Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” - Volume 43, Issue 1, 2019

Abstract

The number of different voice constructions is controversial in Philippine linguistics. There are two approaches to establishing the voice inventory: (1) based on the number of voice affixes; (2) based on semantics of constructions, using opaque definitions of roles without any formal basis. Tagalog data supports neither approach. Many verbal roots form voice paradigms of up to seven members. The ungroundedness in any formal properties in the second approach often leads to different sets of voices with significant subjective variation. This paper suggests employing formal criteria for establishing an exhaustive inventory of semantic roles and voices in Tagalog: (1) Distinct marking in non-subject position; (2) co-occurrence of voice forms in paradigms; (3) co-occurrence of participants in constructions; (4) existence of a co-referential voice form. 16 participants and 13 voices are established in Tagalog, using the suggested criteria, which also provide a possibility for creating a typology of Philippine voice inventories.

Abstract

Regularity and irregularity are among the most widely invoked notions in linguistics. The terms are backed up by a long and venerable tradition, and yet (or maybe therefore) different disciplines and authors seem to be using them for very different phenomena and in very different ways. The most frequent usage conflates or replaces other notions such as type frequency, productivity, (non-)concatenative morphology, storage vs. computation, predictability, etc. An assessment of these and other variables in Icelandic verbal inflection reveals that most of them are in practice strongly correlated. I conclude, however, that this is largely unsurprising by virtue of the definitional dependencies holding between those notions. It is empirically doubtful whether there exists a single underlying phenomenon or category which the terms designate. In addition, given their multiple and overlapping senses, and the existence of separate, unambiguous labels for the relevant underlying notions, I contend that the terms ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ should be ideally abandoned in scientific literature in order to avoid ambiguity, sloppy reasoning and misunderstandings and to facilitate cross-linguistic comparison and interdisciplinary dialogue.

Abstract

Pragmatic particles termed general extenders (GE) have been examined across languages and are found to serve multiple functions. Despite the fruitful findings, few study the use of GEs in different language modalities and in typologically more different languages such as Chinese. This research aims to contribute to this literature by investigating the use of the GE zhilei(de) (zld), ‘of that kind,’ in spoken and written Chinese. Data from corpora of spoken and written Chinese suggest that zld displays some distinctive patterns in its form and function, partly due to the typological traits of Mandarin Chinese. The results also indicate that the language modality where zld is deployed may have impacts on its structural and functional distribution. The current article thus holds implications not only for the literature of GEs but also for the study of the interface between linguistic typology, language modality, and pragmatic expressions.

Abstract

The morphological expression of non-verbal predication is a geographically widespread, although not very frequent, typological feature. This paper highlights the existence of two radically contrasting types of non-verbal predicative inflection. Construction A has already been described in the literature. It consists of attaching person-sensitive inflection markers to non-verbal predicates, possibly extending this treatment to adverbs and adverbial phrases (locational and temporal), pronouns and quantifiers. This type is well attested in Uralic, Turkic, and Paleosiberian, as well as in some Amazonian language families (most notably Chicham), but it has also been pointed out for some sparse languages of Oceania and Africa. Such non-verbal person inflections diachronically stem from incorporation of conjugated copula elements. Construction B, by contrast, is much rarer and is described here for the first time. It also consists of a dedicated morphological form of the non-verbal predicate (limited, however, to nouns and adjectives), but such form stands out as morphologically lighter than any other form to be found in nouns or adjectives in argument or attribute position. While the latter forms carry some kind of case marker, the noun/adjective predicate merely consists (or historically did) of the word’s root. This type of construction can be found in the small Zamucoan family and still survives in some Tupí-Guaraní languages. Diachronic inspection of Semitic indicates, however, that this predicative strategy was possibly adopted in some ancient varieties, although at later stages it intertwined with the expression of referential specificity. The paper compares the two construction types, highlighting similarities and differences.

Abstract

This paper describes the semantic and morphosyntactic properties of general converb constructions in Andi, a language of the Avar-Andic group of the East Caucasian language family. There are two general converbs in Andi, both of which are homophonous with a finite verb form (the aorist and the perfect, respectively). There is a considerable functional overlap between the two converbs. Both can be used to render the first stage of a complex event. The perfect / converb can also specify manner. An additive particle lo often accompanies the perfect as converb, while a specialised particle lodːu appears with the aorist as converb. The situation in Andi is unusual, because the two converbs are functionally very similar and not opposed in terms of aspect. In addition, Andi seems to be the only East Caucasian language where a specialised particle (i.e. lodːu) is found in this type of converbal clauses.

This article reviews Language Dispersal Beyond Farming978 90 1255 9978 90 6464 0