DOCSLIB.ORG

Console XXVII: Proceedings of the 27Th Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (21–23 February 2019, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Console XXVII: Proceedings of the 27Th Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (21–23 February 2019, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin) Proceedings of ConSOLE ConSOLE XXVII: Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (21–23 February 2019, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) Edited by Astrid van Alem Mirella De Sisto Elisabeth J. Kerr Joanna Wall Published by Leiden University Centre for Linguistics 2019 Contents Sara Cañas Peña The marking of polar interrogatives in Catalan Sign Language. A first attempt to solve the puzzle 1 Jordan Chark Verbal number driven suppletion in Georgian 17 Kim Fuellenbach & Susan A. Gelman Generic and non-generic interpretations for singular and plural subjects. Experimental studies on genericity 38 Ruoan Wang & Takanobu Nakamura Japanese honorification as nominalization. Taking [HON] out of honorifics 59 Priscilla Lọlá Adénúgà Plural marking with òtúro in Ògè 84 Anastasia Gerasimova Licensing negative polarity items in Russian event nominalizations 106 Josep Ausensi Agent entailments induce manner properties: evidence from verbs of killing 118 Irina Khomchenkova On the syntax of comitative constructions in some Finno-Ugric languages 135 Johannes Mursell & Jennifer Tan Ang-marking and Givenness in Tagalog 150 Shuki Otani On the scope interpretation of a null disjunctive phrase in Japanese 174 Bálint Tóth Arguments for the matching analysis of Hungarian lexically headed relatives 194 Ruoying Zhao Deriving the variation and constraints of the present perfect 215 Kalle Müller Sentence adverbs and theories of secondary meaning. Non-at- issueness and its problems 238 Yan Zhang On stative Mandarin sentences with aspectual marker -le 257 The marking of polar interrogatives in Catalan Sign Language A first attempt to solve the puzzle Sara Canas˜ Pena˜ Polar interrogatives in Catalan Sign Language (LSC) are obligatorily marked with a specific combination of nonmanual marking features and optionally marked with a question particle. Given that, at least, the eyebrow position feature does not remain constant, LSC shows different combinations of nonmanuals to mark this structure. Data points towards an analysis in which each combination of nonmanuals conveys a different bias and a novel feature-based description system would explain and predict that. Therefore, each combination of nonmanuals, as well as the appearance of the question particle, is shown to not only mark sentence type but also to encode pragmatic meaning. 1. The background 1.1. Catalan Sign Language Catalan Sign Language (LSC) is a natural language of gestural-visual modality used by the population of deaf and deaf-blind signing people in Catalonia. LSC is the language in which signers usually interact with people in their immediate family and social environment. The Catalan Federation for the Deaf (FESOCA) estimates that LSC is used by 25.000 signers in Catalonia, 12.000 of them are deaf. Basic word order in LSC is SOV, even though there can be instances of SVO utterances which may be in part due to the influence of other languages. Like all living languages, LSC does not remain isolated and interacts with other sign languages, as well as the spoken languages of the area (Catalan and Spanish). LSC, as any other sign language, fulfills all the possible communicative functions and, as a natural language, possesses some characteristics that make it unique and distinguish it from other languages. Proceedings of ConSOLE XXVII, 2019, 1–16 https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/events/series/sole c Sara Canas˜ Pena˜ 2 Sara Canas˜ Pena˜ 1.2. Polar interrogatives in sign languages All natural languages can ask questions, ergo sign languages can ask questions too. However, the way a sign language user would interpret an utterance as a question and, therefore, would perform a question is quite different from how a spoken language user would do it. Language modality defines the articulators and, thus, the mechanisms a language will use to mark a struc- ture. Sign languages are usually described as “languages