This study traces the historical development of the focus concord construction of Sinhala from the language of the pre-second millennial graffiti on the Mirror Wall at Sigiriya to the modern colloquial language, with comparison to the historical development of focus concord constructions in the south Dravidian languages Malayalam and Tamil, as well as the focus concord (kakari-musubi) construction of Japanese. I argue that the Sinhala focus concord construction originated as one particular usage of impersonal verbal nominalisations in Old Sinhala, developed into a predicative clefting construction in Classical Sinhala, and in the modern colloquial language has become a phenomenon involving verb forms showing a sort of agreement with focussed elements.
In this study, I examine the historical development of focus concord constructions – that is, constructions similar to Japanese kakarimusubi, where the verb appears with a special affix and a focus particle usually appears somewhere within the clause – in Sinhala, an Indo-Aryan language of the Indo-European family spoken in Sri Lanka; with comparison to similar constructions in neighbouring South Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayalam.
The comparison of Sinhala with Tamil and Malayalam here is not simply due to a desire for crosslinguistic coverage nor simply because they are all three South Asian languages. Sinhala has been effectively cut off from other Indo-Aryan languages for roughly two millennia and has for the same period of time been in contact with South Dravidian languages, specifically Tamil. It has in fact been suggested that the morphosyntactic structure of focus constructions in Sinhala is essentially a calque of South Dravidian focus constructions (Gair 1986[1998]b). The examination of the Sinhala focus construction at various stages, compared to both early and modern South Dravidian focus constructions shows that – even if Sinhala did in essence borrow a Dravidian-like focus construction – the underlying properties of focus concord structures in Sinhala and South Dravidian differ not only in their earlier stages but in fact seem to show increased divergence by the modern period.
This paper is concerned with various aspects of the evolution of focus-concord constructions, including: (i) the source of focus-concord verbal forms; (ii) the source of at least some of the focus-related particles; and (iii) how the relationship between focus-concord verbal forms and focus-related particles changes over time, and what these relationships suggest with respect to the changes in the structure of focus-concord constructions diachronically.
In Sinhala focus-concord verbal forms originate from special-case uses of the “impersonal” nominalised construction in Old Sinhala, and develop from the originally “impersonal”/“existential” nominalised construction to a structure in Classical Sinhala where the nominalisation involved also creates an additional predicative structure, by putting the nominalised clause into a copular relation with the focussed element.1 By the stage of Modern Colloquial Sinhala these structures have been reanalysed as another sort of monoclausal structure. In the Dravidian languages examined (Tamil and Malayalam), on the other hand, focus-concord structures appear to involve predicative clefting (as in the Classical Sinhala structures) throughout extant texts.
Special attention is also paid to the focus concord particles (e.g. kakari-equivalents) which occur at different stages of Sinhala, Tamil, and Malayalam, for – at least in Sinhala – the focus construction (the musubi equivalent) can be clearly shown to have originated as independent of focussing, and not as immediately connected to the “focus” (kakari-type) particles. It is rather that the association of the predecessor of the later true focus construction in Sinhala was indeed not originally specific to focus, but in fact only became strongly associated with focus and with the use of focus particles, including question/quantifier particles [henceforth Q-particles],2 at a later stage. Examining the interaction of focus concord verbal forms and focus particles, particularly Q-particles, involves at some points the examination of occurrence of these particles in environments where they do not co-occur with a focus concord verbal form. Such cases are included in order to provide a fuller picture of the interplay of Q-particles and focus concord constructions.
This study therefore lays out a detailed examination of the history of the Sinhala focus concord construction, expanding upon the discussion of the evolution of Sinhala focus concord constructions in Slade (2011, 2013). I provide an overview of the evolution of focus concord constructions in Sinhala, and a somewhat less complete sketch of focus concord constructions in Dravidian – focussing on the South Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayalam – which can be usefully compared to the diachronic development of focus concord constructions in other languages, such as Japanese kakarimusubi.
Especially as concerns historical development and the linkage between focus concord constructions and focus particles, of particular interest in Sinhala and Dravidian is the original independence of kakari-type focus particles from the musubi-type focus concord construction (a situation which persists within present-day Dravidian), in contrast to the apparent situation in the earliest extant Japanese kakarimusubi constructions, where kakari particles originate as focus-associated particles which obligatorily trigger musubi verbal forms, with particles like ka only later developing into a true Q-particle.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 introduces the basic structure of the focus-concord construction in modern and Classical Sinhala, with comparison to Japanese kakarimusubi constructions. Section 3 examines the origins of the Sinhala focus-concord construction in Old Sinhala “impersonal” nominalised constructions. Section 4 pursues details of the development of focus-concord constructions in Sinhala. Section 5 examines the synchronic and diachronic distribution of (often focus-associated) Q-particles in Sinhala. Section 6 examines focus-concord constructions and focus-associating particles in Dravidian, focussing on Malayalam and Tamil (both modern and early). Section 7 compares the development of focus-concord constructions and Q-particles in Sinhala and Dravidian. Section 8 provides a general discussion of focus-concord constructions in Sinhala and Dravidian, with comparison to similar constructions in Japanese and other languages.
2 Focus in Sinhala and kakarimusubi
Modern Colloquial Sinhala [MCS] possesses a morphologically-overt focus construction in which the finite verb appears with an -E “focussing” ending rather than the usual -A “neutral” suffix. The focussed element in the clause optionally (but preferably) appears dislocated right of the verb. Also optional is the use of a focus particle like -y immediately following the focussed element. Compare (1a), which contains no focussed elements and thus uses the neutral form of the verb, with (1b), where potə ‘book’ is focussed and where the verb appears in the -E focus concord form. The example in (1b) shows the typical rightward dislocation of the focussed element. Example (1c) shows that even when the focussed constituent remains in situ, it still triggers the focus-concord verbal form (Slade 2011: 44–47).3
(1)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala
a.
Mamə
I.NOM
ē
that
potə
book
kiyewwa.
read.A
‘I read that book.’
b.
[ Mamə
[ I.NOM
ti
ti
kiyewwe
read.E
]
]
[ ē
[ that
potə(-y)
book(-FOC)
]iFOC
]iFOC
‘It was that book that I read.’
c.
Mamə
I.NOM
ē
that
potə(-y)
book(-FOC)
kiyewwe.
read.E
‘It was that book that I read.’
Modern Literary Sinhala [MLS]4 is similar to its colloquial counterpart, except that (a) dislocation is obligatory; (b) the copula/form of ‘to be’ is obligatory; (c) subjects of focussed verbs appear in accusative case; and (d) focussed verbs display no overt subject-verb agreement (in contrast to non-focussed verbs).5 Compare the non-focussed (2a) with its focussed counterpart in (2b).
(2)
Modern Literary Sinhala
a.
Mama
I.NOM
ema
that
pota
book
kiyevuvemi.
read.PAST.1SG
‘I read that book.’
b.
[ Mā
[ I.ACC
ti
ti
kiyevuvē
read.PAST.3SG
]
]
[ ema
[ that
potə
book
]iFOC
]iFOC
ya.
3SG
‘It was that book that I read.’
As has been noted elsewhere, the focus-concord construction of Sinhala is reminiscent of the kakarimusubi construction found in early Japanese (see Sansom 1928; Ogawa 1976, 1977; Whitman 1997; Hagstrom 1998: 24–28; Watanabe 2002; Yanagida 2006; Aldridge 2009, amongst others). Both constructions involve a clause-internal (rather than clause-final) particle which induces a special marking on the verb. An example of an Early Middle Japanese kakarimusubi construction is given below in (3).
(3)
Early Middle Japanese (Ise monogatari [900]: 82; cited: Whitman 1997: 162)
Tire-ba-koso
fall-COND-EMPH
itodo
the.more
sakura-wa
cherry-TOP
medeta-kere.
wonderful-M6
‘It is because they fall that cherry blossoms are so fine.’
Similarly – as do focussing/emphatic particles such as koso, zo, and namu – we find that in Old Japanese the Q-particle ka also participates in kakarimusubi, as in (4).
(4)
Old Japanese (Nihon Shoki [720]: 75; cited: Ogawa 1977: 221)
Sisi
beasts
husu-to
lie-QUOT
tare
who
ka
ka
kono
this
koto
thing
oomae-ni
Emperor.DAT
maosu.
say.M
‘Who reported to the Emperor that beasts were lying?’
So too, in Sinhala, Q-particles like də trigger the use of the focus concord -E verbal forms, as shown in (5).
(5)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala
Kau
who
də
də
ē
that
potə
book
kieuwe?
read.PAST.E
‘Who bought that book?’
However, as discussed by Serafim & Shinzato (2000); Watanabe (2002); Aldridge (2009); Mitrović (2014a), amongst others, Japanese ka seems to have originated not as a Q-particle required by interrogatives, but rather as a focus particle (which could appear in questions and was associated with interrogation) and only later became (largely) obligatory in interrogatives. Old Japanese questions therefore can occur without ka, as in:
(6)
Old Japanese (MYS 14.3418, l.5; cited: Aldridge 2009: 550)
Ima-fa
now-TOP
ikani
how
se-mo?
do-SUPP.ADN
‘What should we do now?’
