Aina Urdze – författare

This collection of articles takes up the issue of Contact Morphology raised by David Wilkins in 1996. In the majority of contact-related studies, morphology is at best a marginal topic. According to the extant borrowing hierarchies, bound morphology is copied only rarely, if at all, because morphological copies presuppose long-term intensive contact with prior massive borrowing of content words and function words. On the other hand, especially in studies of morphological change, contact is often identified as the decisive factor which triggers the disintegration of morphological systems. However, it remains to be seen whether these two standard treatments of morphology in contact situations exhaust the phenomenology of Contact Morphology. The 14 papers of the present volume shed new light on the behavior of morphology under the conditions of language contact. Fresh empirical data from 40 languages world-wide are presented and new theory-based concepts are discussed. Morphologies in Contact is a first in the history of both morphology and language contact studies. It is meant to mark the beginning of an international research program which explores the entire range of aspects connected to morphologies in contact and thus, paves the way for a full-blown Contact Morphology qua linguistic discipline.

Irregularity is a philological concept which is not adequately defined. The present volume aims to improve the understanding of irregularity within the domain of morphology, relating to inflectional, derivation, and compounding. Studies aim to discover the potential regularity behind irregularities, the fact or hypothesis that regular (sound) change produces irregularity (Sturtevant''s Paradox), the nature of paradigms (esp. suppletion and overabundance), and the interplay of irregular morphology with syntax and pragmatics. Perspectives are synchronic and diachronic. A few studies approach irregularity from the psycholinguistic point of view (issues of memory and acquisition). Languages studied include Latin and its daughter languages French, Catalan and Italian, but also English, German, Greek, Russian, Turkish, Thompson Salish, and the Iroquoian languages. Theories discussed include Canonical Typology, Distributed Morphology, Whole Word Morphology, Minimalism, and the Procedural/Declarative Model.

This is the first book-length functional-typologically inspired crosslinguistic study of comitatives and related categories such as the instrumental. On the basis of data drawn from 400 languages world-wide (covering all major phyla and areas), the authors test and revise a variety of general linguistic hypotheses about the grammar and cognitive foundations of comitatives. Three types of languages are identified according to the morphological treatment of the comitative and its syncretistic association with other concepts. It is shown that the structural behaviour of comitatives is areally biassed and that the languages of Europe tend to diverge from the majority of the world's languages. This has important repercussions for a language-independent definition of the comitative. The supposed conceptual closeness of comitative and instrumental is discussed in some detail and a semantic map of the comitative is put forward. Markedness is the crucial concept for the evaluation of the relation that ties comitatives and instrumentals to each other. In a separate chapter, the diachrony of comitatives is looked into from the perspective of grammaticalisation research. Throughout the book, the argumentation is richly documented by empirical data. The book contains three case-studies of the comitative in Icelandic, Latvian and Maltese - each of which represents one of the three language types identified earlier in the text. For the purpose of comparing the languages of Europe, a chapter is devoted to the analysis of a large parallel literary corpus (covering 64 languages) which reveals that the parameters of genetic affiliation, areal location and typological classification interact in intricate ways when it comes to predicting whether or not two languages of the sample behave similarly as to the use to which they put their comitative morphemes. With a view to determining the degree of similarity between the languages of the European sub-sample, methods of quantitative typology are employed. General linguists with an interest in case, functional typologists, grammaticalisation researchers and experts of markedness issues will value this book as an important contribution to their respective fields of interest.We regret that, due to a PDF problem, the figure on page 111 is partly shown in black. Please find the correct table here.

This is the first book-length functional-typologically inspired crosslinguistic study of comitatives and related categories such as the instrumental. On the basis of data drawn from 400 languages world-wide (covering all major phyla and areas), the authors test and revise a variety of general linguistic hypotheses about the grammar and cognitive foundations of comitatives. Three types of languages are identified according to the morphological treatment of the comitative and its syncretistic association with other concepts. It is shown that the structural behaviour of comitatives is areally biassed and that the languages of Europe tend to diverge from the majority of the world''s languages. This has important repercussions for a language-independent definition of the comitative. The supposed conceptual closeness of comitative and instrumental is discussed in some detail and a semantic map of the comitative is put forward. Markedness is the crucial concept for the evaluation of the relation that ties comitatives and instrumentals to each other. In a separate chapter, the diachrony of comitatives is looked into from the perspective of grammaticalisation research. Throughout the book, the argumentation is richly documented by empirical data. The book contains three case-studies of the comitative in Icelandic, Latvian and Maltese - each of which represents one of the three language types identified earlier in the text. For the purpose of comparing the languages of Europe, a chapter is devoted to the analysis of a large parallel literary corpus (covering 64 languages) which reveals that the parameters of genetic affiliation, areal location and typological classification interact in intricate ways when it comes to predicting whether or not two languages of the sample behave similarly as to the use to which they put their comitative morphemes. With a view to determining the degree of similarity between the languages of the European sub-sample, methods of quantitative typology are employed. General linguists with an interest in case, functional typologists, grammaticalisation researchers and experts of markedness issues will value this book as an important contribution to their respective fields of interest.

