DOCSLIB.ORG

THEMES in TYPOLOGY: Basic Reading List Frans Plank, 1989-99

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THEMES in TYPOLOGY: Basic Reading List Frans Plank, 1989-99 THEMES IN TYPOLOGY: Basic Reading List Frans Plank, 1989-99, 2005, 2008 [to be updated] [email protected] Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz Contents INTRODUCING TYPOLOGY HISTORY OF TYPOLOGY THE WORLD OF LANGUAGES SAMPLING THE LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD AREAL LINGUISTICS EUROPE AS A LINGUISTIC AREA ONE LANGUAGE DESCRIBED (GUESS WHICH) PARTS OF SPEECH (a) General (b) Noun-verb distinction (c) Many, few, no adjectives (d) Numerals (e) Articles (and other definiteness marking) (f) Pronouns, personal and other (g) Auxiliaries and verbs INFLECTION: CASE (a) Case and other relational coding (b) The so-called genitive case in English (c) Pronominal case marking in English INFLECTION: NUMBER INFLECTION: GENDER/CLASS WHERE’S INFLECTION? (a) Nominal vs. verbal inflection (b) Head vs. dependent marking (c) Nominal vs. pronominal inflection INFLECTIONAL SYSTEMS MORPHOLOGICAL TYPOLOGY AGREEMENT Plank, TYPOLOGY Reading List 2 CONSTITUENT ORDER (a) Word-level (b) Phrase-, clause-, sentence-level GRAMMATICAL RELATIONS (a) General (b) Alignment (c) Voice (d) Direct – Inverse (e) Objects (f) Incorporation and verbal classification NEGATION INTERROGATION CAUSATION COMPLEX PREDICATES, SERIAL VERBS COORDINATION AND SUBORDINATION SWITCH REFERENCE COMPARISON PHONOLOGY (a) Phoneme systems (b) Tone (c) Syllable and morpheme structure (d) Allomorphy (e) Metrical structure (g) Accent (f) Intonation, isochrony (h) Harmony and disharmony, umlaut ... [to be continued] INTERNET SITES OF SPECIAL TYPOLOGICAL INTEREST FORMAL BASICS AND TOOLS (GROUPS OF) TYPOLOGISTS SPECIALIST JOURNALS THE WORLD OF LANGUAGES ONLINE TYPOLOGICAL DATABASES Plank, TYPOLOGY Reading List 3 INTRODUCING TYPOLOGY Comrie, Bernard (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Cristofaro, Sonia & Paolo Ramat (eds.) (1999). Introduzione alla tipologia linguistica. Roma: Carocci. Croft, William (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finck, Franz N. (1910). Die Haupttypen des Sprachbaus. Leipzig: Teubner. Givón, Talmy (1984/91). Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction, 2 vols.. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1974). Language Typology: A Historical and Analytic Overview. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Greenberg, Joseph H., et al. (eds.) (1978). Universals of Human Language, 4 vols.. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hagège, Claude (1982). La structure des langues. (Que sais-je?, 2006). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Hammond, Michael T., Edith A. Moravcsik, & Jessica R. Wirth (1988). Language typology and linguistic explanation. In Michael T. Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik, & Jessica R. Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 1-22. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Haspelmath, Martin, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oestereicher, & Wolfgang Raible (eds.) (2001/02). Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalienforschung. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter. [only relevant in parts] Mallinson, Graham & Barry J. Blake (1981). Language Typology: Cross-linguistic Studies in Syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Misteli, Franz (1893). Charakteristik der hauptsächlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues. Neubearbeitung des Werkes von Prof. H. Steinthal (1861). Berlin: Dümmler. Moravcsik, Edith A. (1979). Typology in linguistics. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29: 315-337. Nichols, Johanna (1992). Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Payne, Thomas E. (1997). Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plank, Frans (ed.) (1986). Typology. (=Folia Linguistica 20; 1/2.) The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Shibatani, Masayoshi & Theodora Bynon (eds.) (1995). Approaches to Language Typology. Oxford: Clarendon. [Review: Edith A. Moravcsik (1997), Linguistic Typology 1: 103- 115.] Plank, TYPOLOGY Reading List 4 Shopen, Timothy (ed.) (1985). Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3 vols.