On the other hand, the Sinhala particle də/da, as discussed in Section 5, does originate as a Q-particle, apparently originally associated specifically with alternative questions, but did not originally trigger focus concord. The roots of what becomes a focus concord construction is traceable back to the era of the Old Sinhala of the Sihigiri graffiti (8th–10th c. A.D.) – examined in more detailed in Section 3. Not only is this construction not originally triggered by the use of a Q-particle, the construction itself is not specifically associated with focus in Old Sinhala.
Focus constructions in Classical Sinhala [CS] (ca. 12–15 c. A.D.) closely resemble those of Modern Literary Sinhala [MLS], differing in that: (a) focussed elements can be dislocated either to the right-edge, following the verb, as in (7a), or to the left-edge of the clause, as in (7b); and (b) focussed subjects, unlike in MLS, continue to control verb agreement, as in (7c).7
(7)
Classical Sinhala
a.
Amāvatura 245; cited: Paolillo (1994: 161)
Taṭa
you.DAT
karuṇe
do.PAST.PTCP.NOM
[ mahat
[ great
lābha
fortune
]FOC
]FOC
yæ.
3SG
‘What has been done for you is a great fortune.’
b.
Amāvatura 107; cited: Ibid.
[ Ovun
[ they.ACC
san̆dahā
for
]FOC
]FOC
yæ
3SG
mā
I.ACC
dan
alms
denne.
give.PRES.PTCP.NOM
‘It is for them that I am giving alms.’
c.
Amāvatura 152; cited: Wijemanne (1984: 171)
[ Mama
[ I.NOM.SG
]FOC
]FOC
yæ
3SG
man̆ḍavā pīyemi.
trample.PAST.PTCP.MSC.NOM.1SG
‘It is I who trampled it.’
Old Sinhala presents a rather different pattern: the properties of the focus concord construction in Old Sinhala, the earliest form of Sinhala with significant texts, dating from the 8–10 c. A.D., are different enough from that of the other stages as to warrant its own section, and this account forms the body of the following section.
3 Origin of musubi focussing constructions in Sinhala
In this section I show that the Sinhala focus concord originates in the Old Sinhala impersonal nominalisation construction which happens to be compatible with – but does not require – the presence of a focussed element. At this stage the focus concord construction does not have the predicative “clefting” character it does in its later Classical or Literary guises.
In the Old Sinhala [OS] of the graffiti on the Mirror Wall at Sihigiri (ca. 8–10 c. A.D.), there is not yet a specialised focus construction, but we can identify the roots of what would later become the focus concord construction. In OS, it is to be noted that there are various ways of nominalising verbs: one of these nominalisations is used to form both participant-nouns (e.g. ‘go-er’ from ‘go’, as in example (8)) and “impersonal” nominalised verbs (Slade 2011). The latter of these is of interest for us for it is the “impersonal” usage of the nominalised verbal form that sometimes co-occurs with focussed elements and thus appears to constitute the origin of later Sinhala focus concord constructions.
(8)
Old Sinhala (S.G. 51)8
maga-yanno
path-goers
yati
go
‘path-goers go’
Salient properties of OS clauses containing “impersonal” nominalised verbs include: (a) “subjects” of impersonal nominalised verbs, when expressed, appear in the genitive case; (b) no overt agreement element or form of ‘to be’ is required. (However, when such an element does appear, it always immediately follows the nominalised verb, rather than following the focussed element as is the case in later Sinhala); (c) focussed elements, when present, are not obligatorily dislocated.
Example (9) provides an example of an OS clause utilising impersonal nominalisations where there is no apparent focussing of any element. In fact, both impersonals in (9) seem to involve backgrounding. That is, the impersonal nominalisation here seems to foreground the verbal elements (‘remaining’, ‘speaking’) by backgrounding the agents.
(9)
Old Sinhala (S.G. 508)
[ [ No
[ [ not
bæṇæ
speak.GER
]
]
visi
remain.PAST.PTCP.NOM
mā
I.GEN
gala
rock.LOC
]
]
kī
say.PAST.PTCP.NOM
ta.
you.GEN
‘“Without speaking, I resided on the rock.” Thus it has been said by you.’ (Lit. ‘“There was remaining of me on the rock without speaking.” There was saying by you (of this).’)
Nor at this time does ya/yi, the precursor of the modern colloquial Sinhala -y, yet behave as a focus particle, rather it functions as a sort of agreement clitic,9 standing in complementary distribution with the copula. This is unsurprising, given its etymological origin in the Old Indo-Aryan third-person singular present agreement morphology -ti (see Geiger 1941: 142; Karunatillake 2012: #9114).
Examples (10a)–(10d) illustrate ya/yi’s status as an agreement clitic rather than anything like a focus particle. In all of these examples, ya/yi occurs immediately following the nominalized verb, and in none of these examples does there appear to be any specially highlighted element.
(10)
Old Sinhala
a.
S.G. 44
Kit
K.
Saṁboyā
S.
bad
compose.PAST.PTCP
sata-pada
quatrain
yi.
PRES.3SG
‘[This] is the quatrain composed by Kit Saṁboyā.’
b.
S.G. 88
Mana
mind
maya,
my
biyi
fear
kæræ
do.ABS
hæ
her
puḷahasu
broad-smile
vījanina,
spread.PAST.PTCP.INSTR,
tatanu
tremble.INT.PRES.PTCP.NOM.SG
ya.
PRES.3S
‘My mind, as her broad smile spreads, frightening me, is trembling exceedingly.’
c.
S.G. 56
Ho
she
udahanne
show-anger.PRES.PTCP.NOM.SG
yi.
PRES.3SG
‘She is showing anger.’ (In context, ‘She will be enraged.’)
d.
S.G. 547
Me
this
me
this
deyahi
thing
senne
smile.PRES.PTCP.FEM.NOM.SG
hindinne
stay.PRES.PTCP.FEM.NOM.SG
yi.
PRES.3SG
‘She remains there smiling at this and that.’
In no case can ya/yi follow anything other than a predicate in Old Sinhala, and specifically in this class of construction, it always appears (when it appears, since it is optional) following the nominalised verb and never following a focussed constituent, unlike in later Sinhala.
The identification of the early and classical Sinhala ya/yi/i as an agreement element is clear in its pre-Colloquial distribution, where it appears as one out of a set of agreement elements, cp. (11a), (11b), (11e), (11f) with (11c), (11d).10
(11)
Literary Sinhala (Gair 1995[1998]: 240–241)
a.
Hē
he
gamaṭa
village.DAT
ya-yi.
go.PRES-3
‘He goes to the village.’
b.
Otomō
she
gamaṭa
village.DAT
giyā-ya.
go.PAST.FEM-3
‘She went to the village.’
c.
Ovuhu
they
gamaṭa
village.DAT
ya-ti.
go.PRES-3PL
‘They go to the village.’
d.
Mama
I
gamaṭa
village.DAT
ya-mi.
go.PRES-1SG
‘I go to the village.’
e.
Ovuhu
they
goviyō-ya.
farmers.NOM-3
‘They are farmers.’
f.
Hetema
he.NOM
goviyek-ya
farmer.INDEF.NOM-3
/ goviyek-i.
/ farmer.INDEF.NOM-3
‘He is a farmer.’
The function of ya as an agreement element rather than a focus marker is clear also in examples like (12), which contains an explicit focus marker nu immediately following the focussed phrase, with ya immediately following the nominalised verb visi.
(12)
Old Sinhala (S.G. 32)
Ma
my.GEN
sova
sorrow
niva
extinguish.ABS
æ
she.GEN
meseyi
this-manner
duduḷa-sela-aḍadarihi
fortress-rock-edge.LOC
visi
dwell.PAST.PTCP.NOM
ya
PRES.3SG
yaha-asaraṭaFOC
happy-companionship.DATFOC
nu.
indeed
‘It is indeed for the sake of happy companionship that she, having extinguished my sorrow, dwelt in this manner at the edge of the fortress rock.’
(Lit. ‘Having extinguished my sorrow, there is her having dwelt in this manner at the edge of the fortress rock indeed for happy companionship.’)
Quite frequently in the Sigiri graffiti texts, when impersonal-type nominalisations occur, there is no apparent focussed element. Example (12) is an unusually clear example of a focussed constituent (as indicated by use of the focussing particle nu) occurring with an impersonal.
As indicated above, (12) also illustrates the role of ya as an agreement clitic which appears immediately following the impersonal nominalised verb. Also notable in (12) is the (at this stage optional) dislocation of the focussed element to clause right-edge, a common feature (as discussed above) of later Sinhala. We do also find examples of impersonal nominalised verbs occurring when a focussed element occupies the clause, but without dislocation of the focussed element and without any overt form of ‘to be’ or agreement clitic, as in (13).11
(13)
Old Sinhala (S.G. 526)
Vayane
play-music.PRES.PTCP.NOM
maFOC
I.GENFOC
sihigiriye
Sihigiri.LOC
taṭa
you.DAT
an
other
no
not
piya
dear
da
da
ā
come.PAST.3SG
gaṇan?
number
‘It is by me that music is played, to you at Sihigiri (lit. ‘There is playing of music by me to you at Sihigiri.’); but are not all others who have come (here) dear (to you)?’