of the hands” (Pfau & Quer 2010:381), but this term is not the most accurate. Hands are not the only articulator for sign languages to perform an utterance: nonmanual markers (or nonmanual features) also play a primordial role, since they also encode grammatical information. Nonmanual markers consist of any movement of the upper part of the body, as well as any facial expression that contributes to the meaning of the utterance. Sign language’ mechanisms to signal a polar interrogative can be manual (through a question particle or any other syntactic mechanism that involves the hands) or nonmanual (by any partic- ular combination of nonmanual features: facial expression, head and body movements, eye gaze, etc. but the hands). While manual mechanisms to mark a polar interrogative have been proved to be optional in most sign languages, nonmanual marking turns out to be obligatory (Zeshan 2004). In most of the cases, only the nonmanual features can distinguish a polar interrogative from a declarative sentence. According to Zeshan (2004:19), “nonmanual signals marking polar questions tend to be very similar across signed languages”; and Cecchetto (2012:294) supports the idea: “nonmanual marking in polar questions shows relatively minor variation”. Therefore, polar interrogatives in sign languages involve a combination of several features. (1) Nonmanual marking features described for polar interrogatives: eyebrow raise • eyes wide open • eye contact with the addressee • head forward position • forward body posture (Zeshan 2004; Cecchetto 2012) • Nonmanual marking is also responsible for distinguishing polar interrogatives from WH- interrogatives. Cecchetto (2012) highlights the importance of the “eyebrow raise” feature, con- sidering it as the most salient feature in the structure under study. Eyebrow furrowing is, there- fore, a feature reserved for WH-interrogatives. Nonmanual marking scope typically extends over the whole clause, that means that nonmanual features co-occur with all the manual signs that compound a polar interrogative. Other than nonmanual marking, polar interrogatives can also be marked manually through a question particle. Question particles, however, are optional or “used in particular subtypes of polar interrogatives” (according to Zeshan 2004:21). Be that as it may, question particles always co-occur with nonmanual features. The most preferred position to place a question particle is clause finally (2), although it can sometimes be found clause initially or occurring in both positions.1 (2) Hong Kong Sign Language pol-q INDEX2 SICK QUESTION-PARTICLE ‘Are you sick?’ (Zeshan 2004:35) The marking of polar interrogatives in LSC 3 Any other syntactic mechanism to mark a polar interrogative is also considered optional. Chang- ing constituent order or doubling constituents are not found to be extended mechanisms among sign languages to mark the structure. Still, it has been shown that pronouns tend to be repeated at the end of the clause (3), or directly place it there (4). (3) French Sign Language pol-q INDEX2 STAY HOME INDEX2 ‘Are you staying home?’ (Moody et al. 1983:91) (4) Thai Sign Language pol-q SMOKE INDEX2 ‘Do you smoke?’ (Zeshan 2004:21) 2. The LSC puzzle LSC is not an exception: as previously mentioned for sign languages, LSC uses a specific com- bination of nonmanual features to perform a polar interrogative. Nonmanual markers are an obligatory mechanism to mark this structure in LSC, and, in fact, that is the only mark that discriminates a polar interrogative from a declarative sentence. (5) INDEX2 BREAD EAT ‘You eat bread.’ pol-q (6) INDEX2 BREAD EAT ‘Do you eat bread?’ It has been claimed that LSC most prominent feature for marking polar interrogatives is eyebrow raise (br) (Quer et al. 2005), as can be seen in (7). Further data examination shows, however, that the structure may be performed with a combination of nonmanual features with eyebrow furrowing (bf) as the most salient one, as can be seen in (8). br (7) PARIS CAPITAL FRANCE ‘Is Paris the capital city of France?’ (Canas-Pe˜ na˜ 2015:29) 1Nonmanual markers from examples (2–4) and (6) are simply marked as ‘pol-q’, meaning that a specific combination of nonmanual features is used over those signs to perform the utterance in its respective sign language. 