| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- ben-Aaron, Diana, et al.
(författare)
-
Field guide to mailing lists
- 2000
-
Ingår i: Pragmatics, Ideology and Contacts Bulletin. ; 5, s. 50-56
-
Recension (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
- Di Garbo, Francesca, 1983-, et al.
(författare)
-
The evolving complexity of gender agreement systems
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Grammatical gender and linguistic complexity. - Berlin : Language Science Press. - 9783961101818 - 9783961101801 ; , s. 15-60
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper proposes to integrate the diachronic dimension to the typological study of gender complexity, and focuses on the morphosyntactic encoding of gender distinctions via agreement patterns. After investigating the processes of language change that foster the reduction, loss, expansion and emergence of gender agreement in a sample of fifteen sets of closely related languages (N= 36 languages), we discuss how gender agreement systems in decline and on the rise pattern in terms of complexity. We show that declining and emerging gender agreement systems may exhibit increase or decrease in complexity and discuss how this relates to the fact that they represent transitional stages between absence of gender and full-fledged gender systems. In our analysis, we make use of typological implicational hierarchies in the domain of agreement as a tool to account for diachronic variation and for the patterns of simplification/complexification in the agreement systems of the sampled languages.
|
|
| 4. |
- Karlsson, Fred, et al.
(författare)
-
Introduction : The problem of language complexity
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Language complexity. - Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing Company. - 9789027231048 ; , s. vii-xiv
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, 1957-, et al.
(författare)
-
A cross-linguistic study of lexical and derived antonymy
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Linguistics. - 0024-3949 .- 1613-396X.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Antonymy is the lexical relation of opposition. The nature of the oppositeness may differ - e.g., contradictory ('true'-'false') or gradable ('tall'-'short') - and there may be variation as to the relationship in their formal encoding, whether the antonyms are expressed as distinct lexical forms (e.g., true vs. false) or if one form is derived from the other (e.g., true vs. untrue). We investigate the relationship between the two members of 37 antonym pairs across 55 spoken languages in order to see whether there are patterns in how antonymy is expressed and which of the two antonym members is more likely to be derived from the other. We find great variation in the extent to which languages use derivation (labeled neg-constructed forms) as an antonym-formation strategy. However, when we do find a derived form, this tends to target the member of the pair that is either lower in valence (positive vs. negative) or magnitude (more vs. less), in line with our hypotheses. We also find that antonyms that belong to a core set of property concepts are more likely to encode antonyms as distinct lexical forms, whereas peripheral property concepts are relatively more likely to encode the antonyms with derived forms.
|
|
| 8. |
- Koptjevskaja Tamm, Maria, 1957-, et al.
(författare)
-
Antonyms and derivational negation : a pilot study of cross-linguistic variation
- 2015
-
Ingår i: ALT 2015. - Albuquerque : University of New Mexico. ; , s. 85-86
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Typological research on negation has mainly focused on clausal negation and on indefinite pronouns in the scope of negation (see Miestamo 2007 for an overview). Derivational affixes expressing negation (e.g., un- in unhappy or -less in powerless), have so far not figured in systematic typological studies. Zimmer's (1964) seminal study of affixal negation with adjectives is mainly restricted to a few well-known Indo-European languages; other families are given less attention. Semantically, derivational negation is closely connected to antonymy, which can be expressed by unrelated lexemes (lexical antonyms: small vs. big) or by means of overt derivational negation (morphological antonyms: happy vs. unhappy). Lexical and morphological antonymy do not necessarily exclude each other. E.g., Russian has regular triads of the kind bol’šoj ‘big’ – malen’kij ‘little’ – nebol’šoj ‘NEG.big’, and even tetrads, such as dobryj ‘kind’ – zloj ‘mean’ – nedobryj ‘NEG.kind’ – nezloj ‘NEG.mean’. Antonymy has been a popular topic in semantic theories and in logic (see Horn 2001). A central distinction is the one between contradictory vs. contrary opposites; the former are either–or (dead vs. alive), whereas the latter show a middle ground