Thus, as discussed in the next section, Sinhala focus concord constructions seem to have originated as a possible usage of the impersonal construction. This construction involved the use of a nominalised verb in a typically monoclausal/non-clefting structure which was compatible with but not specialised for focus, and from there developed into a “true” focus-associated cleft construction, where the nominalised participial clause enters into a predication relationship with the focussed element. In the modern period this construction again evolved into a non-predicative structure, but with no true nominalised verb.
4 Development of musubi constructions in Sinhala
Though focus concord constructions in earlier Sinhala clearly involve nominalised verbs, this is no longer the case in Modern Colloquial Sinhala. In modern Sinhala, true verbal nominalisation involves either the “gerund” form of the verb in -iimə or -illə, (14a), or, more commonly, the use of the “adjectival” form of the verb (generally followed by ekə if there is no overt noun; where ekə is etymologically the inanimate numeral ‘one’), (14b) – both of which are clearly morphologically distinct from the verbal “-E” form appearing in focus concord constructions.
(14)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala (Gair 1976[1998]: 207)
a.
[ Miniha-ge
[ man-GEN
pot
books
livīmə/livillə
write-GER
]
]
hon̆də
good
nǣ.
not
‘The man’s writing books is not good.’
b.
[ [ Miniha
[ [ man-NOM
pot
books
liyənə
write.PRES.ADJ
]
]
ekə
ekə
]
]
hon̆də
good
nǣ.
not
‘That the man writes books is not good.’
In this, modern Sinhala focus concord constructions stand in contrast to Dravidian focus concord constructions. In Tamil, for instance, the focus concord verbal form in (15a) is identical to clear verbal nominalisation as found in instances like (15b).12 The same form found in the focussing (15a) appears also in the formation of the action nominal in the nominalised clause of (15b) below.
(15)
Tamil
a.
Lehmann (1989: 368)
Nēṟṟu
yesterday
iṅkē
here
va-nt-atu
come-PAST-NOM
Kumār-tāṉ.
Kumar-EMPH
‘It was Kumar who came here yesterday.’
b.
Lehmann (1989: 301)
Kumār
Kumar
iṅkē
here
va-nt-atu
come-PAST-NOM
tappu.
mistake
‘Kumar’s having come here was a mistake.’
In Old and Classical Sinhala, on the other hand, it is clear that the focus concord musubi verbal forms are in fact nominalised verbs, and in Old Sinhala, as discussed earlier, we find a sort of “proto focus-concord” form. Since the construction in Old Sinhala is in fact an impersonal, the use of a nominalised verb is compatible with the presence of a focussed element, but does not require one. That is, in Old Sinhala the employment of this type of verbal form does not automatically correlate with the presence of a focussed element, as illustrated by examples like (9), repeated below as (16).
(16)
Old Sinhala (S.G. 508)
[ [ No
[ [ not
bæṇæ
speak.GER
]
]
visi
remain.PAST.PTCP.NOM
mā
I.GEN
gala
rock.LOC
]
]
kī
say.PAST.PTCP.NOM
ta.
you.GEN
‘“Without speaking, I resided on the rock.” Thus it has been said by you.’ (Lit. ‘“There was remaining of me on the rock without speaking.” There was saying by you (of this).’)
In Old Sinhala, the position of the agreement clitic or form of ‘to be’ indicates that this “impersonal” nominalised verb construction – with a nominalised main verb and an (optional) agent in the genitive case – seems to generally be monoclausal, being generically paraphraseable as ‘there is X-ing (by Z)’. Examples like (12), however, where a clearly focussed element stands in a dislocated position would appear to invite the possibility of a reanalysis which seems to have fully taken place by the Classical Sinhala period. That is, in this later stage the focus structure would be roughly paraphraseable as ‘the X-ing is Y’.
Thus, by the Classical Sinhala period the “impersonal” construction of Old Sinhala appears to have been re-analysed as predicative clefting constructions, where the focussed element acts as a predicate for which the nominalised participial is an argument.
That such constructions involve predicative clefting in Classical Sinhala is suggested not only by the obligatoriness of an agreement clitic or form of ‘to be’, but also by the obligatory overt dislocation of the focussed element to either the clause left- or right-edge. And the shift to a predicative construction is suggested further by the fact that, unlike in Old Sinhala, the agreement element appears not after the nominalised verb but obligatorily after the focussed element. These features are all observeable in (7b), repeated below as (17), with partial tree representations of the relevant pieces in (18a) and (18b) (showing the two movement steps), with the focussed phrase “normalised” to the right-edge.
First, as shown in (18a), the focussed element moves to a (VP-internal) focus position, adjoined to VP. Then, as in (18b), the nominalised clause moves to SpecTP, where it can enter into a predication relationship with the focussed element (=‘the giving of alms by me is for them’).
(18)
a.
b.
In contrast, the Old Sinhala equivalent of (17) would have the structure of the constructed example in (19), with a partial tree of the relevant pieces given in (20).14
(19)
Old Sinhala (constructed)
Mā
I.ACC
dan
alms
denne
give.PRES.PTCP.NOM
yæ
3SG
[ ovun
[ they.ACC
san̆dahā
for
]FOC
]FOC
(nu).
(indeed)
(Lit.) ‘There exists a giving of alms by me for them (indeed).’
(20)
Here the V head in which yæ appears, if vocalised, remains associated (and right-adjacent to) the nominalised participle, with optional movement of the focussed element to a focus-associated position. But this V does not serve to create a new predicate as it were, unlike in (18); ovun san̆dahā ‘for them’ does not stand in a predicative relationship with the nominalised mā dan denne (lit.) ‘a giving of alms by me’, but is rather an extracted focussed adjunct of the NP.
The comparison between (17) and (19) illustrates the shift from the non-predicative “impersonal” construction in (19), compatible with the focussing of a particular constituent but not inexorably tied to this type of highlighting function, to the true predicative “cleft” construction of (17).
MLS focus-concord constructions closely resemble those of the Classical period, except that the dislocation of focus is restricted to the right edge. However, in MCS we find the old agreement clitic -y (<ya) being re-analysed simply as a focus marker.15 Modern Sinhala also shows that the focus concord verbal form became distinct from verbal nominalisation.16 With these changes, the dependency between the focussed element and the verbal form has become something like agreement (i.e. the verb takes a special morphological form when an exhaustive-focus element originated within its scope). Thus the MCS sentence in (21) would be associated with the partial tree structure given in (22).
(21)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala
Mamə
I
dānaya
alms
denne
give.PRES.E
ovun
them
san̆dahā
for
(-y).
(FOC)
‘It is for them I am giving alms.’
(22)
Thus the MCS focus construction is similar in some ways to the early structure we find in OS, with the difference that no nominalisation is involved.
That -y (<ya/yi) is no longer a (verbal) agreement element in MCS is also attested by the difference in the structure of clauses with non-verbal predicates in MCS as opposed to earlier varieties. In MCS, there is no overt realisation of agreement on verbal forms; and in clauses with non-verbal predicates no copula or agreement appears whatsoever:
(23)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala (Gair 1995[1998]: 241)
a.
Mamə
I.NOM
goviy-ek.
farmer.NOM-INDEF
‘I am a farmer.’
b.
Ē
that
mahattəya
gentleman.NOM
guruwərəy-ek.
teacher.NOM-INDEF
‘That gentleman is a teacher.’
Whereas, in MLS, clauses with non-verbal predicates require some sort of overt agreement element, either an agreement clitic (of which yi/ya is a member), as in (24), or a form of ‘to be’, as in (25).
(24)
Modern Literary Sinhala (Gair 1995[1998]: 242)
a.
Mama
I.NOM
goviy-ek-mi.
farmer.NOM-INDEF-1SG
‘I am a farmer.’
b.
Hetema
he.NOM
goviy-ek-ya/goviy-ek-i.
farmer.NOM-INDEF-3
‘He is a farmer.’17
(25)
Modern Literary Sinhala (ibid.)
a.
Mama
I.NOM
goviy-ek
farmer.NOM-INDEF
vemi.
be.PRES.1SG
‘I am a farmer.’
b.
Hetema
he.NOM
goviy-ek
farmer.NOM-INDEF
veyi.
be.PRES.3SG
‘He is a farmer.’
Note also in Modern Colloquial Sinhala that the focus construction now behaves identically to non-focussed constructions with respect to the case-marking of the subject (as opposed to the accusative subjects of literary Sinhala “musubi” verbs). The loss of overt subject-agreement morphology on the finite verb in Modern Colloquial Sinhala may be one reason for this difference.18
Table 1 lays out the properties of focus concord structures in these four stages of Sinhala, including the location of the agreement element (i.e. forms of ‘to be’ or agreement clitics, when present), the case of the subject of the focus-concord clause, the dislocation of the focussed element, and the status of the verb which appears in the focus-concord clause (as identical or non-identical with a nominalised verb). Note that the “accusative” of Classical and Literary Sinhala is the erstwhile genitive (see fn. 19).
