Cover not available
Part of
Paradigm Change: In the Transeurasian languages and beyond
Edited by Martine Robbeets and Walter Bisang
[Studies in Language Companion Series 161] 2014
► pp. 1–20

Chapter 1. When paradigms change

 | Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz
 | Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz
Published online: 8 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.161.05rob
References (75)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007a. Typological distinctions in word-formation. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 1–65. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2007b. Grammars in contact. A cross-linguistic perspective. In Grammars in Contact. A Cross-linguistic Typology [Explorations in Linguistic Typology 4], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 1–66. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2013. Areal diffusion and parallelism in drift. Shared grammaticalization patterns. In Shared Grammaticalization with Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 132], Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 23–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew & Corbett, Greville G. 2010. Introduction. Defectiveness: Typology and diachrony. In Defective Paradigms. Missing Forms and What They tell Us, Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett & Dunstan Brown (eds), 1–18. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baskakov, Nikolaj A. 1970. Areal’naja konsolidacija drevnejšich narečij i genetičeskoe rodstvo altajskich jazykov. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 43–53.Google Scholar
. 1974. On the common origin of the categories of person and personal possession in the Altaic Languages. In Researches in Altaic Languages. Papers read at the 14th Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference held in Szeged, August 22–28, 1971, Louis Ligeti (ed.), 7–13. Budapest: Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 1981. Altaiskaja sem’ja jazykov i ee izučenie. Moscow: Nauk.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1997. Evaluative morphology: A search for universals. Studies in Language 21: 533–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beekes, Robert. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1997. Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. In Yearbook of Morphology 1996, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 35–53. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bopp, Franz. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Frankfurt-am-Main: Andreäischen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire, Evans, Bethwyn & Miceli, Luisa. 2008. Morphology and Language History. In Honour of Harold Koch [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 298]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1998. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Poser, William J. 2008. Language Classification. History and Method. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 3–10.Google Scholar
Dybo, Anna & Starostin, George. 2008. In defense of the comparative method, or the end of the Vovin controversy. Aspects of Comparative Linguistics 3: 119–258.Google Scholar
Finch, Roger. 1985. Particles used with the ‘absolutive case’ in the Altaic languages. Journal of Turkish Studies 9: 27–36.Google Scholar
. 1987. Verb classes in the Altaic languages. Sophia Linguistica 26: 41–61.Google Scholar
. 1999. The case system of the Altaic languages. Surugadai University Studies 18: 87–112.Google Scholar
Fox, Anthony. 1995. Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction to Theory and Method. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Frellesvig, Bjarke. 2008. On reconstruction of proto-Japanese and pre-Old Japanese verb inflection. In Proto-Japanese. Issues and Prospects [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 294], Bjarke Frellesvig & John Whitman (eds), 175–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardani, Francesco. 2008. Borrowing of Inflectional Morphemes in Language Contact [Europäische Hochschulschriften 21: Linguistik, Band 320]. Vienna: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gruntov, Il’ja Aleksandrovič. 2002. Rekonstrukcija padežnoj sistemy praaltajskogo jazyka. Padežnye sistemy altajskich jazykov: Opyt diachroničeskoj interpretacii. PhD dissertation, Russian State University for Humanities.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding Morphology. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Hermit crabs: Formal renewal of morphology by phonologically mediated affix substitution. Language 74(4): 728–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itabashi, Yoshizō. 1988. A comparative study of the Old Japanese accusative case suffix wo with the altaic accusative case suffixes. Central Asiatic Journal 32: 193–231.Google Scholar
. 1989. The origin of the Old Japanese prosecutive case suffix yuri . Central Asiatic Journal 33: 47–66.Google Scholar
. 1990. The origin of the Old Japanese accusative case suffix i . Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher Neue Folge 9: 152–173.Google Scholar
