DOCSLIB.ORG

Kumakhov Vamling CC1.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kumakhov Vamling CC1.Pdf Caucasus Studies 1 CIRCASSIAN Clause Structure Mukhadin Kumakhov & Karina Vamling Malmö University, 2009 Culture and Society Department of International Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER) Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Linguistics, Moscow Caucasus Studies 1 Circassian Clause Structure Mukhadin Kumakhov & Karina Vamling Published by Malmö University Faculty of Culture and Society Department of International Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER) S-20506 Malmö, www.mah.se © Mukhadin Kumakhov & Karina Vamling Cover illustration: Caucasus Mountains (K. Vamling) ISBN 978-91-7104-083-1 Holmbergs, Malmö Contents Foreword 7 Abbreviations 8 Transcription 9 Tables and Figures 10 Outline of the book 13 1 The Circassians and their language 15 1.1 Circassians in the Russian Federation 15 1.2 Circassian among the Northwest-Caucasian languages 17 1.3 Literary standards for the Circassian languages 18 1.4 The Circassian diaspora 19 1.5 The present situation of the Circassians 19 1.6 ‘Circassian’ and related terms 20 2 Circassian grammar sketch 21 2.1 Nouns 21 2.1.1 Definiteness 21 2.1.2 Case 22 2.1.3 Number 24 2.1.4 Possessive 25 2.1.5 Coordinative 26 2.2 Pronouns 27 2.3 Adjectives 28 2.4 NP structure 28 2.5 Verbal morphology 30 2.5.1 Transitive and intransitive verbs 31 2.5.1.1 Labile verbs 33 2.5.1.2 Stative and dynamic forms 34 2.5.1.3 Transitivizing processes 34 2.5.1.4 Intransitivizing processes 36 2.5.2 Verbal inflectional morphology 37 2.5.2.1 Person and number 37 Third person – zero versus overt marking 41 Non-specific reference 42 2.5.2.2 Tense 43 2.5.2.3 Mood 45 2.5.2.4 Assertive forms 47 2.5.2.5 Nonfinite forms 48 Participles 48 Gerunds 48 Masdars and infinitives 49 2.5.2.6 Negation 49 2.5.2.7 Interrogativity 50 2.5.2.8 Iterativity 51 2.5.2.9 Coordinative forms 51 2.5.3 Order of verbal morphemes 51 2.6 Clause structure and construction types 53 2.6.1 The ergative construction 53 2.6.2 Word order 58 2.6.3 Inversive (affective) construction 58 2.7 Complex constructions 59 2.7.1 Coordination 59 2.7.2 Subordination 61 2.7.2.1 Complementation 63 2.7.2.2 The subject of the complement clause 64 2.7.2.3 Adverb or adjective modification? 66 2.7.2.4 Matrix predicates and selection of complement pred. 66 3 Ergativity in nouns and pronouns 69 3.1 The ergative case 69 3.1.1 The ergative case: the noun 69 3.1.2 The ergative case in demonstrative pronouns 70 3.1.3 Neutralisation: no opposition in number in the ergative case 71 3.2 Ergative and absolutive, definite and indefinite form 72 3.3 The oblique ergative 74 3.4 Split ergative marking 75 3.4.1 Personal pronouns 75 3.4.2 Interrogative pronouns 75 3.4.3 Determinative pronouns 77 3.4.4.1 Proper nouns 79 3.4.4.2 Circassian surnames 80 3.4.4.3 Borrowed surnames 81 3.4.5 Associative (representative) plural 82 3.4.6 Possessive forms 82 3.4.7 Coordinative forms 83 3.5 Split-ergativity and the Nominal Hierarchy 84 4 Ergative patterns in the verb 87 4.1 Markers of the ergative and absolutive series 87 4.2 Valency 87 4.2.1 Simple monovalent verbs 87 4.2.2 Prefixal monovalent verbs 89 4.2.3 Simple bivalent verbs 94 4.2.4 Prefixal bivalent verbs 98 4.2.5 Simple trivalent verbs 100 4.2.6 Prefixal trivalent verbs 102 4.2.7 Tetravalent verbs 105 4.2.8 Pentavalent verbs 108 4.3 Orientational markers 109 5 Word order 112 5.1 Basic word order SOV 113 5.1.1 Word order and morpheme order 115 5.1.3 Changes of the word order 116 5.2 Proper nouns as subject or object 119 5.2.1 Erg. and absolutive markers and change in the SOV order 119 5.2.2 Family names as subject or object in the ergative clause 122 5.3 The OSV word order in the ergative clause 126 5.4 Word order changes in ditransitive clauses 126 5.5 Word order and je÷', jezƒ ‘(s/he) herself/himself’ 130 5.6 Word order in clauses with