DOCSLIB.ORG

Equative Constructions in World-Wide Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Equative Constructions in World-Wide Perspective View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ZENODO 1 Equative constructions in world-wide perspective Martin Haspelmath & the Leipzig Equative Constructions Team1 Abstract: In this paper, we report on a world-wide study of equative constructions (‘A is as big as B’) in a convenience sample of 119 languages. From earlier work, it has been known that European languages often have equative constructions based on adverbial relative pronouns that otherwise express degree or manner (‘how’, ‘as’), but we find that this type is rare outside Europe. We divide the constructions that we found into six primary types, four of which have closely corresponding types of comparative constructions (‘A is bigger than B’). An equative construction often consists of five components: a comparee (‘A’), a degree-marker (‘as’), a parameter (‘is big’), a standard-marker (‘as’), and a standard (‘B’). Most frequently, the parameter is the main predicate and the equative sense is expressed by a special standard-marker. But many languages also have a degree-marker, so that we get a construction of the English and French type. Another possibility is for the equality sense to be expressed by a transitive ‘equal’ (or ‘reach’) verb, which may be the main predicate or a secondary predicate. And finally, since the equative construction is semantically symmetrical, it is also possible to “unify” the parameter and the standard in the subject position (‘A and B are equally tall’, or ‘A and B are equal in height’). But no language has only a degree-marker, leaving the standard unmarked. Finally, we note some word order correlations. Keywords: equative construction, comparative construction, language typology, areal typology, word order correlation 1. Introduction: Equative constructions This paper examines equative constructions, as illustrated in (1a-c), from a broadly cross-linguistic perspective. Equative constructions express situations in which two referents have a gradable property to the same degree. (1) a. Udihe (Tungusic; Nikolaeva & Tolskaya 2001: 187) Ei mo: xaisi gugda-laŋki-ni tauxi mo:-digi. this tree also high-EQUAT.DG-3SG [that tree-ABL] ‘This tree is as high as that one.’ b. Acehnese (Austronesian; Durie 1985: 221) jih sa=bê caröng ngön=lôn 3SG equal=how.big clever with=1SG ‘He is as clever as I.’ c. Awa Pit (Barbacoan; Curnow 1997: 144) na=watsa=yŋ katsa i 1 This team consists of a student assistant and students of a Leipzig University class on typology: Benedikt Singpiel, Danny Adelhöfer, Heini Arjava, Katarina Berndt, Andreas Domberg, Luise Dorenbusch, Maria Fritzsche, Mirjam Grauli, Tina Gregor, Jakob Hamann, Ulrike Kerrmann, Bettina Klimek, Hanne Köhn, Larissa Kröhnert, Maria Mammen, Sarah Menzel, Sara Mitschke, Lisa Morgenroth, André Müller, Luisa Oswald, Franziska Roß, Susann Schildhauer, Mirjam Schmid, Hermann Sonntag, Hanna Thiele, Anne Wienholz, Saskia Wunder, and Frank Wagner. 2 1SG=like=RESTR big be ‘He is just as big as me.’ Equative constructions are in many ways similar to comparative constructions (like ‘This tree is higher than that one’), which also compare two referents with respect to a gradable property, but where one of the referents has the property to a higher degree.2 But while comparative constructions have been studied quite extensively from a cross- linguistic perspective (e.g. Andersen 1983; Stassen 1985; 2001; 2005; Bobaljik 2012; Stolz 2013), equative constructions are considered much less frequently. The two major previous studies are Haspelmath & Buchholz (1998), which is restricted to European languages, and Henkelmann (2006), who examines 25 languages world-wide. The term equative for these kinds of constructions is fairly old,3 but because few European languages have a special morphological pattern for them, it is much less widely known that comparative, and many descriptive linguists are apparently still unaware of it. In this paper, we report on a study of equative constructions in a world-wide convenience sample of 119 languages. Equative constructions are mentioned much less frequently in descriptive grammars than comparative constructions, and they tend to be studied less thoroughly. Thus, what we are reporting on here is much more preliminary than what could be said about