4 Sara Canas˜ Pena˜ bf (8) PARIS CAPITAL FRANCE ‘Is Paris the capital city of France?’ (Canas-Pe˜ na˜ 2015:29) Thus, eyebrow position feature in polar interrogatives is not constant in LSC. Eyebrow furrow- ing, the most prominent feature to mark WH-interrogatives in this language (9), can also be used to mark a polar interrogative. These findings goes against some of the generalizations made so far: eyebrow furrowing is not specific to WH-interrogatives, but, therefore, neither is eyebrow raise to polar interrogatives. bf (9) INDEX2 SLEEP WHERE ‘Where do you sleep?’ Moreover, other nonmanual markings not listed neither in Zeshan (2004) nor in Cecchetto (2012) are found to be used to mark polar interrogatives in LSC, such as ‘squinted eyes’, ‘head upward position’, and ‘backward body posture’. The final list of nonmanual features that can be combined to mark the structure is, consequently, longer for LSC. (10) LSC nonmanual marking features for polar interrogatives: eyebrow raise / eyebrow furrowing • eyes wide open / squinted eyes • eye contact with the addressee • head forward / upward position • forward / backward body posture • In addition, LSC seems to add optionally a question particle, known as the YES-NO Q-sign, positioned at the very end of the utterance: bf (11) INDEX2 PARTY GO (YES-NO) ‘Are you going to the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • |Ohn Benjamins Publishing Company
    |ohn Benjamins Publishing Company This is a contribution {rom h{ood in the Languages of Eurt:pe. Edited by Björn Rothstein and Rolf Thieroff O 2010. )ohn Benjamins Publishing Cornpany This electronic hle may not be altered in any rval'. The author(s) of this article islare permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by rvay of ofprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted bv the publishers to post this file on a closed server rvhich is accessible to members (str.rdents aird staff) orrly of the author's/s'institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet. For any other use of this material prior ivritten pernrission s}rould be obtained fr:om the publishers or througlt the Copy.right Cleararrce Center (Ibr USA: wnrt-.copyT ight.corn). Please contact [email protected] or consuit our rvebsite: wwir'.beniamins.com Tables of Contents, ahstracts and guidelirles are available at rmv'.benjamins.com Mood 1n Modern Georgian* Winfried Boeder Oldenburg r. Introduction Ceor:gian is one of the Karl-r,elian (South Caucasian) langtiages which ar:e spoken in a relatively compact area to tl're south of the Caucasus ridge rvhere (as tär as lve knou') the,v have alwa,ys been in conlact lvith each other: Georgian in the easl, Megrelian (or Min- greiian) in the rvest and Svan in the north-western mountains of Georgia; Laz is mainly spoken in an area ad;'acent to the Black Sea between'liabzon and Baturni. Only Georgian has a long-standing 1500 year old rvritten tradition.
    [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]
  • Aorist and Pseudo-Aorist for Svan Atelic Verbs — K. Tuite 0. Introduction. the Kartvelian Or South Caucasian Family Comprises
    Aorist and pseudo-aorist for Svan atelic verbs — K. Tuite 0. Introduction. The Kartvelian or South Caucasian family comprises three languages: Georgian, which has been attested in documents going back to the 5th century, Zan (or Laz-Mingrelian) and Svan. In the case of Zan and Svan, there is almost no documentation going back beyond the mid-19th century. There is a concensus among experts that Svan is the outlying member of the family, whose family tree would be as in this diagram: COMMON KARTVELIAN COMMON GEORGIAN-ZAN PREHISTORIC SVAN GEORGIAN ZAN MINGRELIAN LAZ Upper Bal Lower Bal Lashx Lent’ex (Upper Svan dialects) (Lower Svan dialects) In this paper I will look at one segment of the formal system in Svan — in particular, in the more conservative Upper Svan dialects — for coding aspect. In this introductory section I will go over the system of what Kartvelologists term “screeves” (sets of verb forms differing only in person and number), and then the classification of verbs by lexical aspect with which the morphological facts will be compared. 0.1. Screeves and series. In the morphology of verbs in each of the Kartvelian languages, one of the fundamental distinctions is between verb forms derived from the SERIES I OR “PRESENT-SERIES” stem, and forms derived from the SERIES II OR “AORIST-SERIES” stem. We will not go into all of the formal differences between these two stems for the various groups of verbs in each language, save to note that for most verbs the Series I stem contains a suffix (the “series marker” or “present/future stem formant”) which does not appear in Series II forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Volume 1 Versita Discipline: Language, Literature
