尼泊爾語的格位和呼應系統具有豐富的歧異性和高度的複雜性。本篇論文旨在探討尼泊爾語的格位與呼應系統。即便在過去些許文獻中曾經介紹過屬於分裂作格性 (split-ergative) 的尼泊爾語的格位和呼應系統的典型類型，很少有研究討論各種典型和非典型的型式。
尼泊爾語的格位系統將用潘恩(Payne1997, 2006)對S (單一論元句中的唯一名詞性論元)、A (多論元句中施事者類型的論元) 和O (多論元句中受事者類型的論元)的定義，以及迪克森(Dixon)1979，1994，2010年的分裂作格性的四個條件因素來檢測。語言的表現形式使用四個條件因素是時式、語態、動詞語意，句子狀態來分析，在本篇研究中被分類為兩組格位的型式：(一) Ss和As在分裂條件因素的表現、(二) 例外的格位型式。
本篇研究的結論如下。首先，在典型的分裂作格的型式中，分裂的條件定義為時態/時貌之分，也就是說，在A在過去式以作格 -le 標記，但在非過去式中則無標記 (unmarked); 相反地，S和O在過去式和非過去式均無標記。其次，主詞異相標記 (differential subject marking)的現象包含：(一) 及物句主語在過去式呈現無標、(二)及物句主語在非過去式以作格標記、(三) 不及物句主語以作格標記。最後，在受詞異相標記 (differential object marking)中，O可能根據希爾弗斯坦(Silverstein)1976的「有生性階層」的限制使用與格 -lai 標記。
此外，尼泊爾語呈現了相偕性 (concord)，以及主述呼應 (sentence-level agreement/ subject verb agreement)的現象。然而，在其它的呼應系統中，發現了三個違反主述呼應的例外結構：(一) 以與格為主語的結構、 (二) 表義務的結構、 (三) 被動結構。一般來說，動詞傾向於呼應第三人稱雄性單數的個體。然而，動詞也可能呼應第三人稱雌性的個體，或是第一人稱與第二人稱複數的個體。

Nepali shows rich diversity and high complexity of case and agreement patterns. This thesis thus aims to investigate case and agreement patterns in Nepali. Although a few studies have introduced typical types of split-ergative case-marking and agreement system in Nepali, few studies have determined both typical and atypical patterns.
Nepali case marking system is examined in this work by using Payne (1997, 2006)’s definition of S (the only nominal argument of a single-argument clause), A (agent-like argument of a multi-argument clause), and O (patient-like arguments of a multi-argument clause), and Dixon’s (1979, 1994, 2010) four conditioning factors of split-ergativity, i.e. tense, mood, semantics of verb, and the status of a clause. Two types of phenomena are discussed in terms of these conditions: (i) Ss and As under splitting conditions, and (ii) atypical case marking under splitting conditions.
The important findings of this study are as follows. First, split-ergative case-marking patterns are conditioned by tense/aspect. That is, the A is marked by the ergative marker -le in the past tense, but A receives a nominative case (i.e. a zero marking) in the non-past tense. However, tense does not affect the marking of S and O. S and O keep unmarked in both the past and non-past tenses.
Second, differential subject case-marking patterns are found in Nepali. More specifically, (i) A is unmarked in the past tense; (ii) A is marked by the ergative marker in the non-past tense; and (iii) S is marked by the ergative marker. Moreover, in the differential object case-marking pattern, O may be marked by the dative marker -lai, which is conditioned by Animacy Hierarchy proposed by Silverstein (1976) .
Finally, Nepali shows concord (of numerals, possessors, and adjectives) and S/A verb agreement in canonical agreement patterns. However, exceptions to the generalization of S/A agreement are found in three types of constructions: (i) dative subject construction; (ii) obligational mood construction; and (iii) passive construction. In general, in these constructions, verbs tend to agree with the third person singular masculine entity. However, exceptions are also found in that verbs may agree with a third person singular feminine, a first person plural, and a second person plural entities.

Abadie, Peggy. 1974. Nepali as an ergative language. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 1:156-77.
Acharya, Jayaraj. 1991. A descriptive grammar of Nepali and an analyzed corpus. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21:435-483.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Subject and topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 1-23. New York: Academic Press.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2007. Ergativity in Indo-Aryan Languages. In Handout from talk presented at the MIT Ergativity Seminar.
Blake, Barry. 2001. Case, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New analyses in Romance linguistics, Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 1988, ed. by D. Wanner and D. Kibbee, 143-170. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Butt, Miriam, and Tikaram Poudel. 2007. Distribution of the ergative in Nepali. Paper presented at Universität Leipzig, Leipzig.
Chelliah, Shobhana L., and Gwendolyn Hyslop. 2011. Introduction to special issue on optional case marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 34(2): 1.
Clark, Thomas Welbourne. 1963. Introduction to Nepali: A first-year language course. Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons Ltd.
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann, 329-394. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. The languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. (vol. 109). Cambridge University Press.
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57:626-657.
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 369-382.
DeLancey, Scott. 2005. The blue bird of ergativity. In Ergativity in Amazonia III, ed. by Francisco Qeixalos, 1-15. (Proceedings of the Workshop on Ergatividade na Amazônia). Paris: Centre d'Études des Langues Indigènesd'Amérique, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. Optional "ergativity" in Tibeto-Burman languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2): 9-20.