comparative constructions, but we hope that our cross- linguistic study will nevertheless be valuable as a general overview of world-wide diversity, and that it will help language describers come up with more accurate descriptions in the future. Equative constructions are quite varied across languages, but we propose to distinguish six primary types. We identify five key components in an equative construction, as illustrated in (2), using an English and a French example. The six types can be characterized with reference to these five components. (2) 1 2 3 4 5 comparee degree-marker parameter standard-marker standard Kim is [as tall] [as Pat]. Kim est [aussi grand] [que Pat]. An equative construction must allow a way to express the PARAMETER (component 3, some gradable property concept word, usually called adjective), the COMPAREE (component 1, the first referent to be compared), and the STANDARD (component 5, the other referent to which the first referent is compared). In addition, equative constructions typically also have an EQUATIVE STANDARD- MARKER (component 4), i.e. a marker that is closely associated with the standard, and often they also include an EQUATIVE DEGREE-MARKER (component 2), a marker that is 2 Equative constructions are sometimes called “comparative constructions of equality”, and comparative constructions are sometimes called “comparative constructions of inequality”. 3 The term equative (German Äquativ) was coined in the 19th century for equative degree constructions in the Celtic languages such as Old Irish demn-ithir ‘as reliable (as)’ (from demin ‘reliable’), and was also used early for the Turkic languages. Its use in a typological context hardly predates Haspelmath & Buchholz (1998). Note that the term equative is also used in a totally different sense, for EQUATIONAL constructions (e.g. ‘Kim is a painter’). 3 closely associated with the parameter and occurs only or primarily in equative constructions or other constructions expressing equality or similar notions.4 We begin in 62 by briefly recapitulating some of the findings of Haspelmath & Buchholz (1998), who noted a particularly close connection between equative and similative constructions in European languages. Then we introduce our primary types (§3) and compare them with the primary types of comparatives (§4), before giving examples of the primary types in §5. In addition to the primary types, languages also resort to strategies that do not readily fall into cross-linguistic types (§6), and some do not seem to have a generally applicable equative construction at all (§7). Nevertheless, in §8 we propose some cross-linguistic generalizations of equative constructions, before concluding in §9. 2. European similatives and equatives based on manner words In quite a few European languages, equative constructions are based on a demonstrative word meaning ‘so’ (a kind of manner deictic expression, cf. König (2014) in this volume) and a relative (often also interrogative) word meaning ‘how’ (see Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998: 317). The demonstrative functions as a degree-marker, and the relative as a standard-marker. Some examples are given in (3), where the demonstrative and the relative are highlighted by boldface (the sentences are from their questionnaire data). (3) a. Latin Claudia tam docta est quam Julius. Claudia [so learned] is [how Julius] ‘Claudia is as learned as Julius.’ b. Modern Greek I adhelfí mu íne tóso ómorfi óso kj esí. the sister my is so pretty how also you ‘My sister is as pretty as you. c. Slovene Moja sestra je tako čedna kot ti. my sister is so pretty how you ‘My sister is as pretty as you.’ d. Georgian Čemi da isetive lamazi-a rogorc šen. my sister so pretty-is how you ‘My sister is as pretty as you.’ Such demonstrative-relative expressions are also called CORRELATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS, and they seem to be characteristic of the European linguistic area (Haspelmath 2001), in particular of Romance, Germanic, Slavic and Balkan languages. This was hypothesized by Haspelmath & Buchholz on the basis of the fact that western, 4 Haspelmath & Buchholz (1998) called this “parameter marker”, but degree-marker (cf. Ultan 1972 for this term) is more transparent and is preferred here. 4 eastern and southern European fringe languages (Celtic, Maltese, Caucasian) were not found to exhibit this pattern. In general, our world-wide study strongly confirms this earlier hypothesis, as we will see in §5.2 below. However, the correlative patterns are found in one area outside of Europe: in the Indo-Aryan languages, illustrated by (4) from Marathi, where the standard precedes the parameter and the comparee. (4) Marathi (Dhongde & Wali 2009: 226) Lili jitk-i sundər ahi titk-i (sundər) Mini nahi. Lili [as.much-F beautiful] be.PRS [that.much-F (beautiful)] Mini NEG ‘Mini is not as beautiful as Lili.’ In this construction, we have an unreduced correlative relative clause, literally ‘How much Lili is beautiful, so much Mini is not (beautiful).’ The predicate may or may not be repeated – apparently the repetition is not as odd as it would be in English (Mini is as beautiful as Lili is beautiful). European languages also often use a ‘how’ word to express similarity of manner, and the similative marker (‘like something/someone’) is not uncommonly identical to the equative standard marker, as in (5-6). (5) German a. Claudia ist so gelehrt wie Julius. Claudia is so learned how Julius ‘Claudia is as learned as Julius.’ b. Claudia schwimmt wie ein Fisch. Claudia swims like a fish ‘Claudia swims like a fish.’ (6) Russian a. Kostja takoj umnyj kak ego sestra. Kostya [so smart] [as his sister] ‘Kostya is as smart as his sister.’ b. Kostja plavaet kak ryba.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • II Levels of Language
    II Levels of language 1 Phonetics and phonology 1.1 Characterising articulations 1.1.1 Consonants 1.1.2 Vowels 1.2 Phonotactics 1.3 Syllable structure 1.4 Prosody 1.5 Writing and sound 2 Morphology 2.1 Word, morpheme and allomorph 2.1.1 Various types of morphemes 2.2 Word classes 2.3 Inflectional morphology 2.3.1 Other types of inflection 2.3.2 Status of inflectional morphology 2.4 Derivational morphology 2.4.1 Types of word formation 2.4.2 Further issues in word formation 2.4.3 The mixed lexicon 2.4.4 Phonological processes in word formation 3 Lexicology 3.1 Awareness of the lexicon 3.2 Terms and distinctions 3.3 Word fields 3.4 Lexicological processes in English 3.5 Questions of style 4 Syntax 4.1 The nature of linguistic theory 4.2 Why analyse sentence structure? 4.2.1 Acquisition of syntax 4.2.2 Sentence production 4.3 The structure of clauses and sentences 4.3.1 Form and function 4.3.2 Arguments and complements 4.3.3 Thematic roles in sentences 4.3.4 Traces 4.3.5 Empty categories 4.3.6 Similarities in patterning Raymond Hickey Levels of language Page 2 of 115 4.4 Sentence analysis 4.4.1 Phrase structure grammar 4.4.2 The concept of ‘generation’ 4.4.3 Surface ambiguity 4.4.4 Impossible sentences 4.5 The study of syntax 4.5.1 The early model of generative grammar 4.5.2 The standard theory 4.5.3 EST and REST 4.5.4 X-bar theory 4.5.5 Government and binding theory 4.5.6 Universal grammar 4.5.7 Modular organisation of language 4.5.8 The minimalist program 5 Semantics 5.1 The meaning of ‘meaning’ 5.1.1 Presupposition and entailment 5.2
    [Show full text]
  • A Grammar of Mantauran (Rukai)
    Was I that lucky? Elizabeth Zeitoun（齊莉莎） Academia Sinica 2017/06/03 1 Fieldwork A schematic overview 2 1991‐1992 1991‐ 2005‐ 1992‐ 2013‐ Languages studied for the past 26 years 3 1991‐1992 1991‐ 2005‐ 1992‐ 2013‐ Languages studied for the past 26 years 4 1991‐1992 1991‐ 2005‐ 1992‐ 2013‐ Languages studied for the past 26 years 5 1991‐1992 1991‐ 2005‐ 1992‐ 2013‐ Languages studied for the past 26 years 6 Why not start with the Wu Dah‐you award? 2004 The dynamic/stative dichotomy in Formosan languages (Zeitoun & Huang 2000) 7 The dynamic/stative distinction •My first major paper was Zeitoun & Huang (2000) where we showed that the Formosan languages exhibit a pervasive distinction between dynamic and stative verbs. • Stative verbs are marked by Ø or ma‐ and in other contexts, these same verbs are marked by ka‐ (e.g. when marked as negative, imperative, causative, irrealis, and/or nominalized). •Conversely, dynamic verbs are marked by M‐ or Ø and in other contexts, these same verbs are unmarked (e.g. when marked as negative, imperative, causative, irrealis, and/or nominalized). Verb type Indicative AV form Alternant form –Basic Stem (negated or affixed) Dynamic /M/ Ø Ø Stative Ø ka‐ ma‐ 8 Twice awarded the MOST Outstanding Research Award: Ups and downs 2010 9 Rukai The Wanshan village （萬山村）in 1992, at the time when I carried my first fieldwork there • Rukai includes six main dialects: Tanan, Labuan, Budai, Maga, Tona and Mantauran. 10 Rukai http://www.wretch.cc/blog/maler3733 •In August 1992, as I was just starting working as a research assistant at Academia Sinica, I was asked by Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Transparency in Language a Typological Study
