Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0957-6851
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9838
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Ket is the sole surviving member of the Yeniseian language family, spoken in the central part of North Asia. This large territory is also home to other language families: Samoyedic, Ob-Ugric, Tungusic, and Turkic. Apart from Yeniseian, which are strikingly unique, all language groups in the area conform to a common typological profile. Subsequent to contact over several hundred years, many of the core grammatical features that distinguish Yeniseian from the other language families have undergone a ‘typological accommodation,’ a phenomenon most prominent in Modern Ket, to mimic the dominant language type in the area. The present article aims to provide an overview of some ways in which typological accommodation has affected the phonemic tones and nominal and verbal morphology in Modern Ket, and to show that this peculiar phenomenon is also attested at the syntactic level in formation of adverbial and relative clauses. As such, the paper presents that the phonemic and morphological structures of Modern Ket uniquely position the language for discourse and communication. Here, its speakers deploy these communicative devices, specifically designed followed extended contact with other languages, as representative of their language community.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abondolo, D.
    (1998) The Uralic languages. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, A.
    (2006) Grammars in a cross-linguistic perspective. InA. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon. (Eds.), Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic typology (pp.1–66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, G.
    (2004) The languages of Central Siberia: Introduction and overview. InE. Vajda. (Ed.), Languages and prehistory of Central Siberia (pp.1–123). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.262.03and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.262.03and [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, G. and Harrison, D.
    (1999) Tyvan. München: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, M.
    (1996) The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Butanaev, V.
    (2004) Linguistic reflections of Xakas ethnohistory. InE. Vajda. (Ed.), Languages and prehistory of Central Siberia (pp.215–233). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.262.17but
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.262.17but [Google Scholar]
  7. Cristofaro, S.
    (2003) Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cysouw, M.
    (2005) Morphology in the wrong place. A survey of preposed enclitics. InW. Dressler. (Ed.), Morphology and its demarcations (pp.17–37). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.264.02cys
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.264.02cys [Google Scholar]
  9. Dul’zon, A. P.
    (1968) Ketskij jazyk [Ket]. Tomsk: Izdatel’stvo Tomskogo universiteta.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Evans, N.
    (2006) Who said polysynthetic languages avoid subordination? Multiple subordination strategies in Dalabon. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 26 (1), 31–58. 10.1080/07268600500531628
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268600500531628 [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, N. and Sasse, H. -J.
    (2002) Introduction: problems of polysynthesis. InN. Evans and H. -J. Sasse. (Eds.), Problems of polysynthesis, (pp.1–14). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1524/9783050080956.1
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050080956.1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Filchenko, A. Yu
    (2010) Aspects of the grammar of Eastern Khanty. Tomsk: Izdatel’stvo Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo universiteta.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hajdú, P.
    (1968) Chrestomathia Samoiedica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Heath, J.
    (1975) Functional relationships in grammar. Language51 (1), 89–104. 10.2307/413151
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413151 [Google Scholar]
  15. Johanson, L. and Csató, É. A.
    (Eds.) (1998) The Turkic languages. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Karpov, V. G.
    (1966) Xakasskij jazyk [Xakas]. InN. A. Baskakov. (Ed.), Jazyki narodov SSSR, vol. 2, Tjurkskie jazyki (pp.428–445). Moscow: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Koškareva, N.
    (2007) Sredstva vyraženija aktual’nogo členenija v surgutskom dialekte khantyjskogo jazyka (v sopostavlenii s drugimi ural’skimi jazykami i dialektami khantyjskogo jazyka) [Means of expressing the functional sentence perspective in the Surgut dialect of the Khanty language (in comparison with other Uralic languages and dialects of the Khanty language)]. Vestnik NGU. Ser.: Istorja, filologija, T. 6, vyp. 2: Filologija, 34–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kotorova, E. and Nefedov, A.
    (2006) Tipologičeskie xarakteristiki ketskogo jazyka: veršinnoe ili zavisimostnoe markirovanie? [Ket typological features: head-marking or dependent marking?]. Voprosy jazykoznaniya, 5, 43–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Krjukova, E.
    (2012) Kommunikativnaja organizatsija predloženija v ketskom jazyke: Sravnitel’nyj aspekt (na materiale ketskikh fol’klornykh i bytovykh tekstov XX i XXI vekov) [Communicative sentence structure in Ket: Comparative aspect (Ket folklore texts of 20th and 21st centuries)]. TSPU Bulletin, 1 (116), 56–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Künnap, A.
    (1999) Enets. München: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuznetsova, A.
    (1999) Sel’kupskij jazyk s točki zrenija tipologii porjadka slov [Selkup from the point of view of word order typology]. InE. Rakhilina and Ja. Testelets. (Eds.). Tipologija i teorija jazyka: Ot opisanija k ob"jasneniju (pp.88–98). Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mithun, M.
    (1984) How to avoid subordination. InProceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society (pp.493–523). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 10.3765/bls.v10i0.1937
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v10i0.1937 [Google Scholar]
  23. (1992) Is basic order universal?InD. Payne. (Ed.). The Pragmatics of word-order flexibility. Typological studies in language22 (pp.15–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.22.02mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.22.02mit [Google Scholar]
  24. Nedjalkov, I.
    (1997) Evenki. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Nefedov, A.