Properties of focus concord structures in various stages of Sinhala.
focussed element dislocates
case of subj. of focussed clause
presence of agreement element
status of focus-concord verb
Old Sinh.
optionally
genitive
optional, after nominalised verb
nominalised verb
Class. Sinh.
either to left- or right-edge
accusative19
obligatory, after focussed element
nominalised verb
Lit. Sinh.
right-edge
accusative20
obligatory, after focussed element
distinct from nominalised verb
Colloq. Sinh.
optionally to R-edge
nominative
none (optional focus marker after focussed element)
distinct from nominalised verb
The next section provides a brief overview of the properties of Q-particles in Sinhala, before turning to the comparison with Dravidian in Section 6.
5 Quantifier-particles in Sinhala
This section examines constructions in Sinhala containing the particle də, focussing on Modern Colloquial Sinhala, but including some examples from earlier varieties as well, in order to provide an overview of the full distribution of the interrogative focus-association particle, and how it interacts with the “musubi” verbal form. I first begin by examining the historical predecessors of Sinhala də.
The Sinhala particle da/də ultimately derives from Old Indo-Aryan utā́ho, which is made up of two particles, ā́ho and uta.21 In Sanskrit (as a representative Old Indo-Aryan language), particularly in the late Vedic period, these two particles appear in alternative questions, as (26).
‘Does anyone who does not know, having died, go to yonder world, or does anyone who knows, having died, attain yonder world?’
The particle ā́ho is of unclear origin in this usage. Uta appears in early Vedic Sanskrit with the sense ‘and’ (Klein 1978; see also Klein 1974), as in (27).
(27)
Early Vedic verse (Rig Veda 3.59, 1b)
Mitró
contract.MSC.SG.NOM
dādhāra
hold.PRES.3SG
pr̥thivī́m
earth.SG.ACC
utá
uta
dyā́m.
heaven.SG.ACC
‘Contract holds (together) earth and heaven.’
It is from this utá A B C … ā́ho X Y Z construction that the form utā́ho seems to derive. Since utá may appear at the front of an interrogative clause (functioning as a sort of interrogative marker), it could also immediately precede the ā́ho standing at the front of the second part of a disjunction, with the application of sandhi becoming utā́ho. And it is in this form (utāho), that it appears in Classical Sanskrit, as in (28) below.
‘Is it I, against whom the murder-plot is laid, or is it the hunchback or somebody else?’
In later Pali, we find the cognate form udāhu, as in (29).
(29)
Pali
Saccāni
truths
sutāni
heard
bahuni
many
nānā
various
udāhu
udāhu
te
they
takkamanussaranti.
follow conjecture
‘Have they learned many various truths or do they follow conjecture?’
By the earliest extant Sinhala texts containing questions, it seems that the descendent of utā́ho/udāhu, i.e. the Sinhala particle da/də, has been generalised from alternative questions and has begun to appear (though apparently optionally) in wh- and yes/no-questions as well.
Sinhala da (later də in MCS) appears obligatorily in interrogatives in modern Sinhala (both literary and colloquial), triggering the use of the focus concord E-verbal form. Additionally, it is always the case in literary, and often in colloquial, that the wh-phrase is dislocated to the right of the verb. Da/də, as do other focus-associated particles, triggers the focus concord E-verbal form whenever it originates inside of the c-command domain of the verb (regardless of whether later dislocating/clefting operations later move it outside).
(30)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala
a.
Chitra
Chitra
potə
book
gatta.
bought.A
‘Chitra bought the book.’
b.
[ Chitra
[ Chitra
ti
ti
gatte
bought.E
]
]
[ monəwa
[ what
də ]i?
də ]i
‘What did Chitra buy?’
(31)
Modern Literary Sinhala
a.
Mama
I.NOM
ema
that
pota
book
kiyevuvemi.
read.PAST.1SG
‘I read that book.’
b.
[ Mā
[ I.ACC
ti
ti
kiyevuvē
read.PAST.E
]
]
[ kumak
[ what
da ]i?
da ]i
‘What did I read?’
In “neutral” yes/no-questions (i.e. where there is no focussed element) the particle də originates outside of the c-command domain of verb, and the verb therefore occurs in the neutral (“A”) form, as in (32a). Where a yes/no-question contains a focussed element, the particle də follows it, as in (32b) (and the focussed element together with də may optionally be dislocated to the right clause-edge).
(32)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala
a.
Chitra
Chitra
ē
that
potə
book
kieuwa
read-A
də?
də
‘Did Chitra read that book?’
b.
Chitra
Chitra
ē
that
potə
book
də
də
kieuwe?
read-E
‘Was it that book which Chitra read?’
In alternative questions, each disjunct is followed by an instance of the particle də, and the verb appears in the E-focussing form, as shown in (33).
(33)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala
Gunəpālə
Gunapala
də
də
Chitra
Chitra
də
də
gaməṭə
village.DAT
giyē?
go.PAST.E
‘Was it Gunapala or Chitra who went to the village?’
In Modern Colloquial Sinhala, but not in earlier varieties, də can combine with a wh-word to form an indefinite (cf. Slade 2015). N.b.: the verb never appears in E-focussed form with wh-indefinites, as shown in (34).
(34)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala
Kau
who
də
də
ē
that
potə
book
kieuwa.
read.PAST.A
‘Someone read that book.’
In non-interrogative disjunctions, a morphologically distinct Q-particle hari (hō in literary Sinhala) appears rather than də.23Hari/hō does not trigger focus concord E-verbal forms, as shown in example (35).
(35)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala
Gunəpālə
Gunapala
hari
hari
Chitra
Chitra
hari
hari
gaməṭə
village.DAT
giyā.
go.PAST.A
‘Gunapala or Chitra went to the village.’
In Modern Literary Sinhala, and earlier forms, we find similar disjunctive structures, but with the particle hō rather than hari, as shown in (36).
(36)
Modern Literary Sinhala
Rahul
Rahul
hō
hō
Amin
Amin
hō
hō
gamaṭa
village.DAT
giyāya.
go.PAST.3SG
‘Rahul or Amin went to the village.’
Both literary and colloquial Sinhala can form wh-based indefinites by combining a wh-word with the particle hari, in MCS, as in (37), or hō, in MLS, as in (38).
(37)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala
Kauru
who
hari
hari
ē
that
potə
book
kieuwa.
read.PAST.A
‘Someone read that book.’
(38)
Modern Literary Sinhala
Kaluvarē
darkness-in
kaurun
who
hō
hō
mā
I.ACC
ælluvēya.
touch.PAST.MSC.3SG
‘Someone (unknown) touched me in the darkness.’
In NPI contexts vat is employed instead of hari/hō, both in disjunctive contexts as shown in example (39a), and in the case of wh-based indefinites, as in (39b).24
(39)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala
a.
Gunəpālə
Gunapala
vat
vat
Chitra
Chitra
vat
vat
gaməṭə
village.DAT
giyē
go.PAST.E′
nǣ.
NEG
‘Neither Gunapala nor Chitra went to the village.’
b.
Kauru
who
vat
vat
ē
that
potə
book
kieuwe
read.PAST.E′
nǣ.
NEG
‘No-one read that book.’
The Sinhala Q-particle də/da thus did not start out with inherently focal semantics, though it acquired association with focus by the period of modern literary language. In Modern Colloquial Sinhala, we find that – alongside its use as a Q-particle – də is also used in the formation of a certain class of indefinites and thus in these cases does not trigger verbal concord “musubi” forms, and therefore the particle də itself is not always focus-associated in the Modern Colloquial language.
In Old and Classical Sinhala, questions do not require the kakari-type particle da, and da does not automatically trigger the use of a nominalised “musubi” verb. In Modern Literary Sinhala, on the other hand, questions do require the appearance of da, and da always triggers the use of a nominalised “musubi” verb (when da appears in its domain). While in Modern Colloquial Sinhala, questions do require də, but də does not trigger musubi-type focus-concord verb forms when it occurs in the formation of an indefinite (as discussed in the previous paragraph).
Table 2 shows the patterning of association of də/da and hari/hō with verbal focus forms.
Co-occurence of particles and focus verbal forms in various of Sinhala.
hari/hō trigger “musubi” verbal form
də/da trigger “musubi” verbal form
Old Sinh.
never
optional
Class. Sinh.
never
always if in c-command domain
Lit. Sinh.
never
always if in c-command domain
Colloq. Sinh.
never
always if in c-command domain, except for indefs.
In the next section, I discuss focus concord constructions and associated particles in the South Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayalam.
6 Focus concord constructions and kakari particles in Dravidian
Focussing/cleft constructions in Dravidian involve a nominalised verb, often with dislocation of the focussed element to the right-edge, and are thus reminiscent of focus concord constructions in Sinhala. In this section I focus mainly on the Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayalam, with comparison to Sinhala.