    Transparency in language A typological study Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6111 Trans 10 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration © 2011: Sanne Leufkens – image from the performance ‘Celebration’ ISBN: 978-94-6093-162-8 NUR 616 Copyright © 2015: Sterre Leufkens. All rights reserved. Transparency in language A typological study ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op vrijdag 23 januari 2015, te 10.00 uur door Sterre Cécile Leufkens geboren te Delft Promotiecommissie Promotor: Prof. dr. P.C. Hengeveld Copromotor: Dr. N.S.H. Smith Overige leden: Prof. dr. E.O. Aboh Dr. J. Audring Prof. dr. Ö. Dahl Prof. dr. M.E. Keizer Prof. dr. F.P. Weerman Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen i Acknowledgments When I speak about my PhD project, it appears to cover a time-span of four years, in which I performed a number of actions that resulted in this book. In fact, the limits of the project are not so clear. It started when I first heard about linguistics, and it will end when we all stop thinking about transparency, which hopefully will not be the case any time soon. Moreover, even though I might have spent most time and effort to ‘complete’ this project, it is definitely not just my work. Many people have contributed directly or indirectly, by thinking about transparency, or thinking about me.
    [Show full text]
  • Theme’ in English: Their Syntax, Semantics and Discourse Functions
    The Many Types of ‘Theme’ in English: their Syntax, Semantics and Discourse Functions Robin P. Fawcett The Many Types of ‘Theme’ in English: their Syntax, Semantics and Discourse Functions Robin P. Fawcett Emeritus Professor of Linguistics Cardiff University This book is being worked on, intermittently, so please forgive any inconsistencies of numbering, etc. I would be very grateful if you felt able to send me your comments and suggestions for improvements, including improvements in clarity. However, plans for publishing this work in this form in the near future have been shelved, as a result of the decision to focus on three other books: Fawcett forthcoming 2009a, forthcoming 2009b and forthcoming 2010 (for which see the References). The last of these will include material from the descriptive portion of the present work. I still intend to bring this work up to book- publishing standard at some point in the near future. Meanwhile I am happy for it to be used and cited, if you wish. CHANGES TO BE MADE Networks derived from Figure 2 will be added at appropriate points throughout. The figure numbers will be changed to start anew for each chapter. Notes comparing this approach with the networks in Halliday and Matthiessen 2004 and Thompson 2004 will be added (noting Thompson’s use of our term ‘enhanced’). Other possible changes (marked by XXX) will be considered. Perhaps I shall add the ‘fact’ that the word beginning with ‘t’ that was looked up most frequently on dictionary.com in 2005 was ‘theme’! Contents Preface 1 Introduction 1.1 Three
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin of the Celtic Comparative Type Oir Tressa, MW
    170 R. Schmitt 16: offenbar noch nicht erschienen 14. 17: Het'owm Patmic', Patmowt'iwn T'at'arac' [Hethum der Histori­ ker Geschichte der Tataren] / Getum Patmic, Istorija Tatar / Hetum Patmich, History of Tatars, 4°, 1981, [Vlj, 704 S. (T: Ven~tik 1842; ]3: The Origin of the Celtic Comparative Type Olr. tressa, Bambis Asoti Eganyan; 642-691 Wortliste, Namen und Datlerungen em­ MW Jrech 'stronger' scblieBend; 692-702 Namenliste). 