between the two poles (small vs. big). It has been suggested that languages have “canonical antonyms”, i.e. “a limited core of highly opposable couplings” (speed: slow/fast, luminosity: dark/light, strength: weak/strong, size small/large, width: narrow/wide, merit bad/good and thickness thin/thick) (Paradis & al. 2009). However, systematic typological studies of antonymy are lacking. This talk presents a cross-linguistic pilot study of antonymy and its expression by both lexical and overt morphological means. Our pilot sample includes 20 languages from different families and geographical areas. The data come from dictionaries and grammars as well as from a questionnaire sent to language experts. We focus on antonymy in property words (adjectives), more specifically in such forms that can be used as adnominal modifiers, with the goal to find correlations between semantic and formal properties of antonyms. From the formal point of view, we will pay attention to the type of marking (e.g., prefix vs. suffix), to the number of different derivational negators in a language, whether these markers can be used on other word classes than property words and how they are related to other negative markers in the language, primarily to clausal negation. Taking in semantics, we will observe what types of opposition (contrary vs. contradictory, scalar vs. non-scalar etc.) and which domains (evaluation, size, dimension, temperature etc.) are expressed by lexical antonyms vs. each attested type of overt morphological marking. Specific hypotheses to be tested against the cross-linguistic data include the following. Evaluatively positive members of an antonym pair are more likely to accept morphological negation (unclever vs. *unstupid). The existence of a lexical antonym may block the possibility of morphological marking and if triads (or tetrads) exist, there will be cross-linguistically recurring ways in which the meanings of the lexical vs. morphological antonyms are related to each other. Morphological antonyms built with elements similar to clausal negators in the language will tend to involve contradictory rather than contrary opposites.
|
|
| 9. |
- Koptjevskaja Tamm, Maria, 1957-, et al.
(författare)
-
Antonyms and word-level negation
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Abstracts. ; , s. 74-74
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Typological research on negation has focused most prominently on standard negation, i.e. the basic negation strategies in declarative clauses, and some work has also been done on other aspects of clausal negation as well as on indefinite pronouns in the scope of negation. Negation at the level of words, i.e., derivational affixes expressing negation as well as case markers with negative semantics, has so far not figured in systematic typological studies, but it has received some attention in theoretical literature on semantics and morphology. Zimmer (1964) discusses “affixal” negation primarily in English and a couple of other Indo-European languages, but also comments on a few non-Indo‐European languages and even suggests some cross‐linguistic generalizations. Subsequent work (e.g., Horn 1989) is similarly restricted in its cross‐linguistic scope. From the semantic point of view, the issue of word‐level negation is closely connected to antonymy. Antonymy and types of opposition have been a popular topic in semantic theories (see Horn 1989), where the central distinction is between contrary and contradictory opposites. The two types differ as to whether they allow a third possibility in-between: contradictory opposites are either–or (dead vs. alive), whereas in contrary opposites there is a middle ground between the two poles (small vs. big). Linguistically, antonyms can be expressed by unrelated lexemes (lexical antonyms) like the examples cited above, or by means of overt negation (happy vs. unhappy, possible vs. impossible). Lexical and morphological antonymy do not necessarily exclude each other. E.g., Russian has regular triads of the kind bol’šoj ‘big’ – malen’kij ‘little’ – nebol’šoj ‘NEG‐big’, and even tetrads, such as dobryj ‘kind’ – zloj ‘mean’ – nedobryj ‘NEG-kind’ – nezloj ‘NEG-mean’. Despite all the attention that antonymy has received from semanticists, work in a broader cross‐linguistic comparative perspective is lacking. This talk presents a pilot study of antonymy and its expression by both lexical and overt morphological means. We will focus on antonymy in property words (adjectives), more specifically in such forms that can be used as adnominal modifiers. Our main interest will be in finding correlations between semantic and formal properties of antonyms. From the formal point of view, we will pay attention to the type of marking (e.g., prefix vs. suffix), to the number of different word-‐level negators in a language, whether these markers can