    (2015) Clause linkage in Ket. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2018) Otritsanije neglagol’nykh predikatov v ketskom jazyke [Negation of nonverbal predicates in Ket]. Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology, 1, 20–40. Tomsk: Izdatelstvo Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo universiteta.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Nefedov, A. and Vajda, E.
    (2015) Grammatical sketch. InE. Kotorova and A. Nefedov. (Eds.), Comprehensive Dictionary of Ket with Russian, German and English translations (pp.27–69). München: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Nichols, J.
    (1992) Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Nikolaeva, I.
    (2014) A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110320640
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110320640 [Google Scholar]
  30. Pakendorf, B.
    (2012) Patterns of relativization in North Asia: towards a refined typology of prenominal participial relative clauses. InV. Gast and H. Diessel. (Eds.), Clause linkage in cross-linguistic perspective. Data-driven approaches to cross-clausal syntax (pp.253–283). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110280692.253
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110280692.253 [Google Scholar]
  31. Prokofjeva, E.
    (1966) Sel’kupskij jazyk [Selkup]. InV. Lytkin and K. Majtinskaja. (Eds.), Jazyki narodov SSSR, vol. 3, Finno-ugorskie i samodijskie jazyki (pp.396–415). Moscow: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ross, M.
    (2001) Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in North-west Melanesia. InA. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon. (Eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics (pp.134–166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2007) Calquing and metatypy. Journal of Language Contact, vol. THEMA, no.1, 116–143. 10.1163/000000007792548341
    https://doi.org/10.1163/000000007792548341 [Google Scholar]
  34. Rudnitskaya, E.
    (2017) Aktual’noje členenije i porjadok slov v ustnom evenkijskom jazyke: na materiale ustnykh rasskazov na evenkijskom jazyke 2005–2011 gg. [The functional sentence perspective and word order in oral Evenki: based on oral Evenki narratives of 2005–2011]. Palmarium Academic Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sinor, D.
    (Ed.) (1988) The Uralic languages. Description, history and foreign influences. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 10.1163/9789004492493
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004492493 [Google Scholar]
  36. Spencer, A.
    (2013) Lexical relatedness: A paradigm-based model. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679928.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679928.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Tadmor, U.
    (2009) Loanwords in the world’s languages: Findings and results. InM. Haspelmath and U. Tadmor. (Eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages (pp.55–75). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218442.55
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218442.55 [Google Scholar]
  38. Tereschenko, N.
    (1966) Nenetskij jazyk [Nenets]. InV. Lytkin and K. Majtinskaja. (Eds.), Jazyki narodov SSSR, vol. 3, Finno-ugorskie i samodijskie jazyki (pp.376–395). Moscow: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tikhomirov, A.
    (2018) Paleoaziatskie i samodijskie narody. Jazyki, migratsii, obyčai [Paleoasiatic and Samoyedic peoples. Languages, migrations, customs]. Ridero.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ubrjatova, E. I. and Litvin, F. A.
    (Eds.) (1986) Strukturnye tipy sintetičeskix polipredikativnyx konstrukcij v jazykax raznyx system [Structural types of the polipredicative constructions with synthetic verbal form in the languages of different typology]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Vajda, E.
    (2001) Yeniseian peoples and languages. A history of Yeniseian studies with an annotated bibliography and a source guide. Richmond: Curzon.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2008) The Siberian origin of the Na-Dene languages. Lecture presented at Dene-Yeniseic Symposium, February 26–29, Fairbanks and Anchorage, Alaska.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2009) Loanwords in Ket. InM. Haspelmath and U. Tadmor. (Eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages (pp.471–495). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218442.471
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218442.471 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2020) Typological accommodation in Central Siberia. InT. Güldemann, P. McConvell, and R. Rhodes. (Eds.), The language of hunter-gatherers (pp.465–498). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139026208.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139026208.018 [Google Scholar]
  45. Vall, M. and Kanakin, I.
    (1985) Kategorija imeni v ketskom jazyke [The nominal category in Ket]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Vorobíjova, V., Novitskaja, I., Girfanova, K., and Vesnin, V.
    (2017) Adnominal possessive constructions in Narym, Vasjugan and Middle-Ob dialects of Selkup. Linguistica Uralica LIII, 54–64. 10.3176/lu.2017.1.05
    https://doi.org/10.3176/lu.2017.1.05 [Google Scholar]
  47. Werner, H.
    (1996) Vergleichende Akzentologie der Jenissej-Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag (=Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 46).
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1997a) Die ketische Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag (=Tunguso-Sibirica; Bd. 3.).
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (1997b) Abriß der kottischen Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag (=Tunguso-Sibirica; Bd. 4.).
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (1997c) Das Jugische (Sym-Ketische). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag (=Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 50).
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (1998) Probleme der Wortbildung in den Jenissej-Sprachen. München: Lincom Europa (=Lincom Studies in Asian Linguistics 25).
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (2005) Die Jenissej-Sprachen des 18. Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag (=Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 67).
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wu, T.
    (2011) The syntax of prenominal relative clauses: A typological study. Linguistic Typology15, 569–623. 10.1515/LITY.2011.036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LITY.2011.036 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Ket; morphology; Northeast Asia; typology; Yeniseian language
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error