Compare the Tamil “neutral” (no focus) example (40a) with example (40b), where the verb shifts from a finite form to a nominalised form (again, similar to earlier Sinhala), with optional marking of focus on the focussed element via a particle -tāṉ.
(40)
Tamil (Lehmann 1989: 367)
a.
Kumār
Kumar
nēṟṟu
yesterday
iṅkē
here
vantāṉ.
come.PAST.3SG.MSC
‘Kumar came here yesterday.’
b.
Kumār(-tāṉ)
Kumar(-EMPH)
nēṟṟu
yesterday
iṅkē
here
vantatu.
come.PAST.NOM
‘It was Kumar who came here yesterday.’
As in Sinhala, focus constructions in Tamil can often involve “clefting” of the focussed element, dislocating it to the right-edge of the clause, as shown in example (41).
(41)
Tamil (Lehmann 1989: 367)
Nēṟṟu
yesterday
iṅkē
here
vantatu
come.PAST.NOM
Kumār(-tāṉ).
Kumar(-EMPH)
‘It was Kumar who came here yesterday.’
The Tamil focus particle -tāṉ can be replaced with another focus particle such as -ē or with the interrogative particle -ā in focussing yes/no-questions like (42).
(42)
Tamil (Lehmann 1989: 370)
Kumār
Kumar
Maturaiyil-ā
Madurai.LOC-Q
piṟantatu.
be-born.PAST.NOM
‘Was it in Madurai that Kumar was born?’
The Tamil interrogative particle -ā does not obligatorily trigger clefting or the use of a nominalised (“musubi”) verb form, as shown by the grammaticality of (43).
(43)
Tamil (Lehmann 1989: 232)
Kumār
Kumar
nēṟṟu
yesterday
Rājā-v-ai
Raja.ACC
aṭi-tt-āṉ-ā?
beat.PAST.3SM-ā
‘Did Kumar beat Raja yesterday?’
Differing from the Sinhala pattern, wh-questions in Tamil do not appear with an interrogative particle, and they do not usually employ a nominalised “musubi” verb form; an example of a typical Tamil wh-question is given in (44).
(44)
Tamil (Lehmann 1989: 234)
Yār
who
nēṟṟu
yesterday
va-nt-āṉ?
come.PAST.3SM
‘Who came yesterday?’
Tamil stands in contrast with Malayalam on this point. In Malayalam, wh-questions normally appear using a focus concord verbal form, as in (45).25
(45)
Malayalam (Jayaseelan 2004: 7)
Ārə
who
āṇə
COPULA
[ niṉ-ṉe
[ you.ACC
talle-(y)atə
beat.PAST-NOMINALISER
]?
]
‘Who was it that beat you?’
The Tamil particle -ō appears in the formation of non-interrogative disjunctions, as shown in (46a), and in the formation of wh-based indefinites, as shown in (46b), both of these being reminiscent of the behaviour of Sinhala hari/hō, in the appearance of the particle on both disjuncts in (46a) as well as the non-triggering of a focus-concord form.
(46)
Tamil
a.
Lehmann (1989: 156)
Kumār-ō
Kumar-ō
Rājā-v-ō
Raja-ō
varu-v-ārkaḷ
come.FUT.3PL
‘Kumar or Raja will come.’
b.
Lehmann (1989: 155)
Nēṟṟu
yesterday
yār-ō
who-ō
uṅkaḷ-ai-k
you(pl).ACC
kūppiṭ-ṭ-ā-ṉ
call.PST.3SM
‘Someone called you yesterday.’
In modern Malayalam, the particle -ō also occurs in these two contexts (non-interrogative disjunctions and in the formation of indefinites), but additionally occurs also in the formation of yes/no-questions, in place of Tamil’s -ā; an example is given in (47).
(47)
Malayalam (Jayaseelan 2001b: 67)
John
John
wannu-(w)ō?
came-ō
‘Did John come?’
In Old Malayalam, -ō additionally occurs in the formation of wh-questions (making it more closely resemble Sinhala), as in example (48).
(48)
Old Malayalam (“Ambarrīshōpākhyānam”, Narayanapilla 1971: 21)
Entu-kil-ō
what-be-ō
rājya-ttiṉṉu
kingdom-DAT
want-a
came-RELATIVISER
upadrawam?
trouble
‘What is the trouble that has come to the kingdom?’
Old Tamil26 resembles Malayalam in not possessing a distinction between -ā and -ō, and further resembles Old Malayalam in (optionally) employing -ō in wh-questions as in (49a), and in yes/no-questions rather than -ā (in variation with -kol, and the apparently composite form kollō) as in (49b).27
(49)
Old Tamil
a.
aka 50.14 (cited: Lehmann 1998: 91)
Yāṉ
I
eṉ
what
cey-k-ō?
do.NONPAST.1SG-ō
‘What shall I do?’
b.
aiṅk 241.2–4 (cited: Ibid.)
Vēlaṉ
priest
…
…
kēṇmai
friendship
…
…
aṟi.y-um-ō
know.NPST.3S-ō
…?
…
‘Does the priest know friendship?’
Note that in modern Malayalam, unlike in modern Tamil, a form of ‘to be’ is generally required to follow the focussed element, as in (50).
(50)
Malayalam (Asher & Kumari 1997: 181–2)
Rāman-āṇə
Raman-be.PRES
innale
yesterday
Krṣṇa-ṉṉə
Krishnan-to
raṇṭə
two
pustakam
book.ACC
koṭutt-atə.
give.PAST.3SG.NEU
‘It was Raman that gave two books to Krishnan yesterday.’
While -ō appears in the formation of wh-based indefinites in Old Malayalam and in the modern forms of both Malayalam and Tamil, such forms do NOT occur in Old Tamil (p.c. Thomas Lehmann), and so the appearance of these forms in later stages of Dravidian represents an extension, similar to what we see in Sinhala, where hō appears in the formation of wh-indefinites only from Modern Literary Sinhala onwards, and da/də does not appear in this environment until the Modern Colloquial stage.
Thus it can be seen that in early South Dravidian the “clefting” focus-concord construction remains independent of the use of focus particles (including Q-particles) and vice versa. This remains the case in modern Tamil, but not in modern Malayalam, where Q-particles do trigger the use of focus-concord verbal forms. Both early and modern Tamil then have a somewhat similar state of affairs as in Old Sinhala, as discussed above in Section 3, though the clause structure differs (i.e. plain “impersonal”/“existential” nominalisation in Old Sinhala, against predicative clefts in Dravidian) as shown by the positioning of agreement elements (i.e. forms of ‘to be’ or agreement clitics).
Thus – unlike in varieties of Sinhala from the Classical period onwards – Q-particles in early South Dravidian as well as in modern Tamil do not trigger nominalised “musubi” verb form or clefting of the focussed element. Interestingly, modern Malayalam is somewhat more similar to post-Old Sinhala in that focus particles do trigger the focus concord verbal forms. And as in Classical & Literary Sinhala, Dravidian clefting/focus constructions (at all stages) appear to be copular/predicative.
7 Development of focus concord constructions in Sinhala & Dravidian
Thus, in recapitulation and summary, the development of focus concord constructions in Sinhala and Dravidian can be described as follows.
In Old Sinhala, we find nominalised verbal forms used in what might be described as “impersonal” constructions, of the type ‘there was X-ing (by Y)’, as in (13), repeated below as (51).
(51)
Old Sinhala (S.G. 526)
Vayane
play-music.PRES.PTCP.NOM
maFOC
I.GENFOC
Sihigiriye
Sihigiri.LOC
taṭa
you.DAT
an
other
no
not
piya
dear
da
da
ā
come.PAST.3SG
gaṇan?
number
‘It is by me that music is played, to you at Sihigiri (Lit. ‘There is playing of music by me to you at Sihigiri.’); but are not all others who have come (here) dear (to you)?’
Such structures were compatible with focussing, and we do sometimes find clear instances of focussed elements used in this nominalised impersonal construction in Old Sinhala, as in example (12), repeated below as (52).
(52)
Old Sinhala (S.G. 32)
Ma
my.GEN
sova
sorrow
niva
extinguish.ABS
æ
she.GEN
meseyi
this-manner
duduḷa-sela-aḍadarihi
fortress-rock-edge.LOC
visi
dwell.PAST.PTCP.NOM
ya
PRES.3SG
yaha-asaraṭaFOC
happy-companionship.DATFOC
nu.
indeed
‘It is indeed for the sake of happy companionship that she, having extinguished my sorrow, dwelt in this manner at the edge of the fortress rock.’ (Lit. ‘Having extinguished my sorrow, there is her having dwelt in this manner at the edge of the fortress rock indeed for happy companionship.’)
In terms of the structure, the Old Sinhala nominalised impersonals do not involve any copular clefting; where a form of ‘to be’ is overt, it always immediately follows a nominalised impersonal verb, and thus it is not “copular” in the sense of being a clause linker (as the function of such verbs in focus-concord constructions might be described in later Classical and Modern Literary Sinhala), but can be seen as part of the deverbalisation of the impersonal.
