Cover not available
Part of
On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia
Edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Lindsay J. Whaley
[Studies in Language Companion Series 164] 2014
► pp. 203–220

Areal features of copula sentences in Karaim as spoken in Lithuania

| Uppsala University
The paper deals with copula clauses in Karaim, a highly endangered Kipchak Turkic language spoken in Lithuania. Karaim has been dominated by the non-Turkic (Baltic and Slavic) languages of the area. Though Karaim has acquired many properties not typical of Turkic it has preserved its Turkic morphological inventory to the extent that typical Turkic categories are still marked by genuine Turkic formatives (Csató 2012, 2013). Notwithstanding this remarkable sustainability, the paper demonstrates how selective copying has in many cases changed morphosyntactic properties of the copula clauses. The contact-induced features are analyzed in the Code-Copying Model (Johanson 2002).
Keywords: Code-Copying Model, copula clauses, Karaim, language contact, Turkic
Published online: 17 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.164.07csa
References (12)
References
Csató, Éva Á. 2012. On the sustainability of inflectional morphology. In Copies Versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 371–380. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Modal categories in Karaim: A case of complex contact morphology. In More morphologies. Contributions to the Festival of Languages [Diversitas Linguarum 35], Hitomi Otsuka, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze (eds), 121–131. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (eds). 2001. The Circum-Baltic Languages: Their Typology and Contacts, 2 Vols. [Studies in Language Companion Series 54-55] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, Daphna & Wolter, Lynsey 2008. That is Rosa. Identificational sentences as intensional predication. In Proceedings of SuB12, Atle Grønn (ed.), 226–240. Oslo: ILOS (Institutt for litteratur, områdestudier og europeiske språk).Google Scholar
Higgins, F.R. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars 2002. Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts. London: Curzon.Google Scholar
Kalėdaitė, Violeta 2000. Existential sentences. A contrastive study of English and Lithuanian. PhD dissertation, University of Bergen.
Karakoç, Birsel 2011. A new analysis of non-past copular markers and copular clauses in Karakhanid Turkic. Turkic Languages 15: 171–193.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Robert A. 1993. Polish. In Comrie& Corbett (eds), 686–758.
Stassen, Leon 2001. Nonverbal predication in the Circum-Baltic languages. In Dahl& Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), Vol.2, 569–590.
Timberlake, Alan 1993. Russian. In Comrie & Corbett (eds), 827–886.
Wiemer, Björn 2006. Grammatical evidentiality in Lithuanian: A typological assessment. Baltistica 56(1): 33–49.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Karakoç, Birsel
2019. Predicative possession in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages. In Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia [Studies in Language Companion Series, 206], ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.