question words (wh-words) 134 5.7 Word order in clauses with participles as main verb 139 5.8 Word order in answers 141 5.9 Focus constructions 145 5.10 Position of adverbials 149 6 Labile constructions 152 6.1 On the history of the labile construction 155 6.2 Groups of labile roots 157 6.2.1 Simple roots 157 6.2.2 Stems with the prefix wƒ- 163 6.2.2.1 Denominal roots 164 6.2.2.2 Verbal roots 167 6.2.3 Verbal stems with local prefixes 168 6.2.4 Stems with the prefix ze- 170 6.2.5 Stems with the orientational prefix 171 7 Reduced (semiergative) constructions 173 7.1 Direct object + bivalent transitive verb 173 7.2 Oblique object + trivalent transitive verb 177 7.3 Direct obj. + oblique obj. + trivalent transitive verb 178 7.4 Ergative subject + transitive verb 179 7.5 Reflexive and semiergative constructions 181 7.6 Summary of construction types 183 8 Inversion (affective) constructions 184 8.1 Inversive verbs 185 8.2 Potential forms 187 8.3 Non-volitional forms 190 8.4 Version forms 191 9 Ergativity in complex constructions 193 9.1 Coordination 193 9.1.1 Word order 193 9.1.1.1 Word order and the categories Aorist and Perfect 195 9.1.2 Type of marking of coordination 197 9.1.3 Number 198 9.1.4 Aorist1 and Aorist2 198 9.1.5 Adverbs 199 9.1.6 Oblique objects and valency 200 9.1.7 Gerunds and case variation 201 9.1.8 Coreference relations 203 9.1.9 Further notes on gerunds and infinitives in coordination 206 9.1.10 Summary of general tendencies 206 9.2 Complementation 207 10 Summary 211 10.1 Basic clause structure 211 10.2 Ergative marking in nominals 212 10.3 Ergative patterns in the verb 213 10.4 Word order 213 10.5 Labile constructions 214 10.6 Reduced (semiergative) constructions 215 10.7 Inversive (affective) constructions 215 10.8 Ergativity in complex constructions 216 Literature 217 Foreword This volume is the result of joint research conducted in Russia and Sweden over a number of years, involving the Department of Comparative Linguistics of the Institute of Linguistics at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, the Department of Linguistics at Lund University and the Department of Interna- tional Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER) at Malmö University. The framework for this research collaboration has been the projects Ergati- vity in the Circassian languages and The syntax and morphology of subordinate clauses in Kabardian. We express our gratitude to The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for financial support for both projects. We would also like to thank the above mentioned institutions for support and encouragement over the years, and in particular the Department of International Migration and Ethnic Relations for making it possible to publish this volume. This collaboration has resulted in two monographs in Russian (Kumakhov & Vamling 1998, 2006) aimed at caucasologists and other interested readers in the North Caucasus and Russia. The present publication in English is based on these monographs and is intended for a wider range of readers, both linguists and Circassians with no knowledge of Russian. During the course of this work, both in the preparation of the Russian ver- sion and the English one, professor Zara Kumakhova at the Institute of Linguistics at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow has offered most valuable help and comments, and we would like to take the opportunity to thank her. We would also like to thank Dr. Revaz Tchantouria at the Department of International Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER), Malmö University, who has assisted us throughout these projects and in the preparation of the publica- tions. Mukhadin Kumakhov and Karina Vamling Moscow, February 2008 It is with great sadness and regret that I must extend this foreword. In June 2008, in the very final stages of our preparing the monograph for publication,professor Mukhadin Kumakhov died, unexpectedly. All