We regret that, due to a PDF problem, the figure on page 111 is partly shown in black. Please find the correct table here.

The extant generalizations about the grammar of space rely heavily on the analyses of declarative sentences. There is a need to check whether these generalizations also hold in the domain of interrogation. To this end this book analyzes data from some 450 languages (including non-standard varieties). The focus is on paradigms of spatial interrogatives such as English where, whither and whence and their internal organization. These paradigms are checked for recurrent patterns of morphological mismatches (such as syncretism) and different degrees of complexity (e.g. the number of segments). The data-base consists of a large parallel literary corpus (Le petit prince and translations thereof) which is complemented by further sources of information such as descriptive grammars. The data are analyzed from a synchronic perspective. However, diachronic issues are addressed unsystematically, too. It is shown that the distribution of phenomena which characterize paradigms of spatial interrogatives are subject to areal-linguistic factors. This is the first typological study of spatial interrogatives. It provides new insights for students of the grammar of space, morphological paradigms, and language typology.

The extant generalizations about the grammar of space rely heavily on the analyses of declarative sentences. There is a need to check whether these generalizations also hold in the domain of interrogation. To this end this book analyzes data from some 450 languages (including non-standard varieties). The focus is on paradigms of spatial interrogatives such as English where, whither and whence and their internal organization. These paradigms are checked for recurrent patterns of morphological mismatches (such as syncretism) and different degrees of complexity (e.g. the number of segments). The data-base consists of a large parallel literary corpus (Le petit prince and translations thereof) which is complemented by further sources of information such as descriptive grammars. The data are analyzed from a synchronic perspective. However, diachronic issues are addressed unsystematically, too. It is shown that the distribution of phenomena which characterize paradigms of spatial interrogatives are subject to areal-linguistic factors. This is the first typological study of spatial interrogatives. It provides new insights for students of the grammar of space, morphological paradigms, and language typology.

The extant generalizations about the grammar of space rely heavily on the analyses of declarative sentences. There is a need to check whether these generalizations also hold in the domain of interrogation. To this end this book analyzes data from some 450 languages (including non-standard varieties). The focus is on paradigms of spatial interrogatives such as English where, whither and whence and their internal organization. These paradigms are checked for recurrent patterns of morphological mismatches (such as syncretism) and different degrees of complexity (e.g. the number of segments). The data-base consists of a large parallel literary corpus (Le petit prince and translations thereof) which is complemented by further sources of information such as descriptive grammars. The data are analyzed from a synchronic perspective. However, diachronic issues are addressed unsystematically, too. It is shown that the distribution of phenomena which characterize paradigms of spatial interrogatives are subject to areal-linguistic factors. This is the first typological study of spatial interrogatives. It provides new insights for students of the grammar of space, morphological paradigms, and language typology.

As “reduplication” is a continuously discussed topic in the field of linguistic typology and morphology there is still the need to reach a deeper understanding of reduplicative processes. This volume aims to explore the boundaries of reduplication proper from an outside angle, i.e. by looking into non-prototypical cases which challenge the formal and functional criteria for reduplication proper. The articles selected cover various linguistic areals from Southeast Asia, Africa and Europe. Abbi explores echo formations and reduplicative expressives in Southeast Asia. Anderson presents an in-depth study on various reduplication phenomena in the Munda language family. Nintemann addresses a formal problem of reduplication proper in Bantu languages. Finkbeiner discusses a case of triplication in German, contrasting it with the framework of reduplication. Kallergi & Konstantinidou provide an detailed insight into several kinds of echo formations in Modern Greek, including diachronic aspects. Rozhanskiy’s focus is on unexpected reduplicative patterns found in the formation of Komi ideophones. Stolz delivers a thorough crosslinguistic investigation on reduplicative phenomena, favouring the canonical approach over the prototype method.

As “reduplication” is a continuously discussed topic in the field of linguistic typology and morphology there is still the need to reach a deeper understanding of reduplicative processes. This volume aims to explore the boundaries of reduplication proper from an outside angle, i.e. by looking into non-prototypical cases which challenge the formal and functional criteria for reduplication proper. The articles selected cover various linguistic areals from Southeast Asia, Africa and Europe. Abbi explores echo formations and reduplicative expressives in Southeast Asia. Anderson presents an in-depth study on various reduplication phenomena in the Munda language family. Nintemann addresses a formal problem of reduplication proper in Bantu languages. Finkbeiner discusses a case of triplication in German, contrasting it with the framework of reduplication. Kallergi & Konstantinidou provide an detailed insight into several kinds of echo formations in Modern Greek, including diachronic aspects. Rozhanskiy’s focus is on unexpected reduplicative patterns found in the formation of Komi ideophones. Stolz delivers a thorough crosslinguistic investigation on reduplicative phenomena, favouring the canonical approach over the prototype method.