    Edited by: Nikolaos Lavidas Thomaï Alexiou Areti-Maria Sougari Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Volume 1 Versita Discipline: Language, Literature Managing Editor: Anna Borowska Language Editor: Edgar Joycey Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 20th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (April 1-3, 2011) / Edited by: Nikolaos Lavidas, Thomaï Alexiou & Areti-Maria Sougari. Published by Versita, Versita Ltd, 78 York Street, London W1H 1DP, Great Britain. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 license, which means that the text may be used for non-commercial purposes, provided credit is given to the author. Copyright © 2013 Selection and editorial matter: Nikolaos Lavidas, ThomaÏ Alexiou, Areti-Maria Sougari; individual contributors, their contributions. ISBN (paperback): 978-83-7656-074-8 ISBN (hardcover): 978-83-7656-075-5 ISBN (for electronic copy): 978-83-7656-076-2 Managing Editor: Anna Borowska Language Editor: Edgar Joycey www.versita.com Cover illustration: © Istockphoto.com/skvoor Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics contains 80 papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics by prominent and young researchers, representing a large variety of topics, dealing with virtually all domains and frameworks of modern Linguistics. These papers were originally presented at the 20th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in April
    [Show full text]
  • Ročník 68, 2017
    2 ROČNÍK 68, 2017 JAZYKOVEDNÝ ČASOPIS ________________________________________________________________VEDEcKÝ ČASOPIS PrE OtáZKY tEórIE JAZYKA JOUrNAL Of LINGUIStIcS ScIENtIfIc JOUrNAL fOr thE thEOrY Of LANGUAGE ________________________________________________________________ hlavná redaktorka/Editor-in-chief: doc. Mgr. Gabriela Múcsková, PhD. Výkonní redaktori/Managing Editors: PhDr. Ingrid Hrubaničová, PhD., Mgr. Miroslav Zumrík, PhD. redakčná rada/Editorial Board: doc. PhDr. Ján Bosák, CSc. (Bratislava), PhDr. Klára Buzássyová, CSc. (Bratislava), prof. PhDr. Juraj Dolník, DrSc. (Bratislava), PhDr. Ingrid Hrubaničová, PhD. (Bra tislava), Doc. Mgr. Martina Ivanová, PhD. (Prešov), Mgr. Nicol Janočková, PhD. (Bratislava), Mgr. Alexandra Jarošová, CSc. (Bratislava), prof. PaedDr. Jana Kesselová, CSc. (Prešov), PhDr. Ľubor Králik, CSc. (Bratislava), PhDr. Viktor Krupa, DrSc. (Bratislava), doc. Mgr. Gabriela Múcsková, PhD. (Bratislava), Univ. Prof. Mag. Dr. Ste- fan Michael Newerkla (Viedeň – Rakúsko), Associate Prof. Mark Richard Lauersdorf, Ph.D. (Kentucky – USA), doc. Mgr. Martin Ološtiak, PhD. (Prešov), prof. PhDr. Slavomír Ondrejovič, DrSc. (Bratislava), prof. PaedDr. Vladimír Patráš, CSc. (Banská Bystrica), prof. PhDr. Ján Sabol, DrSc. (Košice), prof. PhDr. Juraj Vaňko, CSc. (Nitra), Mgr. Miroslav Zumrík, PhD. prof. PhDr. Pavol Žigo, CSc. (Bratislava). technický_______________________________________________________________ redaktor/technical editor: Mgr. Vladimír Radik Vydáva/Published by: Jazykovedný ústav Ľudovíta Štúra Slovenskej
    [Show full text]
  • The Abkhazia Border Within Russia According to 1989 Census Data and Politicized Linguistic Maps Prof