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skalicka, Vladimir (1979). Typologische Studien. Braunschweig: Vieweg. Slobin, Dan I. (1997). The universal, the typological, and the particular in acquisition. In Dan I. Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, vol. 5: Expanding the Contexts, 1-39. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Song, Jae Sung (2000). Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. Harlow: Pearson Education. Uspenskij, Boris A. (1965). Strukturnaja tipologija jazykov. Moskva: Nauka. Whaley, Lindsay J. (1997). Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language. Newbury Park: Sage. Plank, TYPOLOGY Reading List 5 HISTORY OF TYPOLOGY Brettschneider, Gunter (1980). Sprachtypologie und linguistische Universalienforschung. Studium Linguistik 8/9: 1-31. Greenberg, Jospeh H. (1974). Language Typology: A Historical and Analytic Overview. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Horne, Kibbey M. (1966). Language Typology: 19th and 20th Century Views. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Morpurgo Davies, Anna (1997). History of Linguistics, volume 4: Nineteenth Century Linguistics. London: Longman. Plank, Frans (1990). Greenlandic in comparison: Marcus Wöldike’s "Meletema" (1746). Historiographia Linguistica 17: 309-338. Plank, Frans (1991). Hypology, typology: The Gabelentz Puzzle. Folia Linguistica 25: 421- 458. Plank, Frans (1992). Adam Smith: Grammatical economist. In Peter Jones & Andrew S. Skinner (eds.), Adam Smith Reviewed, 21-55. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Plank, Frans (1994). Aus der Geschichte der Abhängigkeiten: Wilhelm von Humboldt zu Mehrheitsbezeichnung und Einverleibungssystem. In Klaus Zimmermann, Jürgen Trabant, & Kurt Mueller-Vollmer (eds.), Wilhelm von Humboldt und die amerikanischen Sprachen, 229-255. (Humboldt-Studien.) Paderborn: Schöningh. Plank, Frans (1998). The co-variation of phonology with morphology and syntax: A hopeful history. Linguistic Typology 2: 195-230. Plank, Frans (1999). Typology by the end of the 18th century. In Sylvain Auroux et al., History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language, 1399-1414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Plank, TYPOLOGY Reading List 6 THE WORLD OF LANGUAGES Campbell, George L. (2000). Compendium of the World’s Languages. 2 vols., 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Comrie, Bernard (ed.) (1990). The World’s Major Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Comrie, Bernard, Stephen Matthews, & Maria S. Polinsky (eds.) (1996). The Atlas of Languages: The Origin and Development of Languages throughout the World. New York: Facts on File. Dalby, Andrew (1999). Dictionary of Languages: The Definitive Guide to More Than 400 Languages. New York: Columbia University Press. Daniels, Peter T. & William Bright (eds.) (1995). The World’s Writing Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garry, J. & Carl Rubino (eds.) (2001). Facts about the World’s Languages: An Encyclopedia of the World’s Major Languages Past and Present. New York: H. W. Wilson/New England Publishing Associates. Grimes, Barbara F. (ed.) (1996). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 13th edn.. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. [http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/ethnologue.html] Klose, Albrecht (2001). Sprachen der Welt: Ein weltweiter Index der Sprachfamilien, Einzelsprachen und Dialekte, mit Angabe der Synonyma und fremdsprachigen Äquivalente. 2nd edn. München: Saur. Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson (1995). The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Lyovin, Anatole V. (1996). An Introduction to the Languages of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meillet, Antoine & Marcel Cohen (1952). Les langues du monde, 2 vols. Paris: CNRS, Champion. Moseley, Christopher & R.E. Asher (eds.) (1994). Atlas of the World’s Languages. London: Routledge. Ruhlen, Merritt (1987). A Guide to the World’s Languages, vol. 1: Classification. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Voegelin, Charles F. & Florence M. Voegelin (1977). Classification and Index of the World’s Languages. New York: Elsevier. Woodward, Roger D. (ed.) (2002). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plank, TYPOLOGY Reading List 7 SAMPLING THE LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD Bell, Alan (1978). Language samples. In Joseph H. Greenberg et al. (eds.