In Classical Sinhala and Modern Literary Sinhala such constructions do in fact appear to involve predicative clefting, perhaps under Dravidian influence. At this stage focus-concord constructions thus take the form of a nominalised clause joined to the remainder by an obligatory copula or agreement clitic, as in (7a), repeated below as (53).
Modern Literary Sinhala is quite similar to Classical Sinhala, with the exception that focus concord constructions show less variation and can be regarded as more frozen,28 since the focussed element obligatorily dislocates to the right of the verb.
By the period of Modern Colloquial Sinhala, the agreement element is reanalysed as a focus marker, and so focus concord constructions in Modern Colloquial Sinhala once again become non-predicative (though in a rather different fashion than their Old Sinhala precursors). Overt dislocation is thus optional, allowing for both (54a) and (54b) (repeated from above (1b), (1c), respectively):
(54)
Modern Colloquial Sinhala
a.
[ Mamə
[ I.NOM
ti
ti
kiyewwe
read.E
]
]
[ ē
[ that
potə(-y)
book(-FOC)
]iFOC.
]iFOC
‘It was that book that I read.’
b.
Mamə
I.NOM
ē
that
potə(-y)
book(-FOC)
kiyewwe.
read.E
‘It was that book that I read.’
The Modern Colloquial Sinhala focus concord construction is no longer “copular” (predicative clefting), thus differing from its Literary and Classical counterparts. In Modern Literary Sinhala, ya or a form of ‘to be’ must appear in focus constructions, while in Modern Colloquial Sinhala, -y (<ya) is optional, and can be substituted by a different focus particle (or no post-focus element may occur at all).
The Sinhala Q-particle də/da did not start out with inherently focal semantics, though it acquired association with focus by the period of the Modern Literary language. In Modern Colloquial Sinhala, we find that — alongside its use as a Q-particle – də is also used in the formation of a certain class of indefinites and thus in these cases does not trigger verbal concord “musubi” forms, and therefore the particle də itself is not always focus-associated in the Modern Colloquial language.
In Old and Classical Sinhala, questions do not require the kakari-type particle da, and da does not automatically trigger the use of a nominalised “musubi” verb. In Modern Literary Sinhala, on the other hand, questions do require the appearance of da, and da always triggers the use of a nominalised “musubi” verb (when da appears in its domain). While in Modern Colloquial Sinhala, questions do require də, but də does not trigger musubi-type focus-concord verb forms when it occurs in the formation of an indefinite (as discussed in the previous paragraph).
Table 3 presents a concise summary of the properties of particles in various stages of Sinhala and South Dravidian.
Summary of Sinhala & Dravidian focussing constructions and focus particles.
Q-particles force “musubi” V
focus particles force “musubi” form
musubi clause-type
Old Sinh.
no
no
“impersonal”/“existential” nominalisation
Class. Sinh.
no
yes
predicative cleft
Lit. Sinh.
yes
yes
predicative cleft
Colloq. Sinh.
yes (unless indef.)
yes
“focussing” non-predicative
Old Tamil
no
no
predicative cleft
Modern Tamil
no
no
predicative cleft
Modern Malayalam
no
yes
predicative cleft
As discussed above, the distribution of “kakari”-type Q-particles also differs between languages, and between language stages, as summarised in Table 4.29
Distribution of Q-particles in various stages of Sinhala, Malayalam, Tamil & Japanese.
Old Sin
Class Sin
Lit Sin
Colloq Sin
Old Tam
Old Mal
Mod Mal
Mod Tam
Jap
y/n-ques.
(da)
(da)
da
də
-ō, -kol, -kollō
-ō
-ō
-ā
ka, no, kai, kadooka
wh-ques.
(da)
(da)
da
də
(-ō)
-ō
–
–
ka, no, ndai
wh-indef.
–
–
hō [a. + n.], vat [n.]
də [a.], hari [a.], vat [n.]
–
-ō
-ō
-ō
ka
decl. disj.
hō
hō
hō [a. + n.], vat [n.]
hari [a. + n.], vat [n.],
–
-ō
-ō
-ō
ka
interr. disj.
da
da
da
də
-ō
-ō
-ō
-ō
{ka}
8 Conclusion and discussion
The Modern Colloquial Sinhala focus concord construction is no longer “copular” (predicative clefting), thus differing from its Literary and Classical counterparts. In Modern Literary Sinhala, ya or a form of ‘to be’ must appear in focus constructions, while in Modern Colloquial Sinhala, -y (<ya) is optional, and can be substituted by a different focus particle (or no post-focus element may occur at all).
While in Japanese focus concord constructions appear to have originated as focus-associated, the construction which eventually becomes a focus concord construction in Sinhala did not originally obligatorily associate with focus. Further, particles (including the Q-particle də/da) which end up triggering the appearance of a verbal focus concord form in later Sinhala did not originally require the use of a special verbal form. In Dravidian, both contemporary and earlier, Q-particles do not force the appearance of the special “clefting” (focus concord) construction; focus particles do not trigger the focus concord/“musubi” form either in early South Dravidian nor in Modern Tamil, but they do in Modern Malayalam.
Sinhala and Dravidian Q-particles stand in contrast to Japanese ka, whose extant forms are all focus-associated, up until the 17th c., when it becomes a question operator without any overt focus-association, i.e. it no longer triggers musubi focus-concord verbal forms (Serafim & Shinzato 2000; Aldridge 2009; Mitrović 2014a). Sinhala da/də appears to show the reverse development, originating as a question-associated particle which later becomes focus-associated. The Dravidian Q-particles -ā and -ō, on the other hand, never appear to become obligatorily focus-associated.
Intriguingly, although the Sinhala, Dravidian, and Japanese focus concord constructions overlap in some of their features, Sinhala and Japanese appear to show largely opposite paths of development in terms of the association of “musubi”-type particles with questions and focus, but in both languages focus-concord constructions develop out of earlier predicative “clefting” focus constructions.
Though the development of Sinhala focus-concord constructions thus differs on many points from that observed in Japanese, there are some similarities, especially in the later developments. Sinhala focus-concord constructions have been reanalysed as non-predicative focus-marking in the Modern Colloquial language. So too, while Japanese kakarimusubi constructions seem to have originally been predicative clefts, later examples are not necessarily analysable as such (Akiba 1978: 77; cp. Harris & Campbell 1995: 161–162), in part due to the fact that some kakari particles like zo no longer require the nominal form and the fact that other kakari particles, like nan, have more or less disappeared (Sansom 1928: 266). Parallels exist elsewhere: present-day monoclausal focus constructions in Somali which developed from earlier biclausal constructions (Hetzron 1974; Antinucci & Publielli 1984); and Breton shows a similar development (Harris & Campbell 1995: 155–158).
The earlier development of the “monoclausal” impersonal construction of Old Sinhala – which was not directly tied to the presence of focus, but was certainly compatible with it – to the “biclausal” predicative clefting focus-concord construction of Classical Sinhala may seem on the face of it an unusual change, as it involves the innovation of a complex structure out of a simpler one. However, it too finds parallels elsewhere. Harris & Campbell (1995: 311–312) provide an example of a biclausal structure developing from an earlier monoclausal structure in Udi, a Lezgic language. Aside from Udi, Lezgic languages lack finite relative clauses, as do sister languages in the other branches of the Northeast Caucasian language family. In Udi, in very recent times, finite relative clauses have developed, and out of an earlier monoclausal structure:
(55)
Udi (Harris & Campbell 1995: 311)
Azak’e
I.saw
xinär-ax
girl-DAT
gölöšp-i.
dance-PAST.PTCP
‘I saw the dancing girl’ OR ‘I saw the girl who danced’.
As discussed by Harris & Campbell, the deverbal adjectival modifier gölöšpi ‘danced’, derived from the verbal gölöšp- ‘dance’, could be re-analysed as a finite verb (since Udi permits clauses consisting of a surface structure containing just a finite verb). So the AdjP gölöšpi ‘danced’ could be reanalysed as a clausal ‘(s/he) danced’, thus deriving a biclausal structure from a monoclausal one. As Harris & Campbell (1995: 310–311) say, ‘[n]on-finite verbal forms – deverbal nouns and adjectives – have an inherent dual nature, which can lead naturally to dual analysis […] being at once substantival and (de)verbal, they have the potential for being diachronically reanalyzed as having a complex initial structure’.
The situation in Sinhala is slightly different. Here we do not find the reanalysis of a deverbal form by itself, but rather the reanalysis targets the combination of a deverbal form with an agreement clitic or form of ‘to be’. That is, the reanalysis involves whether the agreement element (actually optional in Old Sinhala) is associated with the deverbal nominal simply as an agreement element, as it is in Old Sinhala, or whether it acts as a sort of predicative linker, as it does in Classical Sinhala. This reanalysis takes advantage of a somewhat different inherent duality, namely whether the agreement clitics or forms of ‘to be’ function purely as expressions of morphosyntactic features (as in “impersonal” nomalised constructions in Old Sinhala), or as predicative/equatative linkers between elements (as in the “cleft” focus constructions in Classical Sinhala).