subsequent amendments to the text are purely editorial. Karina Vamling Malmö, December 2008 Abbreviations O Direct object OERG Oblique ergative OPT Optative OR Orientation PART Participle PF Perfective 1 First person PERF Perfect 2 Second person PL Plural 3 Third person PLUP Pluperfect A Adyghe POSS Possessive A Agent POSTP Postposition ABS Absolutive case POT Potentialis ABU Abundance PRES Present ADV Adverbial case R Recipient AOR Aorist RECIP Reciprocal ASS Assumptive REFL Reflexive ASSRT Assertive REL Relative prefix C Circumstancial REV Reversed action CAUS Causative S Subject COM Comitative SG Singular COND Conditional ST Stative CONJ Conjunctive T Theme CRD Coordinative TRANS Transitive DEF Definiteness V Verb DS Derivational suffix VS Version DYN Dynamic ERG Ergative case F Factitive FOC Focus marker FUT Future GER Gerund IMP Imperative IMPF Imperfect INDEF Indefiniteness INF Infinitive INSTR Instrumental case INT Interrogative INTENS Intensiveness INTR Intransitive IO Indirect object marker IO indirect object ITER Iterativity JOINTACT Joint action K Kabardian LOC Locative MSD Masdar NEG Negation NSPEC Nonspecific reference 8 Transcription Consonants b b p p p’ p~ v v f f f’ f~ w u m m d d t t t’ t~ n n r r Ω dz c c c’ c~ z z s s c˚ cu µ d' ç h ç’ k~ ÷ ' ß w ÷' '; ß' w; z' '= s' w= s'’ w~ z'œ '=u s'œ w=u s'’œ w~u g g ⋲ x j j ⋲˚ xu ® g= x x= g˚ gu k˚ ku k’˚ k~u ®˚ g=u x˚ x=u q kx= q’ k= q˚ kx=u q’˚ k=u ¶ ~ h x; ¶˚ ~u l l fi l= l’ l~ Vowels a, a i, i e, / o, o ƒ, y u, u je, e Tables and Figures 1.1 Circassians in the three Northwest Caucasian republics 15 1.2 Examples of differences in the orthographies 18 2.1 Case endings 24 2.2 Possessive prefixes 25 2.3 Examples of transitive verbs 32 2.4 Examples of intransitive verbs (a) 32 2.5 Examples of intransitive verbs (b) 33 2.6 Causative verb formation 35 2.7 Agreement markers in Adyghe and Kabardian 40 2.8 Tenses in Kabardian 45 2.9 Mood forms in Kabardian 47 2.10 Morphological structure of the transitive finite verb and nonfinite forms 52 2.11 Nominative-Accusative alignment (I) vs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Language Situation Among the Circassians of Jordan
    Educational Research (ISSN: 2141-5161) Vol. 4(8) pp. 612-617, August, 2013 DOI: http:/dx.doi.org/10.14303/er.2013.113 Available online@ http://www.interesjournals.org/ER Copyright © 2013 International Research Journals Full Length Research Paper The Language situation among the Circassians of Jordan Doa ʾa F. Al-Momani*1 and Siham M. Al-Momani *1Al Balqa' Applied University (Jordan) 2Department of Allied Medical Sciences, Al Balqa' Applied University (Jordan) *Corresponding Author`s E-mail: [email protected] Abstract In this paper, we examine the language situation among the Circassians of Jordan within the framework of previous theories on language maintenance and shift as proposed by Fishman. The study investigates factors influencing the sample responses toward importance and usefulness of the Arabic and Circassian languages. Convenience sample include 100 subject selected by five in group persons. Data collected by means of a questionnaire developed and used by previous investigators. Results indicate that Arabic is used by the respondents for various functions and Circasssian is used in very restricted social domains. Evidence is represented that the overwhelming majority of the Circassians agree that it is important for them to speak in both Arabic as a means of communication, and Circassian as an important symbol of their identity. These results indicate that the Circassians of Jordan are experiencing a process of language shift which appears to be in its initial position, as most of them appear to be less proficient in their language. They also indicate that the younger generation (forty years or below) of Circassians show a stronger tendency toward shifting their speech than the older generation (forty years or above).