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 1, 123-156. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Dryer, Matthew S. (1989). Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language 13: 257-292. Nichols, Johanna (1992). Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Otterbein, Keith F. (1976). Sampling and samples in cross-cultural studies. Behavior Science Research 11: 107-121. Perkins, Revere D. (1989). Statistical techniques for determining language sample size. Studies in Language 13: 293-315. Perkins, Revere D. (1992). Deixis, Grammar, and Culture. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [esp. ch. 7] Rijkhoff, Jan, Dik Bakker, Kees Hengeveld, & Peter Kahrel (1993). A method of language sampling. Studies in Language 17: 169-203. Rijkhoff, Jan & Dik Bakker (1998). Language sampling. Linguistic Typology 2: 262-314. Plank, TYPOLOGY Reading List 8 AREAL LINGUISTICS Austerlitz, Robert (1980). Typology and universals on a Eurasian east-west continuum. In Gunter Brettschneider & Christian Lehmann (eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler, 235-244. Tübingen: Narr. Bhat, Darbhe N.S. (1973). Retroflexion: An areal feature. Working Papers on Language Universals 13: 27-68. Blake, Barry J. (1990). Redefining
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Dimasa Grammar
    F. Jacquesson with the kind help of G.K. Thaosen A Dimasa Grammar Contents Acknowledgments 5 Glosses 7 Sentence types 9 Verbs 20 Nouns 40 Pronouns 52 Numerals and Classifiers 55 Observations on lexicon 57 Acknowledgements and history of the essay This study began, years ago, in Haflong with the very kind help of G. K. Thaosen. Most of the information here provided comes from him. Other details came later, either from Bikash Roy Debbarma when in Agartala, or from Uttam Bathari and friends when we travelled together (March 2007) to record Dimasa dialects. To have a look at this later work, see: Jacquesson François. 2006. La reconstruction linguistique du passé : le cas des langues boro- garo , Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 101/1, 273-302. On the whole I devoted some time to the variants of Dimasa. I think I could show (see above) François Jacquesson June 2008. Glosses see A Agent Abl 3.4.5. Ablative : -ni-praŋ Acc 3.4.2. Accusative : -ke Adj 2.3. Adjective prefix : gV- Apt 2.2.3.2.3. Actual Present : -du Ass 2.2.3.2.2. Assertive : -bi Aux Auxiliary verb Cl 5.2. Classifier (with number) Cnt 2.2.1.4. Continuative : -sai- Com 2.2.2.4. Comitative-Reflexive : -pa- D 3.3. determinative, genitive : -ni Dat 3.4.8. Dative : -ne, -tane Def 2.2.4. Negative imperative : da²- Dis 2.2.1.1. Distal : -ha- Dw 2.2.1.3. from up down : -klei- Ela 3.4.5. Elative : -ni-ha² Emp 2.2.3.2.11 Emphatic particle : ti Exs 1.2.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar
    Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar Rolf Kailuweit, Lisann Künkel, Eva Staudinger NIHIN Studies This volume is released under the terms of the Creative Commons Licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Website links in this book All website links mentioned in this book were operational at the time of publishing. Publica- tions available on the Role and Reference Grammar website are referenced as “available on RRG website”, and no links are provided. At the time of publication, the RRG website was accessible at http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~rrgpage/rrg.html. List of abbreviations ABS absolutive case DET determiner ACC accusative case DIR directional ADJ adjective DM discourse marker ADV adverb DL dual AFFIR affirmative DOB direct object ALL allative case DOM differential object marking ANTI antipassive ERG ergative case ARG argument EVQ event quantification ART article EXL exclusive ASP aspect F feminine AUX auxiliary verb FOC focus CH case hierarchy FUT future CLD clitic left dislocation GEN genitive case CLI clitic IF illocutionary force CLM clause linkage marker INT intensifier COM comitative IO indirect object COMP comparative IMP imperative COMPL completive IPFV imperfective aspect COND conditional IMPS impersonal CONJ conjunction INAN inanimate CONT continuous INC inclusive COP copula INE inessive case DAT dative case INF infinitive DCA domain of case assignment INGR ingressive DCM differential case marking INS instrument/instrumental DEIC deictic INT intensifier DEM demonstrative KP kontrast position DES desiderative
