Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 39:1 (2015) ► pp.118–159

A typology of negation in Tungusic

 | University of Munich
Negation seems to be a universal linguistic category, yet languages differ vastly in how they express it. Tungusic languages show several interesting and typologically rare phenomena. The paper offers a typological description of negation within the whole language family from an onomasiological perspective. But some remarks on the etymology of certain negators are made as well. There are three main patterns of “standard negation”. The historically oldest type (A) employs a negative verb similar to the Uralic languages, the second pattern (B) is a grammaticalized version of the first (possibly influenced by Nivkh) and the third type (C) is an innovation influenced by Mongolian, in which the negative existential replaced the negative verb. Some preliminary proposals are made for the development of a “conceptual space”, which also includes non-standard negation such as negative copulas, negative existentials, and prohibitives. The discussion contains examples from more than 35 languages.
Keywords: Tungusic, conceptual space, typology, negation
Published online: 15 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.1.05hoe
References (117)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M.W. Dixon. 1998. Dependencies between grammatical systems. Language 74(1). 56–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alonso de la Fuente, José Andrés. 2011. Venjukov’s [1858] 1862/1868 Nanai materials. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 931. 11–35.Google Scholar
. 2011a. Tense, voice and Aktionsart in Tungusic: Another case of »analysis to synthesis«? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
An Jun. 1986. Hezheyu jianzhi. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Atknine, Victor. 1997. The Evenki language from the Yenisei to Sakhalin. In Shōji Hiroshi & Juha Janhunen (eds.), Northern minority languages: Problems of survival (Senri Ethnological Studies 44), 109–121. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der. 2009. The Jespersen Cycles. In Elly van Galderen (ed.), Cyclical Change, 35–71. Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. On the diachrony of negation. In Laurence R. Horn (ed.), The Expression of Negation, 73–109. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der & Ludo Lejeune (with Valentin Goussev ). 2013. Feature 71A: The Prohibitive. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath, (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. München: Max Planck Digital Library. [URL] (31 October, 2014.)Google Scholar
Baek, Sungyup. 2012. Tsungūsu shogo no WH sōkan kōbun no bunpu ni taisuru ruikei-teki kōsatsu. Hoppō gengo kenkyū 21. 163–181.Google Scholar
Bang, Willy. 1890. Mandschurica. T’oung pao 11. 329–334.Google Scholar
Benzing, Johannes. 1955. Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.Google Scholar
. 1958. I. A. Lopatin’s “Material on the Orochee Language, the Goldi (Nanai) Language and the Olchi (Nani) Language”. Anthropos 53(3–4). 597–603.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. Shankara. 1999. The Prominence of tense, aspect and mood. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulatova, Nadezhda & Grenoble Lenore. 1999. Evenki: Language of the world/materials 141. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Bulatova, Nadezhda & Stefano Cotrozzi. 2004. Ewenkische Erzählungen aus der Insel Sachalin. Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
Castrén, M. Alexander. 1856. Grundzüge einer tungusischen Sprachlehre nebst kurzem Wörterverzeichniss. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Chao Ke. 2006. Xiandai xiboyu kouyu yanjiu. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe.Google Scholar
. 2007. Nanmu elunchunyu yanjiu. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
. 2009. Ewenkeyu cankao yufa. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe.Google Scholar
. 2014. Hezheyu 366 ju huihuaju. Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe.Google Scholar
Cincius, Vera I. et al. 1975–77. Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ tunguso-man’čžurskich jazkov. Materialny etimologičeskomu slovarju, 2 vols1. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Clark, Larry V. 1979/80. Manchu suffix list. Manchu Studies Newsletter 31. 29–40.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. The Languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. The Evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics 27(1). 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2010. Typology of negation. In Laurence R. Horn (ed.), The expression of negation, 9–38. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2005. On the syntax and semantics of negation in Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 71(1). 1–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2012. Basic linguistic theory, Vol. 3: Further grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 2000. Introduction. In Robert M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 1–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1975. Ist Kur-Urmiisch ein nanaischer Dialekt? Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 471. 51–63.Google Scholar