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Phonetic Study of the Circassian Languages Author(S
    A comparative phonetic study of the Circassian languages Author(s): Ayla Applebaum and Matthew Gordon Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of the Caucasus (2013), pp. 3-17 Editors: Chundra Cathcart, Shinae Kang, and Clare S. Sandy Please contact BLS regarding any further use of this work. BLS retains copyright for both print and screen forms of the publication. BLS may be contacted via http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/bls/. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society is published online via eLanguage, the Linguistic Society of America's digital publishing platform. A Comparative Phonetic Study of the Circassian Languages1 AYLA APPLEBAUM and MATTHEW GORDON University of California, Santa Barbara Introduction This paper presents results of a phonetic study of Circassian languages. Three phonetic properties were targeted for investigation: voice-onset time for stop consonants, spectral properties of the coronal fricatives, and formant values for vowels. Circassian is a branch of the Northwest Caucasian language family, which also includes Abhaz-Abaza and Ubykh. Circassian is divided into two dialectal subgroups: West Circassian (commonly known as Adyghe), and East Circassian (also known as Kabardian). The West Circassian subgroup includes Temirgoy, Abzekh, Hatkoy, Shapsugh, and Bzhedugh. East Circassian comprises Kabardian and Besleney. The Circassian languages are indigenous to the area between the Caspian and Black Seas but, since the Russian invasion of the Caucasus region in the middle of the 19th century, the majority of Circassians now live in diaspora communities, most prevalently in Turkey but also in smaller outposts throughout the Middle East and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Counterfactual-Hando
    Third International Conference on Iranian Linguistics 11th-13th September 2009, Paris, Sorbonne Nouvelle Arseniy Vydrin Institute of Linguistic Studies St.Petersburg, Russia [email protected] Counterfactual mood in Iron Ossetic Ossetic1 (Northeastern Iranian): Iron, Digor dialects. Spoken mostly in The Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, about 500000 native speakers. 1. Counterfactual meaning Counterfactual meaning can be defined as the meaning which is contrary to the actual state of affairs. Conditional constructions with irreal condition are the easiest way to express the counterfactual meaning. For example, Persian: (1) Agar tabar-rā az dast-aš na-geferte1 bud2-and if axe-OBL PREP hand-ENCL.3SG NEG-take.PLUPERF1,2-3PL hame-ye mā-rā tekke pāre karde1 bud2-and all-EZF we-OBL piece piece do.PLUPERF1,2-3PL ‘If they hadn’t taken the axe from him we would have been hacked to pieces’ (S. Hedāyat. Katja). Couterfactual is considered to be the core meaning of the semantic domain of irrealis [Plungian 2005]. However, as shown in [Lazard 1998; Van Linden and Verstraete 2008], very few languages have a narrow dedicated marker for expressing only counterfactuality. In most languages, counterfactual meaning is a part of the semantic repertoire of some other “broad” markers, primarily associated with the domain of possibility / probability or past (including, according to Lazard, such values as prospective, desiderative, debitive, inceptive, evidentiality, habitual, subjunctive and optative). Most of the Iranian languages: past habitual, imperfect or pluperfect markers. Among languages which possess a dedicated counterfactual marker Lazard cites Turkana (Nilotic), Ewondo (Bantu), Yoruba and classic Nahuatl. Van Linden and Verstraete add Chukchi (Chukotko-Kamchatkan), Hua (Trans–New Guinea), Ika (Chibchan-Paezan), Kolyma Yukaghir, Martuthunira (Pama-Nyungan) and Somali (Cushitic).