    [Show full text]
  • Te Reo the Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand
    Te Reo the Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand Volume 62 Issue 1 (Special Issue): Issue in Honour of Frantisek Lichtenberk Research Article 2019 pp. 93–115 September 2019 Indexing and flagging, and head and dependent marking Martin Haspelmath Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Linguistic and Cultural Evolution (Jena) This paper is a peer-reviewed contribution from https://www.nzlingsoc.org/journal/current-issue/ ©Te Reo – The Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand Guest Editors: Andreea S. Calude & Suzanne Kemmer Martin Haspelmath 93 Indexing and flagging, and head and dependent marking Martin Haspelmath Abstract This paper compares the concept pair indexing/flagging with the well-known concept pair head/dependent marking that is widely used in typology. It shows that a general concept of flagging (comprising case and adpositional marking) is needed, and it sketches the advantages of the indexing concept over the older idea of “person agreement”. It then points out that the notions of head and dependent are hard to define (apart from the two basic domains of clauses and nominals), and that the head/dependent marking typology does not take the function of syntactic relation markers into account. On a functional view, both flags and indexes can be seen as role- identifiers, as opposed to concordants (attributive agreement markers). After discussing three further issues with the head/dependent marking typology, involving construct markers, concordants, and cross-indexes, I conclude that the concept pair indexing/flagging is more suitable for typological purposes than head/dependent marking. Keywords argument indexing, flagging, head marking, dependent marking, case marking, adpositions, language typology 1 Comparative concepts for cross-linguistic grammatical comparison Over the last few decades, we have come to understand the extent of the grammatical differences between languages much better, due in large measure to our ability to compare language structures through comparative concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in Defining a Prototypical Transitive Sentence Typologically
    PROBLEMS IN DEFINING A PROTOTYPICAL TRANSITIVE SENTENCE TYPOLOGICALLY Seppo Kittilei Department of General Linguistics Horttokuja 2 20014 University of Turku FINLAND Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper is trying to show that the concept of the prototypical transitive sentence is very useful in the study of transitivity, but is as such not so unproblematic as has often been assumed. This is achieved by presenting examples from different languages that show the weaknesses of the "traditional" prototype. The prototype proposed here remains, however, a tentative one, because there are so many properties that cannot be described typologically because of their language-specific nature. 1. INTRODUCTION Transitivity has been defined in many different ways during the history of linguistics. Traditionally transitivity was understood to be a semantic phenomenon: Transitive sentences were sentences which describe events that involve a transfer of energy from subject to object (e.g. 'he killed the man'). Structurally these are mostly sentences with a grammatical subject and a direct (accusative) object (at least in the languages that were the targets of description). In the golden era of formal grammars transitivity became a purely formal concept: Verbs (or more rarely sentences) with a direct object were classified as transitive and those without one as intransitive without taking their semantics into account (see e.g. Jacobsen 1985:89 [4]). Formal definitions very rarely allow any intermediate forms, i.e. every transitive sentence is equally prototypical (because there are no adequate criteria by means of which the prototypicality could be measured). Therefore, the concept of a prototypical transitive sentence is irrelevant in the formal descriptions.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Structure and Object Marking: a Study Of
