Journal of Universal Language

Sejong University Language Research Institue

J. Univers. Lang. 2013; 14(1):85-115

pISSN: 1598-6381

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2013.14.1.85

Article

The Typological study of local cases in EIA Languages

Bomini Lahiri¹^,^†

¹Jawaharlal Nehru University

^†Corresponding Author : Bomini Lahiri, Centre for Linguistics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India Phone: +91-9013754650; Email: lahiri.bornini@gmail.com

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Feb 20, 2013; Revised: Mar 07, 2013; Accepted: Mar 15, 2013

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017

Abstract

The paper describes the local cases of four of the eastern Indo-Aryan languages (EIA) using the cognitive framework. The languages under observation are Asamiya, Bangla, Maithili, and Oriya. The local cases are used to mark the position or location of an object which is always stated in reference to another object. These languages use local cases to mark three spaces; location of a static object, source, and path of a moving object. The local cases have been divided into two basic categories; static and dynamic. The paper begins with the description of the static local cases and then refers to the cases used for dynamic location through this process it discovers that Maithili seems to have dichotomy between basic locations on and in but it has just one general spatial term like the other three languages. Moreover it was also observed that static and dynamic markers can overlap into each other’s sphere in certain circumstances. Along with the local cases used with the concrete objects, uses of these case markers with abstract locations too have been explored to mark the extended semantics of these local cases.

Keywords: local case; cognitive framework; locative case; ablative case; instrumental case; polysemy network; Trajector (TR); Landmark (LM); General Spatial Marker (GSM); deixies

REFERENCES

Ahmed, T. 2007. Ablative, Sociative, and Instrumental Case Markers. Proceedings of Conference of Language and Technology. Peshawar Universtiy.

Ahmed, T. 2009. Spatial Expressions and Case in South Asian Language. Ph.D Dissertation. University of Konstanz.

Anderson, J. 1971. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blake, B. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowerman, M. 1996. The Origins of Children's Spatial Semantic.

Categories: Cognitive versus Linguistic Determinants. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity 145-176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bowerman, M. & S. Choi. 2001. Shaping Meanings for Language: Universal and Language Specific in the Acquisition of Spatial Semantic Categories. In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (eds.), Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development 475-511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bowerman, M. & E. Pederson. 1992. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Topological Spatial Relationships. Paper presented at the 91st annual meeting of the American Anthrolopogical Association. San Francisco.

Brown, P. 1994. The INs and ONs of Tzeltal Locative Expressions: The Semantics of Static Descriptions of Location. Linguistics 32, 743-790.

Cook, W. 1989. Case Grammar Theory. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

10.

Creissels, D. 2009. Spatial Cases. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case 609-625. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Feist, M. 2008. Space between Languages. Cognitive Science 32, 1177-1199.

12.

Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Kennedy, C. 2007. Vagueness and Grammar: The Semantics of Relative and Absolute Gradable Adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30, 1-45.

14.

Kracht, M. 2002. On the Semantics of Locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 157-232.

15.

Kyburg, A. & M. Morreau. 2000. Fitting Words: Vague Language in Context. Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 577-597.

16.

Landau, B. & R. Jackendoff. 1993. "What" and "Where" in Spatial Language and Spatial Cognition. Behavioral and University Press.

17.

Levinson, S. & S. Meira. 2003. "Natural Concepts" in the Spatial Topological Domain—Adpositional Meanings in Crosslinguistic Perspective: An Exercise in Semantic Typology. Language 79, 485-516.Brain Sciences 16, 217-265.

18.

Langacker, R. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

19.

Levinson, S. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge.

20.

Miller, G. &, P. Johnson-Laird. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

21.

Ostler, N. 1979. Case-Linking: A Theory of Case and Verb Diathesis, Applied to Classical Sanskrit. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

22.

Talmy, L. 1983. How Language Structures Space. In H. Pick & L. Acredelo (eds.), Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application 225-320. New York: Plenum.

23.

Talmy, L. 2005. The Fundamental System of Spatial Schemas in Language. In B. Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics 199-234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.