Article in:
Studies in Language: Online-First Articles

A nonstandard type of affix reordering

The restrictive kə̄n in Ulcha

| Russian Language Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences | National Research University Higher School of Economics
This paper deals with the restrictive (limitative) marker kə̄n ‘only’ in Ulcha (Southern Tungusic). This marker has nontrivial positional features: it can attach before inflectional suffixes (as a derivational affix) or after them (as an enclitic). One might see the process of affix reordering described in Haspelmath (1993) as “externalization of inflection”, when a former clitic becomes a derivational affix. However, there is evidence that the uses of kə̄n after inflection are innovative as compared to those before inflection, not vice versa, and this direction of diachronic development is very unexpected. In this paper, I propose an explanation for this nonstandard reordering pattern and show that in fact it has the same motivation and the same mechanisms as previously reported types of affix reordering.
Keywords: Tungusic, Ulcha, restrictive, affix reordering, externalization of inflection, degrammaticalization
Published online: 08 January 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19070.sto
References

References

Alonso de la Fuente, José A.
2018 Past tenses, diminutives and expressive palatalization: Typology and the limits of internal reconstruction in Tungusic. In Akos B. Apatoczky & Christopher Atwood (eds.), Philology of the grasslands. Essays in Mongolic, Turkic and Tungusic studies, 112–137. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter
2010 Notes on the Lithuanian restrictive. Baltic Linguistics 1. 9–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Avrorin, Valentin A.
1961 Grammatika nanajskogo jazyka (A grammar of Nanai). Vol. 2. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Beloljubskaja, Varvara G.
1997 Služebnye slova v evenskom jazyke (Functional words in Even). Sankt-Petersburg: Institute for linguistic studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Benzing, Johannes
1955 Die tungusischen Sprachen. Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Mainz in Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Bulatova, Nadezhda Ja
2015 Emocional’no-ocenočnye suffiksy imennyh i glagol’nyh form v evenkijskom jazyke (Evaluative nominal and verbal suffixes in Evenki). Acta Linguistica Petropolitana XI(2). 60–77.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
1985 Morphology (Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1985 Morphology and word order reconstruction: Problems and prospects. In J. Fisiak, (ed.), Historical semantics. Historical word-formation. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 85–96.Google Scholar
Cincius, Vera I.
1982 Negidaljskij jazyk. Issledovanija i materialy (Negidal: explorations and materials). Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
García-Castillero, Carlos
2013 Morphological externalisation and the Old Irish verbal particle ro . Transactions of the Philological Society 111(1). 108–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 On morphological internalization. The origin of the Old Irish oblique relative conjunct particle -(s)aN-. Diachronica, 35(1). 35–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerasimova, Anna N.
2002 Nanajskij I uljčskij jazyki v Rossii: sravniteljnaja harakteristika sociolingvističeskoj situacii (Nanai and Ulcha in Russia: a comparative characteristics of the sociolinguistic situation). Jazyki korennyh narodov Sibiri (Languages of Indigenous Peoples of Siberia) 12. 246–257.Google Scholar
Gusev, Valentin Ju
2019 North Samoyed and the misterious Sprachbund. Paper presented at the Conference on Language Contact in the Circumpolar World. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics 25–27 October 2019.
forthcoming. O substrate eskimosskogo tipa v jazykah Severnoj Azii. Submitted to Voprosy Jazykoznanija.
Harris, Alice C. & Jan T. Faarlund
2006 Trapped morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42(2). 289–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1993 The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics 31. 279–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Eugen
2007 Proportionale Analogie, paradigmatischer Ausgleich und Formenerweiterung: ein Beitrag zur Typologie des morphologischen Wandels. Diachronica 24. 81–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel
1996 Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72. 533–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kazama, Shinjiro
1996 Ulcha oral literature, a collection of texts. Tottori: Tottori Daigaku Kyōiku Gakubu.Google Scholar
2002 Ulcha oral literature 2 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 20). Osaka: ELPR.Google Scholar
2006 Ulcha oral literature 3 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 30). Tokyo: Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University.Google Scholar