    INFORMATION STRUCTURE AND OBJECT MARKING: A STUDY OF THE OBJECT PREPOSITION ʾET IN BIBLICAL HEBREW A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES HEBREW UNION COLLEGE—JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION BY PETER JOSEPH BEKINS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ________________________________ First Reader: Dr. Stephen A. Kaufman ________________________________ Second Reader: Dr. W. Randall Garr NOVEMBER 2012 © Copyright by Peter Joseph Bekins 2012 All rights reserved Acknowledgements I would like to begin by thanking my readers for their tireless work. My advisor, Stephen Kaufman, was everything that one could ask for in a first reader—direct and quick. I have benefited greatly from my years studying under him and completing this project with him. My second reader, Randall Garr, graciously took on this project despite the fact that we had never previously spoken, much less met. He proved to be the perfect complement with an eye to detail, and this work was improved immeasurably by his participation. I would like to thank my professors and colleagues at Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion. The faculty of the graduate school, including Sam Greengus, David Weisberg !"#, Nili Fox, David Aaron, Jason Kalman, and Adam Kamesar, have all contributed to my growth as a scholar and a person. I thank my fellow graduate students for their friendship, fellowship, and encouragement. I would like to thank the other scholars who have taken an interest in my work and provided both support and encouragement. Robert Holmstedt and John Hobbins have given feedback and encouragement in various stages of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Turkic Languages the Structure of Turkic
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Turkic Languages Lars Johanson, Éva Á. Csató The Structure of Turkic Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203066102.ch3 Lars Johanson Published online on: 21 May 1998 How to cite :- Lars Johanson. 21 May 1998, The Structure of Turkic from: The Turkic Languages Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203066102.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 The Structure 0/ Turkic Lars lohanson Introduction Throughout their history and in spite of their huge area of distribution, Turkic languages share essential structural features. Many of them are common to Eurasian languages of the Altaic and Uralic types. While often dealt with in typologically oriented linguistic work, most aspects of Turkic structure still call for more unbiased and differentiated description.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistics, 42: 2, 2004, 247-291
    Linguistics, 42: 2, 2004, 247-291 Actants in Semantics and Syntax. II. Actants in Syntax IGOR MEL’ČUK Part II of the paper deals with deep-syntactic and surface-syntactic actants. A deep-syntactic actant slot is defined by its correspondence to a semantic actant slot; a deep-syntactic actant of a lexical unit L either fills a deep-syntactic slot of L or corresponds to a surface-syntactic actant of L. The paper discusses the numbering of deep-syntactic actant slots, some problematic cases of such numbering, restrictions on the surface realizations of deep-syntactic actant slots, and the ways to change the active deep-syntactic valence of a given lexical unit. Surface-syntactic actants are defined inductively—by bundles of relevant syntactic properties that a clause element shares with an established surface- syntactic actant, such as the Subject or the Direct Object. The problem of “Actants vs. Circumstantials” is considered, including the DO SO test. The correspondence between semantic, deep- syntactic and surface-syntactic actant slots of a lexical unit is characterized, with special attention to the four cases of discrepancy between them. The concept of Government Pattern of a lexical unit L is introduced and illustrated. After the notion of Semantic Actant has been clarified in Part I of this article, I can move to actants in syntax. As stated in Section 2, Part I, an important feature of my approach is a systematic distinction between Deep- and Surface-Syntactic actants/actant slots. Therefore, I start with an examination of Deep-Syntactic Actants (Section 4), to continue with SSyntAs (Section 5), after which a survey of possible correspondences between actants of the three types is presented (Section 6); finally, the Government Pattern is characterized (Section 7).