    [Show full text]
  • Headedness, Again
    UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Theories of Everything Volume 17, Article 40: 348-359, 2012 Headedness, again Maria Polinsky Introduction* Headedness is an intriguing feature of language design. On the one hand, headedness manifests itself very clearly; preposed relative clauses are visibly different from postposed ones, and postpositions are easily distinguished from prepositions. More generally, structural heads (the constituents which determine the category of their phrase) either precede or follow their dependents. On the other hand, there is room for disagreement and variation. For instance, the ordering of determiners or nouns can be assessed differently depending on what counts as the head, causing disagreements over the headedness of nominal constituents. Furthermore, even if all linguists agree on what counts as the head and what counts as a dependent, there is no required consistency within the same language in the way dependents and heads are ordered across different phrases. An otherwise dependably head-final or head-initial language may exhibit exceptions; the results are messy, and linguists get discouraged. There is, as of yet, no good explanation for headedness. It is visible; it is rather robust; it seems easy to learn (Lupyan and Christiansen 2002; van Everbroeck 2006), but what is it? This question has puzzled many researchers and we still do not know its answer. When dealing with something that is unfamiliar it is often tempting to just toss it out as unnecessary or superficial. Researchers now and again have suggested that headedness is no more than a a trivial pattern-recognition device without much deep meaning and with no value in linguistic theory, yet it is hard to dismiss a device that is so pervasive.
    [Show full text]
  • Cowley's Summary of James Jordan on Worship
    Cowley’s Summary of James Jordan on Worship - For the Synod Worship Committee James B. Jordan: Towards The Biblical Worldview & Worship, Page 1 1 James B. Jordan - An Appreciation: Towards the Biblical Worldview in Worship, by Anthony A. Cowley As our committee has worked to discern the best counsel to offer the RPCNA Synod regarding how to respond to proposals to change our practice and theory of worship we have moved towards Covenant Renewal as the central Biblical-theological pattern by which we can shore up the shape of historic Reformed worship, as found in the liturgies of Calvin, Bucer, Knox, the Continental Reformed Churches and preserved the classic Directory for the Publick Worship of God1. This has brought us to grapple with the question of the shape of the Liturgy. We have seen that the Reformation was as much about worship as it was about doctrine.2 As radical as they were in many respects, the Reformers did not attempt to reconstruct worship de novo by raw Biblicism, but rather found their roots in the Patristic liturgies3. As we seek to preserve what is good and correct what is amiss we would do so in that same reforming spirit. There are only a few scholars presently working on genuine Reformed liturgics. Many of them are not soundly evangelical. There has also been a movement for liturgical renewal throughout Christendom (as well as a move away from all historic forms of worship). The field is massive. While there are reasons for a Reformed Presbyterian to wonder how safe a guide James B.