Deo, Ashwini, and Devyani Sharma. 2006. Typological variation in the ergative morphology of IndoAryan languages, Linguistic Typology, 10 (3), 369-419.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55 (1):59-138.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics No. 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W., and Alexandra Y. Akhenvald. 2000. Introduction. In Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, ed. by R. M.W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 1-29. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Genetti, Carol, ed. 1994 a. Aspects of Nepali grammar. Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara (Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 6)
Genetti, Carol. 1994 b. Variation in agreement in the Nepali finite verb. South Asian Language Review, IV.1.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, ed. by J. H. Greenberg, 58-90. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. Typology and Cross-linguistic Generalization. Universals of Human Language. Vol.I: Method and Theory, ed. by J. H. Greenberg et al., 33-59. Standford: Sandford University Press.
Gurung, Harka B. , Khanal, Narendra. , Pradhan, Purushotam. , and Ghimire, Pawan. 2006. Nepal: Atlas and Statistics. Lalitpur: Himal Books.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005b. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3.1:1-21.
Hutt, Michael James and A. Subedi. 1999. Nepali. London: Teach yourself books.
Hutt, Michael James. 1994. Nepali. In: Asher, R. E. (Editor-in-Chief). The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics. Vol. 5. Pergamon Press, Oxford - New York - Seoul - Tokyo. Pp. 2778 - 9.
Hutt, Michael James. 1998. Nepali: A national language and its literature. London: School of Oriental and African Studies / New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Private Limited.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. In Subject and topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 303-334. New York: Academic Press.
Klaiman, MH. 1987. Mechanisms of ergativity in South Asia. Lingua 71:61-102
Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.
Li, Chao. 2007. Split ergativity and split intransitivity in Nepali. Lingua 117.8:1462-1482.
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2004. Transitivity and ergativity in Formosan and Philippine languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.
Manders, and Christopher Jay. 2007. A foundation in Nepali grammar. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.
Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge Language Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mathew, David. 1998. A course in Nepali. Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak Bhandar.
McGregor, William B. 2009. Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistic Compass 3 (1): 480–508.
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Morland-Hughes, W. R. J. 1947. A grammar of the Nepali language. London: Luzac and Co., Ltd.
O’Grady, William. 2012. The syntax files: An introductory survey of basic syntactic concepts and phenomena. MS.
Onishi, Masayuki. 2001. Non-canonical marked S/A in Bengali. In Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, and Masayuki Onishi, 133-147. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Payne, Thomas E. 2 006. Exploring language structure: A student's guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perlmutter, David M., and Postal. Paul M. 1984. The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In Studies in Relational Grammar 2, ed. by David Perlmutter and Carol Rosen, 81-126. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pokharel, Madhav P. 1989. Order of meaningful constituents in Nepali. Contributions to Nepalese Studies 16.2:83-101.
Pokharel, Madhav P. 1998a. Categorical splits in the use of -le in Nepali. Nepalese Linguistics 15: 42-50.
Pokharel, Madhav P. 1998b. Nepali vakya vyakaran (Nepali syntax). Kathmandu: Ekta Books. [in Nepali]
Poudel, Tikaram. 2007. Ergativity and stage/individual level predications in Manipuri. Workshop on Differential Case Marking, Stuttgart.
Pradhan, Kishnal Lall Bhai. 1982. The Structure of the Simple Clause in Nepali. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. Riccardi, Theodore. 2003. Nepali. In The Indo-Aryan Languages, ed. by Cardona, George, and Dhanesh Jain, 538-580. London / New York: Routledge.
Quirk, Randolph, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Rogers, Henry. 2005. Writing systems: A linguistic approach. Oxford and Maine:
Blackwell Publishing.
Riccardi, Theodore. 2003. Nepali. In The Indo-Aryan languages 538-580, ed. by Cardona, George., and Dhanesh Jain. New York: Routledge.
Shapiro, Michael C. 1999. Hindi morphology: A word-based description, in Motilal Banarsidass Series in Linguistics, vol (IX):87-90, ed by Rajendra Singh and Rama Kant Agnihotri, and Dhanesh Jain. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2009. Case and voice. Case in derived constructions, 322-38.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by R. M. W. Dixon, 112-171. Canberra: Humanities Press Inc.
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2010. The Classical Tibetan cases and their transcategoriality, From sacred grammar to modern linguistics. In Himalayan Linguistics 9.2: 87-125.
Trask, R. L. 1979. On the origin of Ergativity. In Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relaitons, ed. by Frans Plank, 385-406. New York: Academic Press.
Trask, R. L. 1997. A Student’s Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Turin, Mark. 2007. Linguistic Diversity and the Preservation of Endangered Languages: A Case Study from Nepal. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.
Verbeke, Saartje. 2013. Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Verma, Manindra K. 1992. Nepali. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics 3, ed. by William Bright, and Bernard Comrie, 76-9. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wali, Kashi, and Omkar N, Koul. 2011. Ergativity in Kashmiri and Marathi. In Indo-Aryan Linguistics, ed. by Omkar N Koul, 47-64. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Wallace, William D. 1985. Subjects and subjecthood in Nepali: An analysis of Nepali clause structure and its challenges to Relational Grammar and Government and Binding theory. Ph.D dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2012. Case and agreement variation in Indo-Aryan. MS