǎ’ěrkang xiàn)

17 / 23

P

(14) nɤ-wa2.-father

kɯ

“nɤʑo2

nɯɣi”come.back:

kɤ-sɯso-think

kɯ

kʰahouse

ɯ-rkɯ3.-side

ʁmaʁsoldier

χsɯ-tɤxɯrthree-circle

pa-sɯ-lɤt:3→3’-throw

ɕtibe.:

tɕe

Direct: Your father, thinking “He is coming back”, put threecircles of soldiers around the house.

Indirect: Your father, thinking that you are coming back,

Semi-Direct: Your father, thinking that you is coming back,

18 / 23

Pe verb sɯso ‘think’ is transitive, so the absence of ergative markingon ɯʑo ‘he’ shows that this pronoun is the S of the complement clause,not the A of the main verb.

(15) “ɯʑo3

χsɯ-sŋithree-day

χsɤ-rʑaʁthree-night

maapart.from

mɯ-pɯ-rɤʑi-a”.-stay-1

ɲɯ-nɯ-sɯsɤm-think[III]

pjɤ-ŋu.-be

Direct: He was thinking “I have only stayed for three days andthree nights.”

Indirect: He was thinking that he had only stayed for three daysand three nights.

Semi-Direct: He was thinking that he have only stayed for threedays and three nights.

19 / 23

P

(16) tɕe

ta-ʁi.-younger.sibling

nɯ

kɯ

“ɯ-pi3.-elder.sibling

ɣɯ

ɯ-sci3.-revenge

tu-nɤme-a-make[III]-1

ra”have.to:

ɲɤ-sɯso-think

tɕe,

Direct: e (younger) sister thought “I have to get revenge onmy brother”.

Indirect: e (younger) sister wanted to get revenge on herbrother”.

Semi-direct: e (younger) sisteri thought I have to get revengeon heri brother”.

20 / 23

P

(17) tɤɕimegirl

nɯ

kɯ

pjɯ-tɯ-mtshɤm:-hear

tɕe,

nɯnɯ

ɯ-kɯmtɕhɯ3.-toy

nɯ

ju-ɣɯt-a-bring-1

ŋube:

ɯ-kɯ-ti3:S/A-say

pjɤ-tu.-exist

ndɤre,

Direct: As soon as the girl heard that there was someone saying“I will bring your toy”.

Indirect: As soon as the girl heard that there was someonesaying that he would bring her toy.

Semi-direct: As soon as the girli heard that there was someonesaying “I will bring heri toy”.

21 / 23

R

Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2008. Semi-direct speech: Manambu andbeyond. Language sciences 30:383–422.

Huang, Bufan. 1991. Daofuyu道孚语 (e Rtau language). InZangmianyu shiwuzhong藏缅语十五种 (irteen Tibeto-Burmanlanguages), ed. Qingxia Dai, Bufan Huang, Ailan Fu, RenzengWangmu, and Ju Liu, 1–45. Beijing: Yanshan chubanshe北京：燕山出版社. ，戴庆夏、黄布凡、傅爱兰、仁增旺姆、刘菊.

Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2007. Morphological causative formation inShangzhai Horpa. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 1.2:207–227.

Sun, Jackson T.-S., and Qianzi Tian. to appear. 川西霍爾語格西話動詞對協初探. 中國語言學集刊 .

22 / 23

R (.)

Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments against the Concept of ‘Conjunct’/ ‘Disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Festscri ür Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65.Geburtstag, 281–308. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan andBuddhist Studies.

23 / 23