    [Show full text]
  • Split-Intransitive Languages and the Unaccusative Hypothesis
    31 DEFINING TRANSITIVITY AND INTRANSITIVITY: SPLIT-INTRANSITIVE LANGUAGES AND THE UNACCUSATIVE HYPOTHESIS ASIER ALCÁZAR University of Southern California, Los Angeles 0. Proposals 0.1 Basque is not an ergative language; it is split-intransitive. * Against the standard typological claim (contra Comrie 1981, Dixon 1994, Primus 1999) 0.2 Unergative verbs are not always intransitive (they can be transitive: e.g. Basque). * Against the claim in the Unaccusative Hypothesis (contra Perlmutter 1978, Burzio 1986) 0.3 Split-intransitivity signals that unergatives are transitive. * Novel claim: split-intransitivity has been otherwise considered an anomalous pattern. 1. INTRODUCTION: INTRANSITIVE VERBS WITH TRANSITIVE LOOKS (I.E. 1A). Basque is often presented as a splendid example of ergativity (Comrie 1981, Dixon 1994, Primus 1999 among many). Tradi- tionally, ergative languages differ from accusative languages in the verbal argument they mark. Erga- tive languages mark the subject of transitives (compare the girl in 2 with 1b) and accusative lan- guages mark the object of transitives (e.g. Latin/Romance; see the feminine singular pronoun in 4). However, the axioms in the typological classification of languages would by definition declare Basque to be of type split-intransitive (e.g. like Guarani, Gregorez and Suarez 1967 cfr. Primus 1999; or Slave, Rice 1991). For Basque has a class of intransitive verbs (1a) whose argument is marked exactly as the subject of transitives (2). Basque intransitives: (1) a. Neskatil-ak dei-tu du b. Neskatil-a ailega-tu da girl-Erg.Sg call-Per have.3Sg_3Sg girl-Abs.Sg arrive-Per be.3Sg ‘The girl called’ ‘The girl arrived’ Basque transitives: (2) Neskatil-ak izozki-a amai-tu du girl-Erg.Sg ice-cream-Abs.Sg finish-Per have.3Sg_3Sg ‘The girl finished her ice-cream’ Spanish intransitives: (3) a.
    [Show full text]
  • Programa Saboloo
    October 27 14 00 Symposium Opening (The Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 52 Rustaveli Ave., 5th floor, a conference hall) Opening address – President of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, Acad. T. Gamkrelidze D. Shashkin – Minister of Education and Science of Georgia A. Kvitashvili – Rector of Iv.Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University L. Ezugbaia – Director of Arn. Chikobava Institute of Linguistics G. Gambashidze – President of Fund of Caucasus S. Pasov – Pro-rector of Karachay-Cherkessian State University Kh. Taov – Pro-rector of Kabardo-Balkarian State University A. Abregov – Head of the Chair of the Generel Linguistics of the Adyghe State University Ts. Baramidze – Full Professor at Iv. Javakhishvili State University I. Abdullaev – A senior research-worker of H.Tsadasa Institute of Language, Literature and Art A. Timaev – Head of the Chair of the Chechen language at Chechen State University S. Patiev – Docent of the Chair of the Ingush language at Ingush State Iniversity 15 00 Plenary Report G. Kvaratskhelia (Tbilisi) _ Like-Mindedness and Hereditariness in Science N. Machavariani (Tbilisi) _ Ketevan Lomtatidze's life and activity A. Arabuli, V. Shengelia (Tbilisi) _ Academician Ketevan Lomtatidze's contribution to studying the Abkhaz-Circassian and Kartvelian languages Address Speeches and Memories: M. Lordkipanidze, I. Asatiani, B. Outtier, R. Janashia, N. Andguladze, A. Chincharauli, T. Berozashvili, A. Arabuli, T. Ujukhu... 24 October 28 Sectional Meetings I Section 10 00 _ 11 30 Chairs : I. Abdullaev, G. Kvaratskhelia T. Uturgaidze (Tbilisi) _ On the Subject of the Mix of Models in Lingual Systems A. Khalidov (Grozny) _ About Ascertainment of Affinity of Ibero-Caucasian Languages (in support of M.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantics of Complementation in Adyghe Natalia Serdobolskaya
    Semantics of complementation in Adyghe Natalia Serdobolskaya Introduction This paper investigates the semantic distribution of complement constructions in the Adyghe language (North-West Caucasian). The complementation system of Adyghe presents many interesting issues that are not widely attested typologically. An interesting point is the possibility of unsubcategorized case marking in complementation: clausal arguments show variation in case marking with one and the same complement-taking verb, a phenomenon which is not attested with nominal arguments. Another issue is the use of the same complement construction to encode events with emotive verbs (like I like dancing) and false propositions (like he had been to China in He said he had been to China, but I know he was lying). Meanwhile there is a special “factive form” used to encode facts and manner complements. Complementation in Adyghe has previously been described in both reference grammars and the specialized literature on subordination (see Zekokh 1976, Kerasheva 1984 and others). However, these works do not focus on the semantic types of complement clauses. I consider the main complementation strategies in Adyghe in terms of semantic notions including fact vs. event vs. proposition, presupposition vs. assertion, and epistemic meaning. In particular, competition between the various complementation strategies is dealt with in detail. An overview of the relevant parameters, and the tests that help to differentiate between the semantic types of complement clauses, are given in (Serdobolskaya, this volume), which is focused on Ossetic. A list of the complement-taking predicates considered here is given in the Appendix. Most of the Adyghe data presented here were collected by elicitation and from texts recorded during fieldwork in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008 in the village of Khakurinokhabl, in the course of field trips carried out by the Russian State University for the Humanities (led by Jakov Testelec, Nina Sumbatova, and Svetlana Toldova).
