DOI: 10.30842/alp2306573716224
The aim of this study is to identify valency classes in Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA; < Semitic) varieties spoken in Urmiya, Krasnodar Krai. These varieties’ homelands are in the borderland of the present-day Iran, Turkey and Iraq. NENA speakers settled in Urmiya following several waves of migrations and multiple contacts with other languages (Iranic, Turkic, Russian, etc.).
This study is part of a broad typological project based on a questionnaire comprising 130 bivalent predicates. Language-particular valency classes are identified based on devices employed for encoding two predefined arguments.
In the NENA varieties of Urmiya, the main encoding devices are verb indexing for subjects and (direct) objects and prepositions employed for flagging oblique arguments.
Compared to other languages of Eurasia, including, e.g., Hebrew and Standard Arabic, the NENA varieties of Urmiya display a moderately-sized class of transitive verbs, which is typical of the languages of the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. This class covers a cross-linguistically predictable set of meanings, but displays an unusual pattern of differential object marking, which simultaneously includes optional object agreement and optional flagging by the dative-like preposition ka.
Individual intransitive classes are, by contrast, rather unpredictable in a typological perspective. Unusual features include a systematic ablative-comitative syncretism and idiosyncratic competition between mən and bi in source-like arguments and between ka and +al in goal-like arguments.
Finally, the NENA varieties display valency patterns with an extraposed noun phrase unindexed on the verb. These patterns reflect a transitory stage between discourse-motivated fronting and a nascent type of integrated argument structure.
There is both language-internal and cross-linguistic evidence to the effect that the valency class system in the NENA varieties of Urmiya is in a diachronically unstable state, which arguably reflects multiple contact situations and dialectal diversity.
This study is part of a broad typological project based on a questionnaire comprising 130 bivalent predicates. Language-particular valency classes are identified based on devices employed for encoding two predefined arguments.
In the NENA varieties of Urmiya, the main encoding devices are verb indexing for subjects and (direct) objects and prepositions employed for flagging oblique arguments.
Compared to other languages of Eurasia, including, e.g., Hebrew and Standard Arabic, the NENA varieties of Urmiya display a moderately-sized class of transitive verbs, which is typical of the languages of the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. This class covers a cross-linguistically predictable set of meanings, but displays an unusual pattern of differential object marking, which simultaneously includes optional object agreement and optional flagging by the dative-like preposition ka.
Individual intransitive classes are, by contrast, rather unpredictable in a typological perspective. Unusual features include a systematic ablative-comitative syncretism and idiosyncratic competition between mən and bi in source-like arguments and between ka and +al in goal-like arguments.
Finally, the NENA varieties display valency patterns with an extraposed noun phrase unindexed on the verb. These patterns reflect a transitory stage between discourse-motivated fronting and a nascent type of integrated argument structure.
There is both language-internal and cross-linguistic evidence to the effect that the valency class system in the NENA varieties of Urmiya is in a diachronically unstable state, which arguably reflects multiple contact situations and dialectal diversity.
Authors:
Say S. S.
serjozhka@yahoo.com
S. S. Say
References:
S. A. Agassiyev. Grammatika sovremennogo assiriyskogo yazyka [A grammar of the modern Assyrian language]. St. Petersburg: The Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia Press, 2007.
G. Bossong. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. D. Wanner, D. A. Kibbee (eds.). New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XVIII, Urbana-Campaign, April 7–9, 1988. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1991. P. 143–170.
E. Coghill. Differential object marking in Neo-Aramaic. Linguistics. 2014. Vol. 52 (2). P. 335–364.
B. Comrie. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and morphology (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Ö. Dahl, M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm. Kinship in grammar. I. Baron, M. Herslund, F. Sørensen (eds.). Dimensions of Possession. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001. P. 201–225.
J. de Leeuw, P. Mair. Multidimensional scaling using majorization: SMACOF in R. Journal of Statistical Software. 2009. Vol. 31(3). P. 1–30. Available at: http://www.jstatsoft.org/v31/i03/ (accessed on: 03.08.2020).
D. Dowty. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language. 1991. Vol. 67. P. 547–619.
E. Grossman, A. Witzlack-Makarevich. Valency and transitivity in contact: An overview. Journal of Language Contact. 2019. Vol. 12. P. 1–26.
G. Haig. The grammaticalization of object pronouns: Why differential object indexing is an attractor state. Linguistics. 2018. Vol. 56 (4). P. 781–818.
P. J. Hopper, S. A. Thompson. The iconicity of the universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. J. Haiman (ed.). Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1985. P. 151–183.
G. Iemmolo. Towards a Typological Study of Differential Object Marking and Differential Object Indexation. PhD thesis. Pavia: University of Pavia, 2011.
J. Jie, M. Liang. An animacy hierarchy within inanimate nouns: English corpus evidence from a prototypical perspective. Lingua. 2018. Vol. 205. P. 71–89.
G. Khan. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. Vol. I: Grammar. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008.