Abbreviations
1 = first person, 3 = third person, A = ‘neutral’ verbal suffix, ABS = absolutive, ACC = accusative, ADJ = adjective, ADN = adnominal, COND = conditional, DAT = dative, E = ‘focussing’ verbal suffix, E′ = non-‘focus’-associated verbal suffix, EMPH = emphatic, EUPH = euphonic, FEM = feminine, FOC = focus, GEN = genitive, GER = gerund, INDEF = indefinite, INT = intensive, LOC = locative, MSC = masculine, MCS = Modern Colloquial Sinhala, MLS = Modern Literary Sinhala, NEU = neuter, NOM = nominative, NPST = non-past tense, OS = Old Sinhala, PAST = past tense, PL = plural, PRES = present tense, PTCP = participle, Q = question marker, QUOT = quotative, S.G. = Sigiri Graffiti, SG = singular, TOP = topic.
In earlier works, e.g. Slade (2011), I have referred to this as a development from “monoclausal” to “biclausal” in the sense that the latter involve a nominalised clause entering into a predicative relationship with the focussed element whereas for the former there is no additional predication structure created.
Such particles have a wider range of usages than simply in questions; for further discussion see, amongst others: Jayaseelan (2008), Slade (2011), Szabolcsi et al. (2014), Mitrović (2014b), Szabolcsi (2015) [whence the label “quantifier particle”], Jayaseelan (2016).
From this type of rightward dislocation such constructions in Sinhala (and Dravidian) are often referred to as “cleft” or “clefting” constructions.
Modern Sinhala exhibits diglossia, where the colloquial/spoken form differs significantly in its grammar from the formal/literary/written form. E.g. colloquial Sinhala shows no overt agreement morphology on the finite verb, whereas literary Sinhala does. For further discussion of Sinhala diglossia, see Gair (1968[1998]), Gair (1986[1998]a), Gair (1992), Paolillo (1992).
In MCS there is no overt subject-verb agreement in any construction, so this contrast could not obtain.
The gloss “M” (for musubi) indicates the special adnominal form that the verb takes in kakari-musubi constructions, and is thus the rough equivalent of the “-E” marking on Sinhala focus concord verbal forms.
Dravidian languages, including Malayalam and Kannada, also display variation with respect to the positioning of the focussed phrase. This variation is somewhat different from what we observe in Classical Sinhala, as in Malayalam and Kannada, under certain conditions, the cleft focus phrase can “float” into the cleft clause and occupy various positions. See Jayaseelan (2001a) and Jayaseelan & Amritavalli (2005) for detailed discussion.
S.G. = Sigiri Graffito with the numbering following Paranavitana (1956).
See also Gair (1995[1998]: 242).
Alternations between ya/yi/i are phonological in nature; see further Gair (1995[1998]).
The context makes it clear that ma ‘by me’ is focussed.
These verbal forms are derived from an attributive participle with the addition of an affix which is morphologically identical to the default inanimate third-person singular ending (glossed as NOM in the examples shown herein). In Tamil, endings of this sort attach not only to verbal forms but also to nouns.
Example (17) has been altered from the original: the focussed constituent has been “normalised” to the right-edge.
With respect to the position of yæ; the focussed phrased ovun san̆dahā could stand in different positions, as discussed above.
One of the arguments Kariyakarawana (1998) gives for a biclausal analysis of MCS focus-constructions (i.e. equivalent to a predicative cleft) is that only one particle-marked focus element is allowed per clause. However, in other languages, focus particles have similar restrictions, e.g. in Hindi, where such constructions are clearly monoclausal (both synchronically and historically – in the sense that the focussed element does not undergo any sort of predicate-formation in contrast to what occurs in clefting), we find a similar restriction on focus particles:
(i)
Hindi (Sharma 1999)
a.
Uske-hī
his-EMPH
jūte
shoes
mere
my
kamre-meṁ
room-in
paḍe
lie.PAST.PTCP.MSC.PL
the.
be.PAST.MSC.PL
‘HIS shoes were lying in my room.’
b.
Uske
his
jūte
shoes
mere-hī
my-EMPH
kamre-meṁ
room-in
paḍe
lie.PAST.PTCP.MSC.PL
the.
be.PAST.MSC.PL
‘His shoes were lying in MY room.’
c.
*Uske-hī
his-EMPH
jūte
shoes
mere-hī
my-EMPH
kamre-meṁ
room-in
paḍe
lie.PAST.PTCP.MSC.PL
the.
be.PAST.MSC.PL
‘HIS shoes were lying in MY room.’
See discussion around (14a) & (14b) above.
Note that ya/yi/i does not show number agreement, cp. (24b) with:
(i).
Ovuhu
they.NOM
goviy-ō
farmer-NOM.PL
ya.
3
‘They are farmers.’
(Although, historically ya/yi/i does derive from a morphologically singular form; see discussion below example (9)).
One way in which accusative subjects in focus concord constructions differ from nominative subjects in non-focussing finite clauses in literary Sinhala is the fact that the latter but not the former control person/number agreement on the verb. In Modern Colloquial Sinhala, verbs do not overtly show person/number agreement morphology, and so one of the “cues” that subjects in focus concord structures are different from subjects in regular finite clauses is missing from colloquial Sinhala, and it seems likely that this contributed to the reanalysis of focus concord subjects as “normal” nominative subjects in MCS.
The development from genitive to accusative marking on subjects of focus concord verbs, as in example (i), represents the result of changes in the pattern of Sinhala nominal morphology. Already in Old Sinhala, the old case system was starting to break down, in the sense that the distinction between accusative and genitive was being eroded, with the extension of genitive endings to accusative case nouns and pronouns.
By the period of Classical Sinhala, the distinction between accusative and genitive caseforms began to be renewed by the addition of -ge to the now ambiguous genitive/accusative forms of animate nouns and pronouns, with the old simplex form becoming restricted more and more to accusative-case only. Etymologically, ge derives from the locative form of (vulgar) Old Indo-Aryan gehá ‘house’ (loc. gehe) < older gr̥há ‘house’. Thus ge originates as a locative used with reference to physical location. Even in Old Sinhala ge is found, though almost always in proper names, e.g. (ii).
(ii)
Old Sinhala (S.G. 263)
Diyavāṇa
Diyavana.GEN
Sivala-Malun-ge
Sivala Mala.GEN-of the house of
Siri-devu
Siridevu.GEN
gī
song
‘The song of Siridevu of the house of Sivala Mala of Diyavana’
This thus looks like an instance of re-analysis of the underlying case-feature/status of an inflectional affix. However, as an anonymous reviewer points out, another interesting possibility is that some sort of case-stacking may be going on at some stage of Sinhala; cf. Jayaseelan (2013) on case-stacking in Dravidian, and Caha (2009) on the theoretical treatment of case-stacking.
The subject of a verb in focus-concord form is accusative unless the subject itself is focussed, see discussion around example (7b) above.
Cf. Turner (1962–1966: #1701), who agrees with the etymology of da/də given here; see further Slade (2011). Pace Karunatillake (2012: #4541), who connects this particle to Old Indo-Aryan ca ‘and, but’.
3, e.g. in gacchatī3 and sámaśnutā3i, marks pluti, the ‘overlong vowel’.
See Amritavalli (2003) for a somewhat parallel case in Dravidian: the use of specialised particles in interrogative and declarative disjunctions in the Dravidian language Kannada, with reference to a similar phenomenon in Tamil.
Note that in (39a) and (39b) the verb, giyē, appears to take the E-form associated with focussing sentences. Historically, the E-form in (38) is doubtless identical with the focus-associated E-form. However, synchronically, the E-forms in (39a) and (39b) have none of the properties associated with the focussing E-form. These negative-associated E-forms do not require or indeed allow a focussed element in their scope, and consequently do not carry any focus-related presupposition. See Slade (2011: 55–57) for further discussion. Thus I gloss these forms as E′ forms to distinguish them from the “true” focussing E-forms.
Malayalam wh-questions can appear without a focus concord verbal form (though this is not as typical), but in this case the wh-word must appear immediately adjacent to the left-edge of the verb:
(i)
Malayalam (Jayaseelan 2004: 7)
a.
Niṉ-ṉe
you.ACC
ārə
who
talli?
beat.PAST
‘Who beat you?’
b.
*Ārə
who
niṉ-ṉe
you.ACC
talli?
beat.PAST
Whereas, if a focus-concord form is employed, the wh-word has much greater freedom, as in (ii) (=(45)), where the focussed wh-word together with the copula can occupy various positions.
(ii)
Malayalam (Ibid.)
a.
Ārə
who
āṇə
COPULA
niṉ-ṉe
you.ACC
talle-(y)atə?
beat.PAST-NOMINALISER
b.
Niṉ-ṉe
you.ACC
ārə
who
āṇə
COPULA
talle-(y)atə?
beat.PAST-NOMINALISER
c.
