Cover not available
Part of
Insubordination
Edited by Nicholas Evans and Honoré Watanabe
[Typological Studies in Language 115] 2016
► pp. 209–246

Chapter 9. Insubordination and the establishment of genealogical relationship across Eurasia

| Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena
In this chapter, I investigate how our understanding of insubordination can add to the establishment of genealogical relationship between languages. The particular case that I deal with here is the longstanding affiliation question of the Transeurasian languages. The term “Transeurasian” refers to a large group of geographically adjacent languages, traditionally known as “Altaic”, that include up to five different linguistic families: Japonic, Koreanic, Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic. Comparing the diachronic developments taking place on two sets of deverbal noun suffixes across these languages, I ultimately derive these suffixes from a neutral deverbal noun suffix proto-Transeurasian *-rA and a resultative deverbal noun suffix proto-Transeurasian *-xA. The comparative evidence indicates that these markers originated as deverbal noun suffixes, marking a derivational process at the lexical level, were then extended to function as (ad)nominalizers in dependent clauses at the syntactic level, and were eventually – through a pragmatic role in discourse – extended still further to mark finite forms in independent clauses. I argue that the sharing of these historical developments on formally corresponding affixes supports the genealogical affinity of the Transeurasian languages.
Published online: 18 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.09rob
References (67)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 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), 23–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Jeffrey. 2006. Towards a typology of the Siberian linguistic area. In Linguistic Areas. Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective, Yaron Matras, April McMahon & Nigel Vincent (eds), 266–300. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Antonov, Anton. 2007. Le rôle des suffixes nominaux en /+rV/ dans l’expression du lieu et de la direction en japonais et l’hypothèse de leur origine “altaïque”. PhD dissertation, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Paris.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2001. Finite vs. non finite languages. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2 [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20], Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1400–1413. Berlin: De GruyterGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William.1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Nominalization in Asian Languages [Typological Studies in Language 96], Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 343–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 3–10.Google Scholar
Erdal, Marcel. 1991. Old Turkic Word Formation: A Functional Approach to the Lexicon [Turcologica 7]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorelova, Liliya M. 2002. Manchu Grammar. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Hermit crabs: Formal renewal of morphology by phonologically mediated affix substitution. Language 74: 728–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechtild. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 1975. Das tschuwaschische Aoristthema. Orientalia Suenica 24: 106–158.Google Scholar
. 1979. Alttürkisch as ‘dissimilierende Sprache’ [Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Geistes-und sozial-wissenschaftliche Klasse 3]. Wiesbaden: SteinerGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Traces of a Turkic copula verb. Turkic Languages 4: 235–238.Google Scholar
. 2002. Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-linguistic Factors [Contributions to the Sociology of Language 86], Mari C. Jones & Edith Esch (eds), 285‒313. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. From the intimate life of Turkic sonorants. Paper presented at the Workshop West Old Turkic: Turkic loanwords in Hungarian , dedicated to Professor András Róna-Tas on the occasion of his 80th birthday. The Szeged Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, March 11–13.