    Linguistic Situations in Conflict Regions – The Abkhazia Border within Russia according to 1989 Census Data and Politicized Linguistic Maps Prof. Dr. Tariel Putkaradze Before 1993 the majority of the autochthonous population of Abkhazia was Georgians. At the end of the 20th c. official and informal military troops of the Russian Federation expelled 350 000 Georgians and 30 000 Abkhaz from the autonomous republic. Some scholars try to provide the world with such linguistic maps of the site of this linguistic tragedy that suggest there are no and never had been any Georgian-speaking residents in Abkhazia. Below we provide the language situation description in north-west Georgia (We have referred to the official 1989 Soviet Union census data as basis for our argumentation). Keywords: Abkhazia, Linguistic Map, Linguistic Situation Abkhazia was historically a part of Georgia. Ten centuries ago it acted as a leading region for the development of the Georgian language spoken in united Georgia (Sakartvelo). Before 1993 the majority of the autochthonous population of Abkhazia was Georgians. Russia has always been interested in obtaining access to the Black Sea. That is why Russia has always tried to exile Georgians and Russian opponents from the historic territory of Georgia. The first ethnic cleansing took place in 1867 (nearly 40 000 Muslim Abkhazians were expelled in Turkey). The second cleansing occurred at the end of the 20th c. when 350 000 Georgians and 30 000 Abkhazians were driven out of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. The presented problem is described based on the classification of the dialects of Georgians and those within their sphere of linguistic influence: Georgians have one centuries- old literary language – the Georgian/Kartvelian language – and more than ten varieties (dialects).
    [Show full text]
  • The Svan Language. Kevin Tuite Département D'anthropologie
    The Svan language. Kevin Tuite Département d’anthropologie, Université de Montréal PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. This description of the grammar of the Svan language is more than a revised edition of the grammatical sketch I published in 1997. That earlier attempt appeared just as Svan linguistics was entering a new and exciting stage. At the Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics in Tbilisi, a new generation of researchers, many of them native speakers of Svan, were bringing the long-overdue Svan dictionary project to completion, and beginning to explore aspects of the language that had hitherto drawn little or no attention. I cannot adequately express my gratitude to these extraordinary colleagues, without whom this grammatical sketch could never have been written. Their works are cited throughout this grammar, and many of their publications are listed in the bibliography, but there are some whom I wish to thank personally in this preface: Roena Ch’k’adua, Lela Giglemiani, Chato Gujejiani, Rusudan and Xatuna Ioseliani, Ketevan Margiani- Subari, Meri Saghliani, Nato Shavreshiani, and of course, Madame Iza Chant’ladze. Deep thanks as well to my friends in the commune of Lat’ali, for their hospitality, patience, and willingness to let a clueless outsider learn something about daily life in a Svan village: the C’erediani family (Nino, Leri, Levan, Maik’o; their beloved parents Davit and Valia, who alas are no longer with us); also Bagrat Nansq’ani, Madona Chamgeliani, and many other kind residents who have shared their knowledge, food and drink over the years. Among the non-Georgian colleagues who have generously offered their comments and expertise, I wish to acknowledge Winfried Boeder, Jost Gippert, Christine Jourdan; and my students Hélène Gérardin and Jean-François Juneau.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems of Polysynthesis
    9Z Separate from Problems of Polysynthesis Edited by Nicholas Evans and Hans-Jürgen Sasse ISBN 3-05-003732-6 Studia typologica 4 Sprachtypolo gie und Universalienforschung B eihe ft e Language Typology and Universals Supplements Akademie Verlag Berlin 2A02 Syntax and mo{ph,ology of polysynthesis in the Georgian verb' Wrxrzus» BoeDER l. Georgian is one of the almost sixty autochthonous Caucasian languages, and it is the one with the highest number of speakers (3.5 to 3.8 million, depending on whom you count as speakers of Georgian) and with the oldest literary tradition. It should therefore offer us the unique opportunity to study a history of 1,500 years of polysynthesis. But as far as personal verb-marking is concerned, Georgian has been stable over this time, and its related langua- ges,Laz, Mingrelian and Svan, seem to allow the conclusion that Georgian person-marking largely mirrors the system of the South Caucasian or Kartvelian protolanguage. Changes refer to the loss or extension of third person