be used on other word classes than property words and how they are related to other negative markers in the language. Taking in semantics, we will observe what types of opposition (contrary vs. contradictory, scalar vs. non-‐scalar etc.)and which domains of property scales (evaluation, size, dimension, temperature etc.) are expressed by lexical antonyms vs. each attested type of overt morphological marking, i.e. whether the linguistic evidence allows us to classify antonyms into cross‐linguistically relevant types. Does the existence of a lexical antonym exclude the possibility of morphological marking? Do the markers exclude one another on the same lexical item? Are there semantic principles governing such blocking effects? Can triads and/or tetrads be found in addition to pairs? Our pilot sample includes 15 languages from different families and geographical areas. The data comes from dictionaries and grammars and, most importantly, from a questionnaire sent to language experts. As this is a pilot study of a domain previously unexplored in language typology, our main goal is to sketch different ways of approaching this intriguing domain from a broader cross-linguistic perspective.
|
|
| 10. |
- Kowalik, Richard, 1989-
(författare)
-
Towards a grammar of spoken South Saami
- 2023
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This thesis is a grammatical description of South Saami, a Uralic language traditionally spoken in central Sweden and Norway. South Saami has today around 500 speakers, many of whom live far from each other. The language has the status of an official language in Norway and is an officially recognized minority language in Sweden. The speakers have been subject to various assimilation policies especially in the previous century. However, in recent times, the language has received substantive support and currently there are a number of revitalization initiatives. The language variety described here is the spoken language of older heritage speakers. Their language may differ from the emerging (written) standard language and contains many features that have not been described previously. This study is the first comprehensive description of South Saami since the 1940s. It is based on fieldwork conducted between 2017 and 2020, resulting in a corpus of 35 hours of recordings. The speakers interviewed for this thesis are functional bilinguals with South Saami and either Norwegian or Swedish. Consequently, the language described here is the product of a long-standing contact with these languages.The description is grounded in Basic Linguistic Theory and covers phonology, morphology and syntax. The phonological analysis presented here is the first modern comprehensive description of the sound system of South Saami together with various phonotactic relations as well as basic analyses of prosody. The part devoted to morphology covers the main word classes and their inflectional patterns. Form-function relationships are also discussed extensively in pertinent chapters. Topics typically related to syntax such as grammatical relations, simple and complex clauses are reviewed in detail. Word formation and two cross-linguistically universal domains such as questions and negation are treated in chapters of their own. The thesis concludes with two texts from the corpus, provided with morphological glossing and translation into English.The analyses presented in the thesis are illustrated by examples from the corpus, and whenever possible by examples that represent naturalistic language. The grammar is descriptive in nature and typologically informed. Comparison to other Saamic languages is provided when necessary, either to show similarities or highlight differences between the languages. Features that characterize South Saami are preaspiration and sonorant devoicing, umlaut and a large vowel inventory in the domain of phonology. The language has generally agglutinative morphology. South Saami has a logophoric pronoun and an optional dual category in verb inflection. The pragmatically neutral word order is SOV. The language uses differential object marking. Furthermore, we observe different clause-initial question particles, an optional copula in non-verbal predications and an optional auxiliary in periphrastic tenses. Similarly to other Uralic languages, South Saami has a negative auxiliary that inflects for person and number. Unlike most other Saamic languages, the negative auxiliary also inflects for tense. Another substantive difference between South Saami and other Saamic languages is the encoding of predicative possession by a non-verbal construction where the possessor is indicated by genitive marking. However, predicative possession in South Saami can be also encoded by the transitive verb utnedh ‘have’, which is similar to the encoding of predicative possession in other Saamic languages.
|
|
