1887
image of A nonstandard type of affix reordering
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper deals with the restrictive (limitative) marker ‘only’ in Ulcha (Southern Tungusic). This marker has nontrivial positional features: it can attach before inflectional suffixes (as a derivational affix) or after them (as an enclitic). One might see the process of affix reordering described in as “externalization of inflection”, when a former clitic becomes a derivational affix. However, there is evidence that the uses of after inflection are innovative as compared to those before inflection, not vice versa, and this direction of diachronic development is very unexpected. In this paper, I propose an explanation for this nonstandard reordering pattern and show that in fact it has the same motivation and the same mechanisms as previously reported types of affix reordering.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19070.sto
2021-01-08
2021-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alonso de la Fuente, José A.
    2018 Past tenses, diminutives and expressive palatalization: Typology and the limits of internal reconstruction in Tungusic. In Akos B. Apatoczky & Christopher Atwood (eds.), Philology of the grasslands. Essays in Mongolic, Turkic and Tungusic studies, 112–137. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arkadiev, Peter
    2010 Notes on the Lithuanian restrictive. Baltic Linguistics1. 9–49. 10.32798/bl.434
    https://doi.org/10.32798/bl.434 [Google Scholar]
  3. Avrorin, Valentin A.
    1961Grammatika nanajskogo jazyka (A grammar of Nanai). Vol.2. Leningrad: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beloljubskaja, Varvara G.
    1997 Služebnye slova v evenskom jazyke (Functional words in Even). Sankt-Petersburg: Institute for linguistic studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, PhD dissertation.
  5. Benzing, Johannes
    1955Die tungusischen Sprachen. Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Mainz in Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bulatova, Nadezhda Ja
    2015 Emocional’no-ocenočnye suffiksy imennyh i glagol’nyh form v evenkijskom jazyke (Evaluative nominal and verbal suffixes in Evenki). Acta Linguistica PetropolitanaXI(2). 60–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, Joan L.
    1985Morphology (Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  8. Comrie, Bernard
    1985 Morphology and word order reconstruction: Problems and prospects. In J. Fisiak , (ed.), Historical semantics. Historical word-formation. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 85–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cincius, Vera I.
    1982Negidaljskij jazyk. Issledovanija i materialy (Negidal: explorations and materials). Leningrad: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. García-Castillero, Carlos
    2013 Morphological externalisation and the Old Irish verbal particle ro . Transactions of the Philological Society111(1). 108–140. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2012.01316.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01316.x [Google Scholar]
  11. 2018 On morphological internalization. The origin of the Old Irish oblique relative conjunct particle -(s)aN-. Diachronica, 35(1). 35–70. 10.1075/dia.16036.gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.16036.gar [Google Scholar]
  12. Gerasimova, Anna N.
    2002 Nanajskij I uljčskij jazyki v Rossii: sravniteljnaja harakteristika sociolingvističeskoj situacii (Nanai and Ulcha in Russia: a comparative characteristics of the sociolinguistic situation). Jazyki korennyh narodov Sibiri (Languages of Indigenous Peoples of Siberia) 12. 246–257.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gusev, Valentin Ju
    2019 North Samoyed and the misterious Sprachbund. Paper presented at theConference on Language Contact in the Circumpolar World. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, 25–27October 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. . forthcoming. O substrate eskimosskogo tipa v jazykah Severnoj Azii. Submitted toVoprosy Jazykoznanija.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Harris, Alice C. & Jan T. Faarlund
    2006 Trapped morphology. Journal of Linguistics42(2). 289–315. 10.1017/S0022226706003902
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226706003902 [Google Scholar]
  16. Haspelmath, Martin
    1993 The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics31. 279–309. 10.1515/ling.1993.31.2.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1993.31.2.279 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hill, Eugen
    2007 Proportionale Analogie, paradigmatischer Ausgleich und Formenerweiterung: ein Beitrag zur Typologie des morphologischen Wandels. Diachronica24. 81–118. 10.1075/dia.24.1.05hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.24.1.05hil [Google Scholar]
  18. Jurafsky, Daniel
    1996 Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language72. 533–578. 10.2307/416278
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416278 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kazama, Shinjiro
    1996Ulcha oral literature, a collection of texts. Tottori: Tottori Daigaku Kyōiku Gakubu.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2002Ulcha oral literature 2 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 20). Osaka: ELPR.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2006Ulcha oral literature 3 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 30). Tokyo: Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2008Ulcha oral literature 4 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 43). Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2010Ulcha oral literature 5 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 49). Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Khanina, Olesya & Andrey Shluinsky
    2011 Emphatic transcategorial morphology: A cross-linguistically rare phenomenon in Enets. In Peter K. Austin , Oliver Bond , Lutz Marten , & David Nathan (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Language Documentation & Linguistic Theory, 3. London: SOAS. 171–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Koch, Harold
    1996 Reconstruction in morphology. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed (regularity and irregularity in language change). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 218–263.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. König, Ekkehard
    1991The meaning of focus particles. A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lehmann, Christian
    1995Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Majer, Marek
    2015 Russian kotóryj, Czech který, Slovene katę´ri: Vowel Variation in the Reflexes of Proto-Slavic *koterъ(jь) ‘which (of the two)’. Scando-Slavica61(2). 154–179. 10.1080/00806765.2015.1109186
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00806765.2015.1109186 [Google Scholar]