18/1-2: Step'anos Taronec'i Asolik, Patmowt'iwn Tiezerakan [Stepha­ The comparison of adjectives in Celtic presents many interesting fea­ nos von Taraun Asolik, Universalgeschichte] / Stepanos TaroneCl AsohIi<, tures 1, Some of these are structural and grammatical, such as the restric­ Obscaja Istorija / Stepanos Taronetsi Asoghik, General History, 8', 1: tion of the comparative to predicative position and the introdnction of a A-E, 1987 15, [IV], 707 S.; 2: m:-M, 1987 15 , [IV], 683 S. (T: S. Peterburg fourth degree of comparison, the equative, beside the usual positive, 1885; B: Valarsak Arzowmani K 'osyan; I 658-666, II 638-645 Namenhste; comparative and superlative. But there are purely formal peculiarities as 1667-706, II 646--682 Wortliste)15. well. Irregularly compared adjectives are synchronically very conspicuous 19/1-2: Frik, Banastelcowt'yownner [Frik, Gedichte] / Frik, Stihotvo­ in Old Irish and Middle Welsh, and many of the individual irregularities renija / Frik, Poems, 8°,1: A-K, 1986, [IV], 598 S.; 2: H-F, 1987,482 S. that they display are also puzzling from a diachronic point of view. A case (T: Erevan 1941; B: DSxowhi Sowreni Movsisyan; R: Alek'sandr S~mom in point is the Old Irish comparative ending in -a, the origin of which has Margaryan; I 563, II 449 Namenliste; I 564-597, II 450-481 Worthste).
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Sumerian Grammar
    INTRODUCTION TO SUMERIAN GRAMMAR DANIEL A FOXVOG LECTURER IN ASSYRIOLOGY (RETIRED) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY Revised September 2008 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 THE SUMERIAN WRITING SYSTEM 4 TABLE OF SYLLABIC SIGN VALUES 16 PHONOLOGY 18 NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES 23 THE NOMINAL CHAIN 28 PRONOUNS AND DEMONSTRATIVES 31 SUMMARY OF PERSONAL PRONOUN FORMS 38 THE ADNOMINAL CASES: GENITIVE AND EQUATIVE 39 THE COPULA 46 ADVERBS AND NUMERALS 51 THE ADVERBAL CASES 54 INTRODUCTION TO THE VERB 61 DIMENSIONAL PREFIXES 1: INTRODUCTION 69 DIMENSIONAL PREFIXES 2: DATIVE 73 DIMENSIONAL PREFIXES 3: COMITATIVE, ABLATIVE-INSTRUMENTAL, TERMINATIVE 78 CORE PREFIXES: ERGATIVE, LOCATIVE-TERMINATIVE, LOCATIVE 83 THE VENTIVE ELEMENT 90 RELATIVE CLAUSES: THE NOMINALIZING SUFFIX -a 95 PREFORMATIVES (MODAL PREFIXES) 102 THE IMPERATIVE 109 IMPERFECTIVE FINITE VERBS 117 PARTICIPLES AND THE INFINITIVE 127 APPENDIX: CHART OF VERBAL PREFIX CHAIN ELEMENTS 150 INDEX 151 EXERCISES 152 2 INTRODUCTION Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem William of Ockham This grammar is intended primarily for use in the first year of university study under the guidance of a teacher who can describe the classic problems in greater detail, add current alternative explanations for phenomena, help the student parse and understand the many textual illustrations found throughout, and provide supplementary information about the history of the language and the culture of early Mesopotamia. A few exercises have been provided to accompany study of the lessons, some artificial, others drawn from actual texts. Both require vocabulary lookup from the companion Elementary Sumerian Glossary or its equivalent. Upon completing this introduction, the student will be well prepared to progress to sign learning and reading of texts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of German Wie in Equative Comparison (Follow-Up of the Project Expressing Similarity, UM 100/1-1)
    Beschreibung des Vorhabens / Project Description The meaning of German wie in equative comparison (follow-up of the project Expressing similarity, UM 100/1-1) Carla Umbach Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin Institut für deutsche Sprache und Literatur (ISDL I), Universität Köln Februar 2016 1 State of the art and preliminary work1 Introduction The topic of this proposal is the meaning of German wie in equative comparison including scalar as well as non-scalar cases, cf. (1). The semantics of equatives has up to now been studied nearly exclusively from the perspective of the comparative, excluding non-scalar equatives from the analysis. Moreover, the semantics of equatives has been studied nearly exclusively from the perspective of English, which does not suggest a uniform analysis of scalar and non-scalar cases due to their different forms. In German, both scalar and non-scalar equatives are based on wie-clauses thus calling for a uniform analysis. (1) a. Anna ist so groß wie Berta. 'Anna is as tall as Berta.' b. Anna hat so eine Tasse wie Berta. 'Anna has a mug like Berta's. c. Anna hat so getanzt wie Berta. 'Anna danced like Berta.' In this project, a generalized account of German equatives will be developed including scalar as well as non-scalar cases. The core piece of this account is (i) the idea that equatives express similarity, that is, indistinguishability with respect to a given set of features and (ii) that this results from the meaning of the standard marker wie, which is not semantically empty (as assumed in standard degree semantics) but has a meaning of its own.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Markers in Tona Rukai Revisited
    Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 31.2 (December 2005): 1-29 Case Markers in Tona Rukai Revisited: The Distinction between ko and na May Hsiu-mei Wang National Hualien Senior Vocational High School of Commerce This paper aims at reexamining the distinction between the two case markers for common nouns, ko and na, in Tona Rukai, a Formosan language. By studying the corpus established by Zeitoun et al. (2003), this paper argues against the distinction in case and proximity proposed in the literature. Instead, discourse information leads us to propose an anaphoric vs. non-anaphoric distinction.1 Key words: Tona Rukai, Formosan languages, case marker, anaphoric definiteness, discourse, corpus analysis 1. Introduction Rukai is one of the Austronesian languages of Taiwan, commonly referred to as the “Formosan languages”. The Rukai language is distributed in a rather small area in southeastern Taiwan and is spoken by a total population of approximately 10,0002. The language investigated in this paper, Tona, constitutes one of the six major Rukai dialects. It is spoken in the Tona Village (Maolin County, Kaohsiung Prefecture) with a population of about 600. This study is a part of my MA thesis (see Wang 2003). When I started to investigate the usage of NPs in Tona Rukai, the first challenge I encountered was to account for the use and functions of pre-nominal particles, conventionally called “case markers” among Formosanists. Although many studies have focused on case markers from a language-specific or typological perspective (see Zeitoun 1995, 2003, Li 1997a, 1997b and Huang et al. 1998), the distinction that had earlier been reported regarding the two case markers for common nouns, ko and na in Tona Rukai did not completely match my data and was very puzzling.
    [Show full text]
  • Similatives and the Argument Structure of Verbs∗
    Similatives and the argument structure of verbs∗ Jessica Rett May 2012 Abstract I begin with the observation in Haspelmath and Buchholz (1998) that languages tend to use the same morpheme to mark the standard of comparison across equation constructions. In English, it is the morpheme as, in similatives like John danced as Sue (did) and equatives like John is as tall as Sue (is). The first goal of this paper is to provide an analysis of as that accounts for its distribution across these constructions. The second goal of this paper is to provide an account of Haspelmath and Buchholz's second observation, which is that while languages can form equatives with parameter markers (the first as in John is as tall as Sue (is)), languages generally do not form similatives with parameter markers. I suggest that equation constructions are a test for lexicalized argumenthood, i.e. that the equation of a non-lexicalized argument prohibits the presence of a PM, and, for English, vice-versa. This leads to the conclusion that, contrary to recent claims (Pi~n´on2008, Bochnak forthcoming), verbs, unlike adjectives, generally do not lexicalize degree arguments. 1 Introduction This paper has a narrow empirical goal and a broader theoretical goal. The former has to do with several con- structions which form a natural morphological and semantic class across languages: equation constructions, exemplified in (1) and (2) in English. (1) a. John read the same book as Sue. same/different construction b. John is as tall as Sue. equative (2) a. John danced as Sue did. (manner) similative b.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphology and Syntax of Gerunds in Truku Seediq : a Third Function of Austronesian “Voice” Morphology
    MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX OF GERUNDS IN TRUKU SEEDIQ : A THIRD FUNCTION OF AUSTRONESIAN “VOICE” MORPHOLOGY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY IN LINGUISTICS SUMMER 2017 By Mayumi Oiwa-Bungard Dissertation Committee: Robert Blust, chairperson Yuko Otsuka, chairperson Lyle Campbell Shinichiro Fukuda Li Jiang Dedicated to the memory of Yudaw Pisaw, a beloved friend ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my most profound gratitude to the hospitality and generosity of the many members of the Truku community in the Bsngan and the Qowgan villages that I crossed paths with over the years. I’d like to especially acknowledge my consultants, the late 田信德 (Tian Xin-de), 朱玉茹 (Zhu Yu-ru), 戴秋貴 (Dai Qiu-gui), and 林玉 夏 (Lin Yu-xia). Their dedication and passion for the language have been an endless source of inspiration to me. Pastor Dai and Ms. Lin also provided me with what I can call home away from home, and treated me like family. I am hugely indebted to my committee members. I would like to express special thanks to my two co-chairs and mentors, Dr. Robert Blust and Dr. Yuko Otsuka. Dr. Blust encouraged me to apply for the PhD program, when I was ready to leave academia after receiving my Master’s degree. If it wasn’t for the gentle push from such a prominent figure in the field, I would never have seen the potential in myself.
    [Show full text]
  • Kambari Orthography Design
    Kambari Orthography Design Janie P. Stark S+L +nternational 2010 ii S+L e-Books 16 ©2010 S+L +nternational +SBN: 978-1-55671-245-6 +SSN: 1934-2470 Fair Use Policy Books published in the S+L e-Books (S+LEB) series are intended for scholarly research and educational use. You may make copies of these publications for research or instructional purposes free of charge (within fair use guidelines) and without further permission. Republication or commercial use of S+LEB or the documents contained therein is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder(s). Series Editor George Huttar Volume Editor Mary Huttar Managing Editor Bonnie Brown Compositor Karoline Fisher iii DED+CAT+ON To My husband, John, without whom + wouldn’t have finished this book. iv Editor’s Note This work is a slightly revised version of the author’s 2000 Ph.D. dissertation, University of +lorin, Nigeria. Since the initial version of this book was written, many important works on orthography design have appeared (e.g., Handbook of Orthography and Literacy, ed. by R. Malatesha Joshi and P.G. Aaron, Routledge, 2005). Due to circumstances beyond the author’s control none of these recent works are included in the references. The reader should keep in mind that this work describes only one case of writing system development. Several principles of orthography design are discussed in detail. One principle which is left implicit is that community participation is a key factor in the development of an acceptable writing system. v FOREWORD This study deals with designing writing systems: it goes beyond basic principles of orthography development to develop a series of principles intended to guide orthography decisions in situations where the basic principles fall short.
    [Show full text]
  • The Study of Language and Language Acquisition
    1 The Study of Language and Language Acquisition We may regard language as a natural phenomenon—an aspect of his biological nature, to be studied in the same manner as, for instance, his anatomy. Eric H. Lenneberg, Biological Foundations of Language (), p. vii 1.1 The naturalistic approach to language Fundamental to modern linguistics is the view that human language is a natural object: our species-specific ability to acquire a language, our tacit knowledge of the enormous complexity of language, and our capacity to use language in free, appropriate, and infinite ways are attributed to a property of the natural world, our brain. This position needs no defense, if one considers the study of language is an empirical inquiry. It follows, then, as in the study of biological sciences, linguistics aims to identify the abstract properties of the biological object under study—human language—and the mechanisms that govern its organization. This has the goal set in the earliest state- ments on modern linguistics, Chomsky’s The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (). Consider the famous duo: () a. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. b. *Furiously sleep ideas green colorless. Neither sentence has even a remote chance of being encountered in natural discourse, yet every speaker of English can perceive their differences: while they are both meaningless, (a) is grammatically Language Acquisition well formed, whereas (b) is not. To understand what precisely this difference is is to give ‘a rational account of this behavior, i.e., a theory of the speaker’s linguistic intuition . the goal of linguistic theory’ (Chomsky /: )—in other words, a psychology, and ultimately, biology of human language.
    [Show full text]