plural object sufflxes and to third person subject suffixes, but not to the subject and object prefixes which I will discuss here. This stabil§ of prefixation over thousands of years is no less remarkable a phenomenon than the better- known "natural" preference for suffixation in other domains of Georgian morphology. The purpose of this paper is to provide a better understanding of verbal agreement in a polysynthetic language like Georgian. After a short outline of verbal morphology (§ 2), I will describe some constraints on the combination of subject and object markers (§ 3), which lead to a reinterpretation of the dummy head noun tav- 'head' which is often described as a reflexive pronoun (§ 4).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Mood in the Book of Genesis (1:3-28): Jussive, Cohortative And
    1 The mood in the book of Genesis (1:3-28): jussive, cohortative and imperative (Georgian, Ossetic, Kumik) Ketevan Gadilia (Moscow, IBT) [email protected]; [email protected] I. The mood is a morphological derivation verbal category. Grammatical mood describes the relationship of a verb with reality and speaker's intent. Many languages express distinctions of mood through morphology by inflecting the form of the verb. Grammatical mood per se is not the same thing as grammatical tense or grammatical aspect, although these concepts are conflated to some degree in many languages, insofar the same word patterns are used to express more than one of these concepts at the same time. The mood is also a grammatical way of expression the modality that is often expressed by the markers of mood. Modality is a syntactic category that conveys various types of relations between the speaker, the recipient (addressee) and the utterance around the situation of the speech. So, the field of meaning of modality in principle coincides with the field of meaning of the mood. In other words, from the semantic point of view mood and modality are not considered as oppositional language phenomenon. The grammatical meaning of the mood assumes obligatory existence of the speaker’s speech that includes not only the fact of action, but its evaluation as desirable, possible, presumable and etc. Thus, the mood conveys speaker’s personal (individual) attitude to the action and reflects various type of attitude of the subject of the speech to the situation of the speech. Plenty of nuances of speaker’s attitude bear the diverse paradigms of the mood in world languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphologization of the Modal Particle in the Kartvelian Languages
    Morphologization of the Modal Particle in the Kartvelian Languages The Kartvelian (South Caucasian) group embraces four languages: Georgian, Svan, Megrelian and Laz. Out of these languages, only Georgian is a written language; Svan, Megrelian and Laz are non- written languages. The Svan language was distinguished from the others at an earlier stage (19th century B.C.), whereas Megrelian and Laz were separated much later (7th century A.D.). The Kartvelian languages are agglutinative, the prefixal and suffixal morphemes preceding and following the root usually perform a single function. The morphological model embraces not only grammatical markers but also obligates, which in morphotactics are conditioned by phonotactic necessity, and modal elements, the grammaticalization (morphemization) of which is not complete yet; such elements are found in the initial sound and final sound of the morphological model and form a kind of carcass; a generalized scheme for Megrelian and Laz without obligates may be represented as follows: PTC:MODn=[AFF-PRV-PRFV-S/O-FV-R-TH-PM-S/O-PL]=PTC:MODn The given paper aims to describe the process of morphologization of a concrete modal particle “unda” on the synchronic level and to carry out historical-comparative analysis of the issue: the ways of desemantization of the modal particle and its transformation into the functional element, the results presented on the synchronic stage of language development. The natural morphonological correlates of unda verb stem: Georgian - u-n-d-a (FV-R-IMP-S3.SG) : Laz - u-n-o-n (FV-R-IMP-S3.SG) : Svan - x-o-n-i (O3-FV-R-S3.SG); the archetype of the root -n can be restored to the level of common Kartvelian proto language.