    [Show full text]
  • Valency Changes in the History of English Elly Van Gelderen Arizona State University Naples, 27 May 2010, [email protected]
    Valency changes in the history of English Elly van Gelderen Arizona State University Naples, 27 May 2010, [email protected] It has been claimed that languages differ in basic valency orientation. Thus, Haspelmath (1993), Nichols (1993), Abraham (1997), Nichols, Peterson & Barnes (2004), Comrie (2006), and Plank & Lahiri (2009) show that languages have a basic valency orientation that shows itself in being morphologically simpler than the non-basic one. Many of these authors (e.g. Nichols and Comrie) note a diachronic stability. However, Modern English differs markedly from its Germanic neighbors in having more ambivalent/labile and more transitive verbs. Therefore, in this paper, basic valency changes in the history of English are explored. I argue that Old English already has quite a number of labile verbs. Using an expanded VP shell, I show how changes in morphology affected the argument structure. 1. Terminology and framework Unergative, unaccusative, ergative, inchoative/transitive, change of state, anti-causaitive, etc. Grammatical relations: SAO. (1) a. The ball rolled down the hill. Theme b. I rolled the ball down the hill Agent Theme c. I made him roll the ball. Causer Agent Theme (2) vP ei DP v’ ei initiator v ASPP ei ASP’ ei telic/def ASP VP ei Theme DP V’ ei V AP/PP Result Some questions I am interested in: (3) - Why can unergatives not be used as causatives (e.g. laugh a baby), like burn and boil; why does it need make? (Possible answer: Causer and Agent cannot be together unless make licenses a new position; conflict internal and external cause) 1 - Why are many unergatives denominal and why do they readily take (cognate) Themes? (Possible answer: if the N incorporates to V, the absence of Theme is accounted for) - Why are many unaccusatives deadjectival? (Possible answer: the adjective represents the result and are therefore good for change of state) - Why can unaccusatives causativize using make (I made it fall, although kids say you fell me down, Susie 4, Anne Walton Ramirez p.c.