    [Show full text]
  • 2008Impersonalization.Pdf
    TRPS 211 Dispatch: 24.6.08 Journal: TRPS CE: Blackwell Journal Name Manuscript No. -B Author Received: No. of pages: 23 PE: Mahendrakumar Transactions of the Philological Society Volume 106:2 (2008) 1–23 1 2 INTRODUCTION: IMPERSONALIZATION FROM A 3 SUBJECT-CENTRED VS. AGENT-CENTRED 4 PERSPECTIVE 5 6 By ANNA SIEWIERSKA 7 Lancaster University 8 9 10 1. PRELIMINARIES 11 The notion of impersonality is a broad and disparate one. In the 12 main, impersonality has been studied in the context of Indo- 13 European languages and especially Indo-European diachronic 14 linguistics (see e.g. Seefranz-Montag 1984; Lambert 1998; Bauer 15 2000). It is only very recently that discussions of impersonal 16 constructions have been extended to languages outside Europe (see 17 e.g. Aikhenvald et al. 2001; Creissels 2007; Malchukov 2008 and the 18 papers in Malchukov & Siewierska forthcoming). The currently 19 available analyses of impersonal constructions within theoretical 20 models of grammar are thus all based on European languages. The 21 richness of impersonal constructions in European languages, has, 22 however, ensured that they be given due attention within any model 23 of grammar with serious aspirations. Consequently, the linguistic 24 literature boasts of many theory-specific analyses of various 25 impersonal constructions. The last years have seen a heightening 26 of interest in impersonality and a series of new analyses of 27 impersonal constructions. The present special issue brings together 28 five of these analyses spanning the formal ⁄ functional-cognitive 29 divide. Three of the papers in this volume, by Divjak and Janda, by 30 Afonso and by Helasvuo and Vilkuna, offer analyses couched 31 within or inspired by different versions of the marriage of 32 Construction Grammar and Cognitive Grammar as developed by 33 Langacker (1991), Goldberg (1995, 2006) and Croft (2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking
    Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6006 Janskerkhof 13 fax: +31 30 253 6406 3512 BL Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration: detail of Polderland by Hennie de Swart (2004) ISBN 978-90-78328-39-1 NUR 616 Copyright c 2007: Peter de Swart. All rights reserved. The work in this dissertation has been funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), grant 220-70-003. Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking een wetenschappelijke proeve op het gebied van de Letteren Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. mr. S.C.J.J. Kortmann, volgens besluit van het College van Decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op woensdag 21 november 2007 om 10.30 uur precies door Petrus Jacobus Franciscus de Swart geboren op 23 augustus 1981 te Nijmegen Promotor: Prof. dr. P.C. Muysken Copromotor: Mw. dr. H. de Hoop Manuscriptcommissie: Mw. prof. dr. J. Aissen (University of California at Santa Cruz) Mw. prof. dr. A.C.M. van Kemenade Mw. prof. dr. B. Primus (Universit¨atzu K¨oln) Acknowledgements Being a fan of the genre of acknowledgements, I am hesitant to add my contribution to it. Although the work of a single person, this thesis could not have been written without the support and friendship of others. I would like to single out a few of them. This project could not have been carried out without the financial support of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) to the PIONIER Project Case Cross-linguistically [grant 220-70-003] which is gratefully acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ergative View of Thao Syntax
    UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI" LIBRARY AN ERGATIVE VIEW OF THAO SYNTAX A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN LINGUISTICS MAY 2004 By Shan-Shan Wang Dissertation Committee: Lawrence A. Reid, Chairperson Byron W. Bender Robert A. Blust William D. O'Grady Chin-Tang Lo © Copyright 2004 by Shan-Shan Wang 111 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to acknowledge the unstinting assistance that I received from my Thao assistants during the fieldwork that I undertook for this dissertation. I was especially privileged to have worked with Mr. A-Song Shi, Mr. Chang-Feng Kao and Ms. Qiu-Xiang Mao-Liu, who were my primary Thao consultants. To them I offer my warmest thanks. The completion ofthis dissertation is due to the great generosity ofmany individuals. I wish to thank Prof. Lawrence Reid, my dissertation committee chair for first stimulating my interest in Formosan languages, and for teaching me how to go about the task of doing fieldwork. He has provided me with endless encouragement, emotional support, and wise guidance throughout the process ofdissertation writing. I feel that I have been greatly blessed for having him as my advisor, and for the hours we spent together, discussing the many analytical problems that needed to be resolved before the dissertation could be completed. His extensive detailed comments on earlier drafts ofthis dissertation were extremely insightful and beneficial to my later revisions. lowe a debt to my advisor that can never be properly expressed or repaid.