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: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2006. On projecting variation back into a proto-language, with particular attention to Germanic evidence. In Variation and Reconstruction [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 268], Thomas Cravens (ed.), 103–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. A variationist solution to apparent copying across related languages. In Copies Versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, Lars Johanson and Martine Robbeets (eds), 151–164. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Demystifying drift: A variationist account. In Shared Grammaticalization with Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 132], Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 43–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kane, Daniel. 2009. The Kitan Language and Script. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krüger, John. 1961. Chuvash Manual. Introduction, Grammar, Reader and Vocabulary [Uralic and Altaic Series 7]. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1965. Zur Vorgeschichte des germanischen Verbalsystems. Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Volkskunde und Literaturforschung: Wolfgang Steinitz zum 60. Geburtstag, 242–247. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1994. Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Birman languages: Evidence of Sapir’s ‘drift’. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 17(1): 61–80.Google Scholar
Lee, Ki-Mun & Ramsey, Robert. 2011. A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2000. Perfect, evidentiality and related categories in Tungusic languages. In Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, Lars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds), 441–469. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Nominalization / verbalization: Constraining a Typology of Transcategorial Operations. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constraining nominalization: Function/form competition. Linguistics 44(5): 973–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Verbalization and insubordination in Siberian languages. In Shared Grammaticalization with Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 132], Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 177–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1981. Drift, slope, and slant: Background of, and variations upon, a Sapirian theme. Language 57(3): 535–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Samuel Elmo. 1970. Shodon: A dialect of the northern Ryukyus. Journal of the American Oriental Society 90(1): 97–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. The Japanese Language Through Time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. A Reference Grammar of Korean. Tokyo: Tuttle.Google Scholar
. 1996. Consonant Lenition in Korean and the Macro-Altaic Question. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Coming and going: Deictic verbs in Korean and Japanese. In Pathways into Korean Language and Culture: Essays in Honor of Young-Key Kim-Renaud, Sang-Oak Lee & Gregory K. Iverson (eds), 373–381. Seoul: Pagijong Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. What do Japanese and Korean have in common? The history of certain grammaticalizations. Korean Linguistics 13: 219–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84(1):69–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Shifting finiteness in nominalization: From definitization to refinitization. In Finiteness and Nominalization [Typological Studies in Language 113], Claudine Chamoreau & Zarina Estrada-Fernández (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor. 1995. Converbs in Evenki. In Converbs in Cross-linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms—Adverbial Participles, Gerunds [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13], Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds), 97–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor V. 1997. Evenki. Descriptive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007. Introduction. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 1–19. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Orlovskaya, M.N. 1999. Yazyk mongolskikh textov XIII-XIV vv. Moscow: Institut vostokovedeniia RAN.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2009. Intensive contact and the copying of paradigms: An Even dialect in contact with Sakha (Yakut). Journal of Language Contact 2: 85–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1998. The covariation of phonology with morphology and syntax: A hopeful history. Linguistic Typology 2: 195–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas. 1954. Grammar of Written Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? [Turcologica 64]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2009. Insubordination in Altaic. Journal of Philology. Ural-Altaic Studies 1: 61–79.Google Scholar
. 2013a. Genealogically motivated grammaticalization. In Shared Grammaticalization with Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 132], Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 147–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. A velar fricative in proto-Transeurasian. In Turcology and Linguistics: Eva Agnes Csato Festschrift, Nurettin Demir, Birsel Karakoç & Astrid Menz (eds), 375–400. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
. 2015. Diachrony of Verb Morphology. Japanese and the Transeurasian Languages [Trends in Linguistics 291]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. The development of finiteness in the Transeurasian languages. Linguistics.
. Forthcomming. Proto-Transeurasian: Where and when? Man in India 95(4): 921-946.
Sárközi, Alice. 2004. Classical Mongolian. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Street, John. 1957. The Language of the Secret History of the Mongols. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert Lawrence. 1993. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander. 2009. A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese. Part 2: Adjectives, Verbs, Adverbs, Conjunctions, Particles, Postpositions [Languages of Asia 8]. Folkestone: Global Oriental.Google Scholar
Weiers, Michael. 1966. Untersuchungen zu einer historischen Grammatik des präklassischen Schriftmongolisch. PhD dissertation, Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn.Google Scholar
Werner, Heinrich. 1997. Die ketische Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Wrona, Janick. 2008. The nominal and adnominal forms in Old Japanese: Consequences for a reconstruction of pre-Old Japanese syntax. In Proto-Japanese. Issues and Prospects [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 294], Bjarke Frellesvig & John Whitman (eds), 193–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Greed, Teija
2018. From perfect to narrative tense. Studies in Language 42:4 ► pp. 923 ff. DOI logo
Robbeets, Martine
2017. The Transeurasian Languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics, ► pp. 586 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.