. 1991. The origin of the Old Japanese genitive case suffixes *n / nö / na / ŋga and the Old Korean genitive case suffix *i in comparison with Manchu-Tungus, Mongolian, and Old Turkic. Central Asiatic Journal 35: 231–78.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars & Robbeets, Martine. 2010. Introduction. In Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance [Turcologica 78], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 1–5. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2004. Morphological reconstruction. In Morphologie: ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds), 1661–1667. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koch, Harold. 1996. Reconstruction in morphology. In The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds), 218–263. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2003. Morphological reconstruction as an etymological method. In Historical Linguistics 2001: Selected Papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, August 13–17, 2001 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 237], Barry J. Blake & Kate Burridge (eds), 271–291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormušin, Igor Valentinovič. 1984. Sistemy vremen glagola v altajskich jazykach. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1921 [1912]. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Menges, Karl Heinrich. 1960. Morphologische Probleme, I: Zum Genitiv und Accusativ. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1975. Altajische Studien, II: Japanisch und Altajisch[Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 41(3)]. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
. 1984. Korean and Altaic. A preliminary sketch. Central Asiatic Journal 28: 234–295.Google Scholar
Miller, Roy Andrew. 1971. Japanese and the other Altaic Languages. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Altaic origins of the Japanese verb classes. In Bono homini donum. Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 16], Yoël L. Arbeitman (ed.), 815–880. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1982. Japanese evidence for some Altaic denominal verb-stem derivational suffixes. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 36: 391–403.Google Scholar
. 1985. Altaic connections of the Old Japanese negatives. Central Asiatic Journal 31: 35–84.Google Scholar
. 1993. On some petrified case formations in the Altaic languages. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 46: 288–310.Google Scholar
Murayama, Shichirō. 1957. Vergleichende Betrachtung der Kasus-Suffixe im Altjapanischen. In Studia Altaica. Festschrift für Nikolaus Poppe zum 60. Geburtstag am 8 August 1957, Omeljan Pritsak (ed.), 126–131. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nasilov, D.M. 1978. Formy vyraženija sposobov glagol’nogo dejstvija v altajskich jazykov (v svjazi s problemoj glagol’nogo vida). In Problema obščnosti altajskich jazykov, Orest Petrovič Sunik (ed.), 88–178. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1996. The comparative method as heuristic. In The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds), 39–71. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1994. Inflection and derivation. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, R.E. Asher (ed.), 1671–1678. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas. 1960. Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. Teil 1, Vergleichende Lautlehre [Porta Linguarum Orientalium, Neue Serie, 4]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1972. Über einige Verbalstammbildungssuffixe in den altaischen Sprachen. Orientalia Suecana 21: 119–141.Google Scholar
. 1977. On some Altaic case forms. Central Asiatic Journal 21: 55–74.Google Scholar
Ramstedt, Gustaf John. 1952. Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft, II, Formenlehre [Mémoires de la Société finno-ougrienne 104, 2]. Helsinki: Suomalai-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine. 2005. Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? [Turcologica 64]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2007a. How the actional suffix chain connects Japanese to Altaic. Turkic Languages 11(1): 3–58.Google Scholar
. 2007b. The causative-passive in the Trans-Eurasian languages. Turkic Languages 11(2): 235–278.Google Scholar
. 2009. Insubordination in Altaic. Journal of Philology 31. Ural-Altaic Studies 1: 61–79.Google Scholar
. 2010. Transeurasian: Can verbal morphology end the controversy? In Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance [Turcologica 78], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 81–114. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2012. Shared verb morphology in the Transeurasian languages: copy or cognate? In Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology [Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture 2], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 427–446. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Starostin, Sergej, Dybo, Anna & Mudrak, Oleg. 2003. Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Street, John. 1978. Altaic Elements in Old Japanese, Part 2. Ms, Madison.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 93]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert Lawrence. 1996. Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander. 1998. Altaic so far? Migracijske Teme 15: 155–213.Google Scholar
. 2001. Japanese, Korean and Tungusic. Evidence for genetic relationship from verbal morphology. In Altaic Affinities [Proceedings of the 40th meeting of the PIAC, Provo, Utah 1997], David B. Honey & David C. Wright (eds), 183–202. Indiana University: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies.Google Scholar
. 2005. The end of the Altaic controversy. Central Asiatic Journal 49: 71–132.Google Scholar
. 2008. Koreo-Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin [Center for Korean Studies Monograph]. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. New York NI: Publications of the linguistic circle of New York.Google Scholar
Whitman, John Bradford. 2008. The source of the bigrade conjugation and stem shape in pre-Old Japanese. In Proto-Japanese. Issues and Prospects [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 294], Bjarke Frellesvig & John Whitman (eds), 159–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Stolz, Thomas, Nataliya Levkovych & Aina Urdze
2017. Spatial interrogatives. In Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series, 188], ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.