2008 Ulcha oral literature 4 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 43). Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
2010 Ulcha oral literature 5 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 49). Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Khanina, Olesya & Andrey Shluinsky
2011 Emphatic transcategorial morphology: A cross-linguistically rare phenomenon in Enets. In Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, Lutz Marten, & David Nathan (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Language Documentation & Linguistic Theory, 3. London: SOAS. 171–181.Google Scholar
Koch, Harold
1996 Reconstruction in morphology. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed (regularity and irregularity in language change). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 218–263.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1991 The meaning of focus particles. A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1995 Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Majer, Marek
2015 Russian kotóryj, Czech který, Slovene katę´ri: Vowel Variation in the Reflexes of Proto-Slavic *koterъ(jь) ‘which (of the two)’. Scando-Slavica 61(2). 154–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2008 Sintaksis evenskogo jazyka (Even Syntax). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Miyaoka, Osahito
2012 A grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2000 The reordering of morphemes. In Spike Gildea (ed.) Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 231–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina
2014 A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel
2009 Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte
2017 Lamunkhin Even evaluative morphology in cross-linguistic comparison. Morphology 27. 123–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte & Ilja V. Krivoshapkina
2014 Even nominal evaluatives and the marking of definiteness. Linguistic Typology 18(2). 289–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petrova, Taisija I.
1936 Ul’čskij dialekt nanajskogo jazyka (The Ulcha dialect of Nanai). Moscow/Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe učebno-pedagogičeskoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. & Xenia P. Semionova
2016 K tipologii drevnearmjanskoj imennoj paradigmatiki: Instr.Pl (Towards a typology of Classical Armenian nominal paradigms: Instr.Pl). Voprosy jazykoznanija 5. 103–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rudnitskaya, Elena L.
2017 Delimitativnyj affiks -riktV- i fokusnaja častica (h)ələ v evenkijskom jazyke kak veršiny dvuh raznyh proekcij DelimP i FocP (The delimitative affix -riktV- and the focus particle (h)ələ) as the heads of two different projections, i.e. DelimP and FocP). In Ekaterina A. Ljutikova & Anton V. Zimmerling (eds.), Typology of morphosyntactic parameters 4. Working papers of the international conference TMP-2017, 209–221. Moscow: Pushkin State Russian Language Institute.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Valentin Ju. Gusev
2016 Ul’čskij jazyk (The Ulcha language). In Vida Ju. Mikhaljchenko (ed.), Jazyk i obš’estvo. Enciklopedija, 513–515. Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Sunik, Orest P.
1982 Suš’estvitel’noe v tunguso-man’čžurskih jazykah (Nouns in Tungus-Manchu languages). Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
1985 Ul’čskij jazyk. Issledovanija i materialy (The Ulcha language: Explorations and materials). Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tolskaya, Maria
2015 Evaluative Morphology in Udihe. In Nicola Grandi & Lívia Körtvélyessy (eds.), Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology, 333–340. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans
1971 Grammaire de la langue georgienne. Oslo: Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning.Google Scholar
Wagner-Nagy, Beáta
2002 Jest’ li klitiki v nganasanskom jazyke? (Are there clitics in Nganasan?) In Vladimir Plungian & Anna Yu. Urmanchieva (eds.), Pam’ati T. Yu. Ždanovoj. Jazyki mira. Tipologija. Uralistika, 465–475. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
2018 A grammar of Nganasan. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. & Fengxiang Li
1998 The suffix -kan in Oroqen. Studies in Language 22. 447–471. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ždanova, Tat’jana Ju
2000 Ob intraklitičeskih časticah v severno-samodijskih jazykah (na materiale neneckogo i nganasanskogo jazykov) (On intraclitic particles in Northern Samoyedic (the data of Nenets and Nganasan)). In Anu Nurk, Triinu Palo, and Tõnu Seilenthal (eds.), Congressus Nonus internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Pars II, 287–288. Tartu: University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Geoffrey Pullum
1993 Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t . Language 59(3). 502–513. CrossrefGoogle Scholar