  29. Malchukov, Andrej L.
    2008Sintaksis evenskogo jazyka (Even Syntax). Moscow: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Miyaoka, Osahito
    2012A grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110278576
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110278576 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mithun, Marianne
    2000 The reordering of morphemes. In Spike Gildea (ed.) Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 231–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.43.09mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.43.09mit [Google Scholar]
  32. Nikolaeva, Irina
    2014A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110320640
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110320640 [Google Scholar]
  33. Norde, Muriel
    2009Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pakendorf, Brigitte
    2017 Lamunkhin Even evaluative morphology in cross-linguistic comparison. Morphology27. 123–158. 10.1007/s11525‑016‑9296‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-016-9296-1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pakendorf, Brigitte & Ilja V. Krivoshapkina
    2014 Even nominal evaluatives and the marking of definiteness. Linguistic Typology18(2). 289–331. 10.1515/lingty‑2014‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2014-0012 [Google Scholar]
  36. Petrova, Taisija I.
    1936Ul’čskij dialekt nanajskogo jazyka (The Ulcha dialect of Nanai). Moscow/Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe učebno-pedagogičeskoe izdatel’stvo.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Plungian, Vladimir A. & Xenia P. Semionova
    2016 K tipologii drevnearmjanskoj imennoj paradigmatiki: Instr.Pl (Towards a typology of Classical Armenian nominal paradigms: Instr.Pl). Voprosy jazykoznanija5. 103–118. 10.31857/S0373658X0001060‑5
    https://doi.org/10.31857/S0373658X0001060-5 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rudnitskaya, Elena L.
    2017 Delimitativnyj affiks -riktV- i fokusnaja častica (h)ələ v evenkijskom jazyke kak veršiny dvuh raznyh proekcij DelimP i FocP (The delimitative affix -riktV- and the focus particle (h)ələ) as the heads of two different projections, i.e. DelimP and FocP). In Ekaterina A. Ljutikova & Anton V. Zimmerling (eds.), Typology of morphosyntactic parameters 4. Working papers of the international conference TMP-2017, 209–221. Moscow: Pushkin State Russian Language Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sumbatova, Nina R. & Valentin Ju. Gusev
    2016 Ul’čskij jazyk (The Ulcha language). In Vida Ju. Mikhaljchenko (ed.), Jazyk i obš’estvo. Enciklopedija, 513–515. Moscow: Azbukovnik.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sunik, Orest P.
    1982Suš’estvitel’noe v tunguso-man’čžurskih jazykah (Nouns in Tungus-Manchu languages). Leningrad: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 1985Ul’čskij jazyk. Issledovanija i materialy (The Ulcha language: Explorations and materials). Leningrad: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Tolskaya, Maria
    2015 Evaluative Morphology in Udihe. In Nicola Grandi & Lívia Körtvélyessy (eds.), Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology, 333–340. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Vogt, Hans
    1971Grammaire de la langue georgienne. Oslo: Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta
    2002 Jest’ li klitiki v nganasanskom jazyke? (Are there clitics in Nganasan?) In Vladimir Plungian & Anna Yu. Urmanchieva (eds.), Pam’ati T. Yu. Ždanovoj. Jazyki mira. Tipologija. Uralistika, 465–475. Moscow: Indrik.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2018A grammar of Nganasan. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004382763
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004382763 [Google Scholar]
  46. Whaley, Lindsay J. & Fengxiang Li
    1998 The suffix -kan in Oroqen. Studies in Language22. 447–471. 10.1075/sl.22.2.06wha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22.2.06wha [Google Scholar]
  47. Ždanova, Tat’jana Ju
    2000 Ob intraklitičeskih časticah v severno-samodijskih jazykah (na materiale neneckogo i nganasanskogo jazykov) (On intraclitic particles in Northern Samoyedic (the data of Nenets and Nganasan)). In Anu Nurk , Triinu Palo , and Tõnu Seilenthal (eds.), Congressus Nonus internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. ParsII, 287–288. Tartu: University of Tartu.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Zwicky, Arnold & Geoffrey Pullum
    1993 Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t . Language59(3). 502–513. 10.2307/413900
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413900 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19070.sto
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19070.sto
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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