    [Show full text]
  • The Morphosyntax of Underrepresented Languages
    Texas Linguistic Society IX: The Morphosyntax of Underrepresented Languages Frederick Hoyt, Nikki Seifert, Alexandra Teodorescu, and Jessica White (vol. eds.) and Stephen Wechsler (series ed.) CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE AND INFORMATION Contents 1 Case in Ergative Languages and NP Split-Ergativity 1 Edith Aldridge 2 The Definite Article and Possessive Marking in Amharic 21 Dorothee Beerman and Binyam Ephrem 3 How Universal is the Pragmatic Detachability Scale: Evidence from Texas German Discourse Markers 33 Hans Boas and Hunter Weilbacher 4 Rule Replacement in Ling´ıt (Tlingit): The Imporance of Morphosyntax to Morphophonology 59 Seth Cable 5 Number Marking in Maltese Nouns 79 Karine David 6 A Domain-Based Approach to 2P Clitics in Pashto 89 Ascander Dost 7-ing as an Agreement Marker in African American English: Implications for Acquisition 111 Lisa Green 8 Steal Me an Apple: Version in Georgian 125 Olga Gurevich 9 Denominal Verbs and Noun Incorporation: Uto-Aztecan Evidence of a Unified Syntactic Account 145 Jason D. Haugen 10 The Syntax of Agreement in Bantu Relatives 167 Brent Henderson 11 Numeral Classifiers in Lhiimaqalhqama’ 185 Susan Smythe Kung 12 Argument Binding and Morphology in Chichewa 203 Sam Mchombo 13 Malagasy Instrumental Nominalizations 223 Dimitris Ntelitheos 14 A Reanalysis of Nonemphatic Pronouns in Dagbani 239 Tristan Purvis 15 What Sorani Kurdish Absolute Prepositions Tell Us About Cliticization 265 Pollet Samvelian 16 Appalachian English They-Existentials 287 Erika Troseth 17 Converb Constructions in Darma — A Tibeto-Burman Language 299 Christina M. Willis Case in Ergative Languages and NP Split-Ergativity EDITH ALDRIDGE 1 Introduction A long-standing puzzle in the study of ergative languages is the phenome- non of NP split-ergativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Full Version
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION E ISSN 1512-3146 (ONLINE VERSION) ISSN 1987-9601 (PRINT VERSION) www.multilingualeducation.org EDITORIAL BOARD: Ekaterina Protasova University of Helsinki Finland Olivier Mentz PädagogischeHochschule Freiburg Germany Jost Gippert Johan Wolfgang Goethe-Universitaet Frankfurt Germany Vilija Targamadze Vilnius University Lithuania llze Kangro University of Latvia Latvia Victoria Yashikina Oles Honchar Dnipropetrovsks National University Ukraine Iryna Losyeva Ivan Franko National University of Lviv Ukraine Dmitry Novokhatskiy Crimean University for Humanities Ukraine Natela Imedadze Ilia State University Georgia Ramaz Kurdadze Tbilisi State University Georgia Mzia Tsereteli Tbilisi State University Georgia Rhonda Sofer Gordon Academic College of Education Israel Merab Beridze Samtkhe-Javakheti State University Georgia The journal is published in the framework of the project „Development and Introduction of Multilingual Teacher Education programs at Universities of Georgia and Ukraine" funded by the European Commission TEMPUS program. Project coordinator – Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Publisher - “Center for Civil Integration and Inter-Ethnic Relations” (Address: Georgia, Tbilisi, Tatishvili Str. 19/54) CONTENT Iza Chantladze -Towards the studying of Kodorian Svan speech ....................................................... 1 Maia Lomia, Nino Tchumburidze - Negation and Conditional-Resultative Hypotactic Constructions in the Kartvelian Languages ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]