. 1978. Classification Problems of Tungus. In Gerhard Doerfer & Michael Weiers (eds.), Tungusica, Band 1: Beiträge zur Nordasiatischen Kulturgeschichte, 1–26. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Clause Types. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Second edition. Volume I: Clause Structure, 224–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Mathew. 2013a. Feature 112A: Negative morphemes. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath, (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. München: Max Planck Digital Library. [URL] (22 February 2014)Google Scholar
. 2013b. On the six-way word order typology, again. Studies in Language 37(2). 267–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enhebatu, Merden. 1995. Manyu kouyu yanjiu. Hohot: Neimonggu daxue chubanshe.Google Scholar
Fu Yuguang, Guo Shuyun & Juha Janhunen. 1990. The Kyakala in China: History and present situation. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 881. 248–252.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2008. Negative cycles. Linguistic Typology 121. 195–243.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology. An archeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 71. 394–415.Google Scholar
Gorelova, Liliya M. 2002. Manchu grammar. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill.Google Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore A. & Lindsay J. Whaley. 2003. The case for dialect continua in Tungusic: Plural morphology. In Dee A. Holisky & Kevin Tuite (eds.), Current trends in Caucasian, East European and Inner Asian linguistics, 97–122. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruzdeva, Ekaterina. 1998. Nivkh (Languages of the World/Materials 111). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Häkkinen, Jaakko. 2012. Early contacts between Uralic and Yukaghir. Mémoires de la Societé Finno-Ougrienne 2641. 91–101.Google Scholar
Hauer, Erich. 2007. Handwörterbuch der Mandschusprache, 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Helimski, Eugene. 1998. Nganasan. In Daniel Abandolo (ed.), The Uralic Languages, 480–515. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hölzl, Andreas. 2012. Negation und die Stellung des Mandschurischen innerhalb der tungusischen Sprachen. In Daniel Leese (ed.), Hou Han(s’) Shu: Festschrift zum 50. Geburtstag von Hans van Ess, 35–67. München: Institut für Sinologie.Google Scholar
Honti, László. 1999. Über die Mittel der Negation im Uralischen, insbesondere den „türkischen Typ“ in einigen uralischen Sprachen. In Cornelius Hasselblatt & Paula Jääsalmi- Krüger (eds.), Europa et Sibiria, 191–198. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Jirô. 1973. On one verb ending in Proto-Tungus: About *-si- . Acta Asiatica 241. 45– 56.Google Scholar
. 1974. Versuch einer Klassifikation der tungusischen Sprachen. In Georg Hazai & Peter Zieme (eds.), Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der altaischen Völker, 271–272. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1983. Bemerkungen zu einigen sprachgeographischen und areallinguistischen Problemen in der Erforschung der tungusischen Sprachen. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 31. 170–178.Google Scholar
. 1995. The element -n in the indicative forms of verbs in Tungus languages. Gengô Kenkyû 1071. 1–15.Google Scholar
. 1999. Manshûgo kenkyû. Tokyo: Kyûko Shoin.Google Scholar
. 2002 Uiruta kôtô bungei genbunshû. Revised and enlarged edition (Publications on Tungus languages and cultures 16; Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim, Publications Series A2–013) Kyoto: Nakanishi.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 1991. Material on Manchurian Khamnigan Evenki. Castrenianiumin Toimitteia 401.Google Scholar
. 2003a. Proto-Mongolic. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, London, 1–29. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2003b. Khamnigan Mongol. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 83–101. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2005. Khamnigan Mongol. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
. 2009. Proto-Uralic: What, where, and when? Memoires de la Societe Finno- Ougrienne 2581. 57–78.Google Scholar