G. Khan. 2016. Left dislocation in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus. 2016. Vol. 50. 91–110.
G. Khan. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. Vols. 1—4. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016.
A. K. Lyavdanskiy. Novoarameyskiye yazyki [Neo-Aramaic languages]. A. G. Belova, L. E. Kogan, S. V. Lezov, O. I. Romanova (eds.). Yazyki mira: Semitskiye yazyki. Akkadskiy yazyk. Severozapadnosemitskiye yazyki [Languages of the world. Akkadian language. Northwest Semitic languages]. Moscow: Academia, 2009. P. 660–693.
A. J. Maclean. A Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac. Oxford: Clarendon, 1901.
A. Malchukov. Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: constraining co-variation. L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, P. de Swart (eds.). Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006. P. 329–359.
H. L. Murre-van der Berg. From a Spoken to a Written Language. The Introduction and Development of Literary Urmia Aramaic in the Nineteenth Century. Leiden: Nederlands instituut voor het nabije oosten, 1999.
M. Noonan, E. Mihas. Areal dimensions in case syncretisms: ablatives and genitives. Paper presented at the seventh biennial meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Paris, 2007. Available at: http://crossasia-repository.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/view/themen/T15/2007.html (accessed on: 15.08.2020).
M. Ovsjannikova, E. Zabelina, K. Kozhanov. Non-Urmi North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic varieties in the village of Urmiya, Russia. In preparation.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on: 06.07.2020).
T. Reznikova, E. Rakhilina, A. Bonch-Osmolovskaya. Towards a typology of pain predicates. Linguistics. 2012. Vol. 50 (3). P. 421–465.
I. V. Sarkisov. Differentsirovannoye markirovaniye obyekta v khristianskom urmiyskom dialekte novoarameyskogo yazyka [Differential object marking in the Christian Urmi dialect of the Neo-Aramaic language]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Trudy Instituta lingvisticheskikh issledovaniy. 2017. Vol. XIII. Pt. 3. P. 371–392.
I. V. Sarkisov. K voprosu ob ergativnosti v novoarameyskikh yazykakh [On the problem of ergativity in Neo-Aramaic languages]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Trudy Instituta lingvisticheskikh issledovaniy. Vol. XIV. Pt. 2. P. 380–399.
H. J. Sasse. Syntactic phenomena in the world’s languages I: categories and relations. J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, Th. Vennemann (eds.). Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993. P. 646–686.
S. Say. Bivalent verb classes in the languages of Europe: A quantitative typological study. Language Dynamics and Change. 2014. Vol. 4 (1). P. 116–166.
S. S. Say. Markirovaniye aktantov dvukhmestnykh predikatov: predvaritelnyye itogi tipologicheskogo issledovaniya [Bivalent predicates’ argument encoding: preliminary results of a typological study]. S. S. Say (ed.). Valentnostnyye klassy dvukhmestnykh predikatov v raznostrukturnykh yazykakh [Bivalent verb classes in structurally diverse languages]. St. Petersburg: Institute for Linguistic Studies, 2018. P. 557–616.
S. S. Say (ed.). Valentnostnyye klassy dvukhmestnykh predikatov v raznostrukturnykh yazykakh [Bivalent verb classes in structurally diverse languages]. St. Petersburg: Institute for Linguistic Studies, 2018.
S. Say. Bivalent patterns in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. In: Say, Sergey (ed.). BivalTyp: Typological database of bivalent verbs and their encoding frames. St. Petersburg: Institute for Linguistic Studies, RAS, 2020. (Data first published on August 19, 2020). Available at: https://www.bivaltyp.info (accessed on: 21.09.2020).
S. Say (ed.). BivalTyp: Typological database of bivalent verbs and their encoding frames. St. Petersburg: Institute for Linguistic Studies, RAS, 2020. Available at: https://www.bivaltyp.info (accessed on: 21.09.2020).
S. S. Say, D. V. Gerasimov, S. Yu. Dmitrenko, N. M. Zaika, V. S. Khrakovskiy. Valentnostnyye klassy dvukhmestnykh predikatov: tipologicheskaya anketa i instruktsiya issledovatelyu [Bivalent verb classes: a typological questionnaire and guidelines for researchers]. S. S. Say (ed.). Valentnostnyye klassy dvukhmestnykh predikatov v raznostrukturnykh yazykakh [Bivalent verb classes in structurally diverse languages]. St. Petersburg: Institute for Linguistic Studies, 2018. P. 25–46.
A. Siewierska. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. Folia Linguistica. 1999. Vol. 33 (1/2). P. 225–251.
L. Stassen. Predicative Possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
L. Stassen. Predicative possession. M. S. Dryer, M. Haspelmath, (eds.). The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. Available at: http://wals.info/chapter/117 (accessed on: 03.08.2020)
K. G. Tsereteli. Sovremennyy assiriyskiy yazyk [Modern Assyrian languages]. Moscow: Nauka, 1964.
T. Tsunoda. Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics. 1981. Vol. 19. P. 389–438.
Issue
XVI (2020) 2
Документ