    [Show full text]
  • Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe
    GRAMMATICAL CASE IN THE LANGUAGES OF THE MIDDLE EAST AND EUROPE ACTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM VARIATIONS, CONCURRENCE ET EVOLUTION DES CAS DANS DIVERS DOMAINES LINGUISTIQUES Paris 2–4 April 2007 edited by MICHÈLE FRUYT MICHEL MAZOYER and DENNIS PARDEE studies in ancient ORientaL civiLizatiOn • vOLume 64 THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNivERSITY OF CHICAGO chicagO • IllinOis Library of Congress Control Number: 2011933159 ISBN-10: 1-885923-84-8 ISBN-13: 978-1-885923-84-4 ISSN: 0081-7554 The Oriental Institute, Chicago © 2011 by the university of chicago. all rights reserved. Published 2011. Printed in the united states of america. studies in ancient ORientaL civiLizatiOn • numbeR 64 the Oriental institute of the university of chicago Series Editors Leslie schramer and thomas g. urban with the assistance of Rebecca cain Series Editors’ Acknowledgments Jessen O’brien and Felicia Whitcomb assisted in the production of this volume. Cover Image The University of Chicago Center in Paris. Photo by Dan Dry Printed by McNaughton & Gunn, Saline, Michigan the paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of ameri- can national standard for information services — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library materials, ansi z39.48-1984. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface. Michèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer, and Dennis Pardee..................................................... vii 1. cas et analyse en morphèmes? Christian Touratier . 1 2. the conjugation Prefixes, the dative case, and the empathy hierarchy in sumerian. Christopher Woods . 11 3. agent, subject, Patient, and beneficiary: grammatical Roles in hurrian. Dennis R. M. Campbell................ 21 4. des cas en élamite? Florence Malbran-Labat . 47 5. Évolution des cas dans le sémitique archaïque: la contribution de l’éblaïte.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution of Differential Object Marking in Paraguayan Guaraní
    THE DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING IN PARAGUAYAN GUARANÍ THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Cory Adam Shain, B.A. ******** The Ohio State University 2009 Approved By: Master’s Examination Committee: Dr. Judith Tonhauser, Advisor Dr. Peter W. Culicover, Advisor Dr. Scott A. Schwenter Advisors Linguistics Graduate Program Copyright by Cory Adam Shain 2009 ABSTRACT Differential Object Marking (DOM), the marking of some but not all direct objects in a given language, is active in over 300 languages around the world. I examine the distribution of DOM in Paraguayan Guaraní by evaluating transitive clauses in a corpus of naturally-occurring Guaraní data with respect to several fac- tor groups. I find animacy and topicality to have the strongest relationship with object-marking frequency and show that human topical objects are frequently marked, while non-human and/or non-topical ob- jects are infrequently marked. I then examine a Guaraní corpus published in 1640, prior to substantial Spanish contact, and do not find any clear instances of DOM. This supports the hypothesis that DOM evolved in Guaraní as a result of Spanish influence, though I also show that DOM is not distributionally equivalent in Spanish and Guaraní today. The relevance of topicality to DOM in Guaraní is unaccounted for by the two main theories of DOM, what I call the "markedness approach" and the "transitivity ap- proach," which only appeal to animacy and definiteness. Thus the current study motivates incorporating topicality into these theories.
    [Show full text]