. 2012. The expansion of Tungusic as an ethnic and linguistic process. In Andrej Malchokov & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds.), Recent Advanced in Tungusic Linguistics, 5–16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Jettmar, H.M. 1937. Der Stamm der oberen Golden (Die Sungari-Ussuri-Gruppe). Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 51. 245–276.Google Scholar
Kane, Daniel. 1989. The Sino-Jurchen vocabulary of the Bureau of Interpreters. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Kazama Shinjiro. 2002a. Negidaarugo tekisuto to bunpôgaisetsu (Publications on Tungus languages and cultures 19; Endangered languages of the Pacific Rim, A2–021). Kyoto: Nakanishi.Google Scholar
. 2002b. Urucha kôshô bungei genbun-shû. (Publications on Tungus languages and cultures 20; Endangered languages of the Pacific Rim, A2–022). Kyoto: Nakanishi.Google Scholar
. 2003. Basic Vocabulary (A) of Tungusic Languages. Kyoto: Nakanishi Printing.Google Scholar
. 2007. Rhetorical questions with interrogative markers in Nanai. In Kawaguchi Yuji, Takagaki Toshihiro, Tomimori Nobuo & Tsuruga Yoichiro (eds.), Corpus-based perspectives in linguistics, 319–335. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Designative case in Tungusic languages. In Andrej Malchokov & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds.), Recent advances in Tungusic linguistics, 123–152. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Khasanova, Marina & Alexander Pevnov. 2003. Myths and tales of the Negidals. Kyoto: Nakanishi Printing, 1–22.Google Scholar
Kiyose, Gisaburo N. 1977. A study of the Jurchen language and script: Reconstruction and decipherment. Kyoto: Shōwado.Google Scholar
Klaproth, Julius von. 1817. Mandshuisch. In Johann Christoph Adelung (ed.), Mithridates — oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde mit dem Vater Unser als Sprachprobe in bey nahe fünf hundert Sprachen und Mundarten, Vol. 41, 194–224. Berlin: In der Vossischen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Ko Dongho & Yurn Gyudong. 2011. A description of Najkhin Nanai. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2007. Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. 2nd edn., Vol. 1: Clause Structure, 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li Fengxiang. 2005. Contact, attrition, and structural shift: evidence from Oroqen. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1731. 55–74.Google Scholar
Li Fengxiang & Lindsay J. Whaley. 2012. The grammaticalization cycle of causatives in Oroqen. In Andrej Malchokov & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds.), Recent advances in Tungusic linguistics, 165–180. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 1995. Even (Languages of the world/materials 12). München, Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
. 2001. Imperative constructions in Even. In Victor S. Xrakovskij (ed.), Typology of imperative constructions, 159–180. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Majewicz, Alfred F. (ed.). 2011. The collected works of Bronisław Piłsudski, Vol. 4: Materials for the study of Tungusic languages and folklore (Trends in Linguistics: Documentation 15.4). Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003. Tundra Yukaghir (Languages of the World/Materials 372). München, Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Menges, Karl. H. 1964. Bemerkungen zum Bikin-Dialekt des Nanaj. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 351. 198–203.Google Scholar
. 1968. Die tungusischen Sprachen. In Walter Fuchs, et al. (eds.), Handbuch der Orientalistik, Vol. 1.5(3): Tungusologie, 21–256. Leiden, Köln: Brill.Google Scholar
. 1987. On Tungus alba- “non posse, не мочь” and other negative auxiliary verbs. Central Asiatic Journal 311. 7–18.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2005a. Symmetric and asymmetric standard negation (feature 113). In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 458–461. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. A typological perspective on negation in Finnish dialects. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 341. 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mu Yejun. 1987. Balayu. Manchu Studies 21. 2–31.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor. 1994. Evenki. In Peter Kahrel & René van den Berg (eds.), Typological Studies in Negation, 1–34. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Evenki. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, David A. Peterson & Jonathan Barnes. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 81. 149–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina & Maria Tolskaya. 2001. A grammar of Udihe. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norman, Jerry. 1974. A sketch of Sibe morphology. Central Asiatic Journal 181. 159–174.Google Scholar
. 1991. Review of Kane 1989. T’oung Pao . Second Series 77(1–3). 152–155.