Talle-(y)atə
you.ACC
niṉ-ṉe
beat.PAST-NOMINALISER
ārə
who
āṇə?
COPULA
The labels “Old Malayalam” and “Old Tamil” invite the assumption that these are roughly contemporaneous. This is not the case; Old Tamil is in fact the ancestor of both (later) Tamil and Old Malayalam.
In Old Tamil, as in other stages of Dravidian, -ō is also used in the formation of interrogative disjunctions, as:
(i)
Old Tamil (Kuṟontokai 75: 1; Thomas Lehmann, p.c.)
Nī
you
kaṇ-ṭ-aṉ-ai.y-ō
see-PAST-EUPH-2SG-ō
kaṇ-ṭ-ār
see-PAST-3PL
kēṭ-ṭ-aṉ-ai.y-ō?
hear-PAST-EUPH-2S-ō
‘Did you see [it] or have you heard [it] from those who have seen [it]?’
However, unlike the case in later Tamil and Malayalam, -ō does not occur in the formation of wh-based indefinites or in the formation of non-interrogative disjunction.
“Frozen” in the sense of allowing less variation, given that Classical Sinhala allowed dislocation to either edge of the clause. Possibly this formal variety which maintains various features archaic in comparison to the Modern Colloquial variety is less tolerant of variation as a more prescriptive variety.
a. = affirmative contexts; n.=negative contexts. ()s indicate optionality. The {}s around ka in the interrogative disjunctions row indicates additional complexity, as a further Q-particle must also appear clause-finally, see further Fukutomi (2006). The variation between different particles in y/n-questions and wh-questions in Japanese is largely a function of politeness and other sociolinguistic factors, see further Miyagawa (1987); Ginsburg (2009).
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for Glossa, as well as to Edith Aldridge as supervising editor, for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions, all of which I have attempted to integrate. I would also like to thank the organisers of the International Workshop on “Kakari-musubi from a Comparative Perspective” at the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (NINJAL), from which this particular study originated. I owe much to Jim Gair, Hans Henrich Hock, K.A. Jayaseelan, Thomas Lehmann, Ed Rubin, and Anna Szabolcsi for helpful discussion of various points of the paper and for additional data of relevance to the analysis. Thanks are also owed to Lalindra De Silva for a Modern Colloquial Sinhala judgement. Any remaining errors and infelicities however remain mine alone.
This paper is dedicated to the memory of James Gair, whose vast body of work on Sinhala – and whose kind and content-rich discussions with me – inspired this study, as well as many previous investigations into the structure and development of Sinhala.
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.
AkibaKatsue1978Los Angeles, CAUCLAAldridgeEdithIwasakiShoichiHojiHajimeClancyPatricia M.SohnSung-OckShort wh-movement in Old Japanese2009Stanford, CACSLI17549563AmritavalliRaghavachariQuestion and negative polarity in the disjunction phrase20036111810.1111/1467-9612.00054AntinucciFrancescoPublielliAnnaritaBynonJamesRelative clause construction in Somali: A comparison beetween the Northern and Coastal dialectsCurrent progress in Afro-Asiatic linguistics: Papers of the third Hamito-Semitic Congress1984AmsterdamJohn Benjamins173110.1075/cilt.28.05antAsherRonald E.KumariT. C.1997LondonRoutledgeBöhtlingkOttoRothRudolph1855–1875St. PetersburgKaiserlichen Akademie der WissenschaftenCahaPavel2009TromsøUniversity of TromsøFukutomiYasuyukiYimChanggukJapanese alternative questions and intervention effects in DPMinimalist views on language design: Proceedings of the 8th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar2006SeoulThe Korean Generative Grammar Circle5360GairJames W.Sinhalese diglossia1968[1998]108115[Reprinted with additional notes in Gair 1998: 213–223]GairJames W.The verb in Sinhala, with some preliminary remarks on Dravidianization1976[1998]108259273[Reprinted in part, with additional notes, in Gair 1998: 200–209]GairJames W.KrishnamurtiBhadrirajuMasicaColin P.SinhaAnjani KumarSinhala diglossia revisited, or diglossia dies hard1986[1998]aDelhiMotilal Banarsidass322336[Reprinted with additional notes in Gair 1998: 224–236]GairJames W.KrishnamurtiBhadrirajuMasicaColin P.SinhaAnjani KumarSinhala focused sentences: Naturalization of a calque1986[1998]bDelhiMotilal Banarsidass147164[Reprinted with additional notes in Gair 1998: 155–169]GairJames W.KachruBrajDimockEdward C.KrishnamurtiBhadrirajuAGR, INFL, Case and Sinhala diglossia, or Can linguistic theory find a home in variety?1992DelhiOxford India Book House179197GairJames W.Syntactic theory, AGR, and Sinhala diglossia1995[1998][Published in Gair 1998: 237–267]GairJames W.1998New YorkOxford University PressGeigerWilhelm1941ColomboThe Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon BranchGinsburgJason Robert2009Tucson, AZUniversity of ArizonaHagstromPaul1998Cambridge, MAMITHarrisAlice C.CampbellLyle1995CambridgeCambridge University Press10.1017/CBO9780511620553HetzronRobertAn archaism in the Cushitic verbal conjugation1974RomeAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei275281JayaseelanKarattuparambil A.IP-internal Topic and Focus phrases2001a551397510.1111/1467-9582.00074JayaseelanKarattuparambil A.Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam2001b42639310.1111/1467-9612.00037JayaseelanKarattuparambil A.Question movement in some SOV languages and the theory of feature checking200451527JayaseelanKarattuparambil A.Question particles and disjunction2008HyderabadEnglish and Foreign Languages UniversityMs., http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000644JayaseelanKarattuparambil A.MakiHidekiOchiMasaoSugisakiKojiUchiboriAsakoThe dative case in the Malayalam verb2013TokyoKaitakusha121JayaseelanKarattuparambil A.Decomposing coordination: The two operators of coordination2016403–4237253JayaseelanKarattuparambil A.AmritavalliRaghavachariSabelJoachimSaitoMamoruScrambling in the cleft construction in Dravidian2005BerlinMouton de Gruyter137161KariyakarawanaSunil M.1998ColomboKarunaratne & Sons Ltd.KarunatillakeW. S.2012ColomboS. Godage & BrothersKleinJared S.1974New Haven, CTYale UniversityKleinJared S.The system of coordinate conjunctions in the Rigveda19782012310.1163/000000078790079959LehmannThomas1989PondicherryPondicherry Institute of Linguistics and CultureLehmannThomasSteeverSanford B.Old Tamil1998LondonRoutledge7599MitrovićMorenoDeriving and interpreting ‘ka(karimusubi)’ in premodern Japanese2014a4392810.4312/ala.4.3.9-28MitrovićMoreno2014bCambridgeUniversity of CambridgeMiyagawaShigeruLF affix raising in Japanese1987182362367NarayanapillaP. K.1971ThiruvananthapuramKerala UniversityOgawaKunihiko1976San Diego, CAUniversity of CaliforniaOgawaKunihikoWhere diachronic and synchronic rules meet: A case study from Japanese interrogatives and kakari-musubi19775193242PaolilloJohn C.1992Stanford, CAStanford UniversityPaolilloJohn C.PagliucaWilliamThe co-development of finiteness and focus in Sinhala1994AmsterdamJohn Benjamins151170ParanavitanaSenarat1956LondonOxford University PressSansomGeorge1928OxfordOxford University PressSerafimLeon A.ShinzatoRumikoReconstructing the Proto-Japonic kakari musubi200011881118SharmaDevyaniNominal clitics and constructive morphology in HindiOnline Proceedings of the Lexical-Functional Grammar ‘99 Conference1999Manchester, UKhttp://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/4/lfg99.htmlSladeBenjamin2011Urbana, ILUniversity of IllinoisSladeBenjaminChenShu-FenSladeBenjaminQuestion particles and relative clauses in the history of Sinhala, with comparison to early and modern Dravidian2013Ann Arbor, MIBeech Stave Press245268SladeBenjaminAlonso-OvalleLuisMenéndez-BenitoPaulaSinhala epistemic indefinites with a certain je ne sais quoi2015OxfordOxford University Press829910.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665297.003.0004SpeijerJ. S.1886LeidenE.J. BrillSzabolcsiAnnaWhat do quantifier particles do?20153815920410.1007/s10988-015-9166-zSzabolcsiAnnaWhangJames DohZuVeraCompositionality questions: Quantifier words and their multi-functional(?) parts201415114610.1177/1606822X13506660TurnerRalph Lilley1962–1966LondonOxford University PressWatanabeAkiraLightfootDavidLoss of overt wh-movement in Old Japanese2002OxfordOxford University Press17919510.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0010WhitmanJohnSohnHo-minHaigJohnKakarimusubi from a comparative perspective1997Stanford, CACSLI6161178WijemannePiyaseeli1984ColomboMinistry of Higher EducationYanagidaYukoWord order and clause structure in early Old Japanese2006151376710.1007/s10831-005-2165-2