DOI:10.30842/alp23065737193111149
Khomchenkova I. A. K opisaniyu kontekstov
s CMP-kvantifikatsiyey v Novom Zavete. Acta Linguistica
Petropolitana. 111–149.
In this contribution, I describe the contexts of
CMP-quantification in six books of the New Testament (Gospel of
Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, Gospel of John, Acts of
the Apostles and Revelation of St. John) translated
into seven languages (Ancient Greek, Russian, English, Spanish,
Hill Mari, Udmurt, Ossetic). From the 170 contexts with
CMP-quantification selected after the initial processing, I
excluded examples where the universal quantifier was absent in at
least two languages or where it marked quantification of plural
objects. The remaining 123 contexts were divided into seven groups:
animate collective (‘AnimPl’ including 39 contexts plus 11 contexts
with metaphorical use of spatial nouns), animate singular (‘AnimSg’
with 2 contexts), inanimate singular (‘InanSg’ with 8 contexts),
spatial (‘Space’ with 36 contexts), temporal (‘Time’ with 3
contexts), uncountable abstract (‘UncountAbs’ with 21 contexts),
and other types of uncountable (‘Uncount’ with 3 contexts).
Cross-linguistically, apart from a basic universal quantifier like
the English all, languages can have specialized
CMP-markers or other items like, e.g., the English whole.
In my analysis, I show that non-basic universal quantifiers have
different frequencies in both the contexts and languages analyzed.
For instance, in English, the lexeme whole is attested 28
times, while in Ancient Greek its counterpart is frequent in
‘InanSg’ contexts. However, unlike in Hill Mari, Ancient Greek and
Udmurt, it is quite rare in the ‘Space’, ‘AnimPl’, ‘AnimPl_Loc’
contexts and is totally unattested in the ‘UncountAbs’ group. In
Ossetic, the lexeme ægas shows 26 occurrences, while in
English and Ancient Greek its counterpart is frequent in ‘InanSg’
contexts and is rather rare in ‘AnimPl_Loc’ and ‘Space’ contexts
and is practically absent from ‘AnimPl’ and ‘UncountAbs’ contexts.
Overall, non-basic marking is expected in the ‘AnimSg’ and ‘Time’
groups, but it is rarely used in contexts with uncountable objects
(‘UncountAbs’ and ‘Uncount’).
Keywords
universal quantification, CMP-quantification,
corpus linguistics , parallel corpora, New Testament, Ossetic, Hill
Mari, Udmurt, English, Russian, Spanish, Ancient Greek
References
Alatyrev 1988
V. I. Alatyrev. Etimologicheskiy
slovar udmurtskogo yazyka. Bukvy A, B [Etymological dictionary
of the Udmurt language. Letters A, B]. Izhevsk: Research Institute
under the Council of Ministers of the Udmurt Autonomous Soviet
Socialist Republic, 1988.
Arkadiev, Gerasimov 2012
P. M. Arkadiev, D. V. Gerasimov. O
konstruktsii kholisticheskoy kvantifikatsii v adygeyskom yazyke [On
the construction of holistic quantification in the Adyghe
language]. Vestnik TGPU. 2012. No. 1. P. 22–27.
Bagaev 1965
N. K. Bagaev. Sovremennyy
osetinskiy yazyk. Chast I (fonetika i morfologiya) [Modern
Ossetic. Pt. I (Phonetics and morphology)]. Ordzhonikidze:
North-Ossetian Book Publishing House, 1965.
Bulygina, Shmelev 1988
T. V. Bulygina, A. D. Shmelev.
Mekhanizmy kvantifikatsii v russkom yazyke i semantika
kolichestvennoy otsenki [Quantification mechanisms in Russian and
the semantics of quantification]. N. D. Arutyunova (ed.).
Referentsiya i problemy tekstoobrazovaniya [Reference and
problems of text formation]. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. P. 5–18.
Cysouw, Good 2013
M. Cysouw, J. Good. Languoid,
Doculect, and Glossonym: Formalizing the Notion ‘Language’.
Language Documentation & Conservation. 2013. Vol. 7. P.
331–359.
de Vries 2007
L. de Vries. Some remarks on the use
of Bible translations as parallel texts in linguistic research.
STUF — Language Typology and Universals. 2007. Vol. 60.
No. 2. P. 148–157. DOI: 10.1524/stuf.2007.60.2.148.
GSUJa 1962
P. N. Perevoshchikov. Grammatika
sovremennogo udmurtskogo yazyka: Fonetika I morfologiya
[Grammar of the modern Udmurt language: Phonetics and morphology].
Izhevsk: Udmurt Book Publishing House, 1962.
Haspelmath 1995
M. Haspelmath. Diachronic sources of
‘all’ and ‘every’. E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, B. Partee
(eds.). Quantification in natural languages. Dordrecht:
Kluwer, 1995. P. 363–382. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-2817-1_12.
Heider et al. 2011
P. M. Heider, A. Hatfield, J. Wilson.
Repurposing Bible translations for grammar sketches. Studies in
the Linguistic Sciences: Illinois Working Papers. 2011. P.
51–65.
Keenan, Paperno (eds.) 2012
E. Keenan, D. Paperno (eds.).
Handbook of quantifiers in natural language. Dordrecht;
Heidelberg; London; NY: Springer, 2012. DOI:
10.1007/978-94-007-2681-9.
Khachaturyan 2015
M. Khachaturyan. Grammaire du mano.
Mandenkan. 2015. № 54. P. 1–252.
Konoshenko, this volume
M. B. Konoshenko. Quotatives in
Guinean and Liberian Kpelle: a study of parallel Bible corpora and
non-biblical texts. This volume.
Plungian, this volume
V. A. Plungian. Parallelnyy
korpus kak grammaticheskaya baza dannykh i Novyy Zavet kak
parallelnyy korpus (predisloviye) [The parallel corpus as a
grammar database and the New Testament as a parallel corpus
(Preface)]. This volume.
Savatkova 2008
А. А. Savatkova. Slovar
gornomariyskogo yazyka [Hill Mari dictionary]. Yoshkar-Ola:
Mari Book Publishing House, 2008.
Tatevosov 2002
S. G. Tatevosov. Semantika
sostavlyayushchih imennoy gruppy: kvantornye slova [Semantics
of the constituents of the noun phrase: quantifier words]. Moscow:
Gorky Institute of World Literature, 2002.
Wälchli 2007
B. Wälchli. Advantages and
disadvantages of using parallel texts in typological
investigations. STUF — Language Typology and Universals.
2007. Vol. 60. No. 2. P. 118–134. DOI:
10.1524/stuf.2007.60.2.118.