Payne, John R. 1985. Negation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pevnov, Alexander M. 2012. On some archaic features of the Jurchen language. Journal of the Center for Northern Humanities 51. 57–69.Google Scholar
Ramstedt, G.J. 1924. Die Verneinung in den altaischen Sprachen: Eine semasiologische Studie. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 521. 196–215.Google Scholar
Schaaik, Gerjan van. 1994. Turkish. In Peter Kahrel & René van den Berg (eds.), Typological Studies in Negation, 35–50. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Peter. 1923. The Language of the Olchas. Acta Universitatis Latviensis 81. 229–288.Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 2000. Towards a typology of the accusative ergative continuum. The case of East Caucasian. General Linguistics 371. 71–155.Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang & Andreas Hölzl. 2013. Review of Malchukov & Whaley 2012. Studies in Language 37(2). 454–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinor, Denis. 1968. La langue Mandjoue. In Walter Fuchs, et al. (eds.), Handbuch der Orientalistik, Vol. 1.5(3): Tungusologie, 257–280. Leiden, Köln: Brill.Google Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 2003. Khalkha. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 154–176. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tsumagari, Toshiro. 1997. Linguistic diversity and national borders of Tungusic. In Shōji Hiroshi & Juha Janhunen (eds.), Northern minority languages: Problems of survival (Senri Ethnological Studies 44), 175–186. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Tsumagari Toshiro. 2003. Dagur. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 129–153. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2009. A sketch of Solon grammar. Journal of the Center for Northern Humanities 21. 1–21.Google Scholar
. 2009a. Grammatical outline of Uilta (revised). Journal of the Graduate School of Letters 41. 1–21.Google Scholar
. 2012. A note on Udihe phonology from an areal-typological perspective. In Andrej Malchokov & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds.), Recent advanced in Tungusic linguistics, 79–86. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba. 2010. Standard and special negators in the Slavonic languages: Synchrony and diachrony. In Björn Hansen & Jasmina Grković-Major (eds.), Diachronic Slavonic syntax: Gradual changes in focus (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 74), 195–208. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander. 2006. Why Manchu and Jurchen Look So Non-Tungusic? In Alessandra Pozzi, Juha Janhunen & Michael Weiers (eds.), Tumen jalafun jecen akū — Manchu Studies in Honour of Giovanni Stary, 255–266. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2012. Did Wanyan Xiyin invent the Jurchen script? In Andrej Malchokov & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds.), Recent advances in Tungusic linguistics, 49–58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2011. On the typology of negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyadic languages. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 2621.Google Scholar
Wang Qingfeng. 2005. Manyu yanjiu. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J., Lenore A. Grenoble & Li Fengxiang. 1999. Revisiting Tungusic classification from the bottom up: A comparison of Evenki and Oroqen. Language 75(2). 286–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu Dan. 2006. Typological change in Chinese syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang Paiyu. 2013. The Kilen language of Manchuria. Grammar of a moribund Tungusic language. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong thesis.Google Scholar
Zhang Yanchang, Zhang Xi & Dai Shuyan. 1989. The Hezhen Language. Jilin: Jilin daxue chubanshe.Google Scholar
Zhao Jie. 1989. Xiandai manyu yanjiu. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Zhao Zhizhong. 2003. Manyu yu hezheyu zhi bijiao Manchu Studies 371. 47–52.Google Scholar
Zikmundová, Veronika. 2013. Spoken Sibe morphology of the inflected parts of speech. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Ding, Hongdi & Sicong Dong
2024. Interrogatives of reason in Tibeto-Burman languages of Sichuan. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 25:2 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Ding, Hongdi
2022. Interrogatives of Liangshan Yi. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 45:1 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Dolińska, Joanna
2022. Is it possible to prove the Altaic theory on the basis of negative forms in Mongolian, Manchu and Turkish?. Asian Languages and Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gruzdeva, Ekaterina
2022. Possessive and Caritive in Nivkh. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Hölzl, Andreas
2018. Constructionalization areas. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Hölzl, Andreas
2023. Diachronic changes in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 15:2 ► pp. 160 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 november 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.