    [Show full text]
  • Stress Chapter
    Word stress in the languages of the Caucasus1 Lena Borise 1. Introduction Languages of the Caucasus exhibit impressive diversity when it comes to word stress. This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the stress systems in North-West Caucasian (henceforth NWC), Nakh-Dagestanian (ND), and Kartvelian languages, as well as the larger Indo-European (IE) languages of the area, Ossetic and (Eastern) Armenian. For most of these languages, stress facts have only been partially described and analyzed, which raises the question about whether the available data can be used in more theoretically-oriented studies; cf. de Lacy (2014). Instrumental studies are not numerous either. Therefore, the current chapter relies mainly on impressionistic observations, and reflects the state of the art in the study of stress in these languages: there are still more questions than answers. The hope is that the present summary of the existing research can serve as a starting point for future investigations. This chapter is structured as follows. Section 2 describes languages that have free stress placement – i.e., languages in which stress placement is not predicted by phonological or morphological factors. Section 3 describes languages with fixed stress. These categories are not mutually exclusive, however. The classification of stress systems is best thought of as a continuum, with fixed stress and free stress languages as the two extremes, and most languages falling in the space between them. Many languages with fixed stress allow for exceptions based on certain phonological and/or morphological factors, so that often no firm line can be drawn between, e.g., languages with fixed stress that contain numerous morphologically conditioned exceptions (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Mandenkan, 50 | 2013 Transitivity in Bakel Soninke 2
    Mandenkan Bulletin semestriel d’études linguistiques mandé 50 | 2013 Numéro 50 Transitivity in Bakel Soninke La transitivité en soninké de Bakel Транзитивность в сонинке р-на Бакел Denis Creissels and Anna Marie Diagne Electronic version URL: https://journals.openedition.org/mandenkan/211 DOI: 10.4000/mandenkan.211 ISSN: 2104-371X Publisher Llacan UMR 8135 CNRS/Inalco Printed version Date of publication: 1 December 2013 Number of pages: 5-38 ISSN: 0752-5443 Electronic reference Denis Creissels and Anna Marie Diagne, “Transitivity in Bakel Soninke”, Mandenkan [Online], 50 | 2013, Online since 01 December 2013, connection on 08 July 2021. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ mandenkan/211 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/mandenkan.211 This text was automatically generated on 8 July 2021. Les contenus de Mandenkan sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International. Transitivity in Bakel Soninke 1 Transitivity in Bakel Soninke La transitivité en soninké de Bakel Транзитивность в сонинке р-на Бакел Denis Creissels and Anna Marie Diagne AUTHOR'S NOTE Abbreviations ANTIP = antipassive CAUS = causative CMP = completive D = determination marker DEM = demonstrative DET = detransitivization marker GER = gerundive FOC = focalization marker IMPER = imperative INTR = intransitive LOCCOP = locative copula LOCCOPF = locative copula in focalization context NEG = negative OBL = oblique This gloss is used for a postposition with a variety of uses that cannot be covered in a satisfying way by a more precise term. PL = plural POS = positive REFL = reflexive SG = singular SUBJ = subjunctive TR = transitive Mandenkan, 50 | 2013 Transitivity in Bakel Soninke 2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Viacheslav A. Chirikba: Abkhaz
    Abkhaz is one of the three languages comprising the Abkhazo­ Adyghean, or West Caucasian branch of North Caucasian linguistic bkhaz family (the other branch being Nakh-Daghestanian, or East Caucasian). Abkhaz is spoken by approximately 100,000 people in the former Soviet Union (mainly in the Republic of Abkhazia, Caucasus), and by at least the same number of speakers in Turkey and some Middle east countries (small Abkhaz colonies can be found also In Western Europe and the USA). Abkhaz is notorious for ist huge consonantal inventory (up to 67 consonants in the Bzyp dialect) and by its minmal vocalic system: only 2 vowels. Though Abkhaz was studied by a number of scholars (e.g. P. Uslar in XIX century, or K. Lomtatidze Viacheslav A. Chirikba in Georgia and G Hewitt in Great Britain), many aspects of Abkhaz grammar (especially its syntax) still have to be adequately described. Abkhaz is the only West Caucasian language to possess the category of grammatical classes, manifested in personal pronouns, verb conjugation, numerals and in the category of number. Abkhaz is an ergative language, the ergative construction being represented not by case endings, as in related Circasslan and Ubykh (Abkhaz does not have a case system), but by the order of actant markers. The verbal root consists usually of one consonant, preceded by a string of prefixes (class-personal, directional, temporal, negational, causatival, etc.) and followed by few suffixes. Verbs can be stative or dynamic, finite or non-finite. The grammatical sketch of Abkhaz includes Information about its phonological system, morphology, and syntax. A short text Is provided with grammatical comments.
    [Show full text]