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. 257–286

Chapter 12. Innovations and archaisms in Siberian Turkic spatial case paradigms

A Transeurasian historical and areal perspective

| Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main
Case systems in Siberian Turkic are an excellent example for studying paradigm change between continuity and innovation. In spite of all shared and individual innovations and developments, the core of the Proto-Turkic case paradigm remains stable here. Most innovations in Turkic case paradigms of individual languages depend on the existence of the paradigms and can be seen as attempts to restore their stability and functionality. In this article, we present several case studies on innovations and archaisms in Siberian Turkic case paradigms, in particular those of Yakut, Khakas, Shor, Altay, Tofa and Tuvan, concentrating on spatial case forms in these languages: in their inventories of case forms, and in their functions. Based on contemporary and historical data of these languages, as well as on Old Turkic material, we try to trace the sources of genuine innovations and of those that are, in fact, archaic features preserved here. In order to diagnose copied patterns we consider data from neighboring languages.
Published online: 8 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.161.19nev
References (37)
References
Baskakov, N.A. (ed.). 1975. Grammatika xakasskogo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka. Vostočnaja literatura.Google Scholar
Bertagaev, B.A. 1968. Burjatskij jazyk. In Jazyki narodov SSSR. Mongol’skie, tunguso-man’čžurskie i paleoaziatskie jazyki, P. Ja. Skorik (ed), 13–34. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Čadamba, Z.V. 1970. Todžinskij dialekt tuvinskogo jazyka. Kyzyl: Tuvinskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Čeremisina, M.I. 1998. Itogi issledovanija prostogo predloženija v jazykax Sibiri. In Jazyki korennyx narodov Sibiri. Vypusk, 4, M.I. Čeremisina & E.K. Skribnik (eds), 33–31. Novosibirsk: Izdatel’stvo Sibirskogo otdelenija Rossijskoj Akademii nauk.Google Scholar
DK = Ergin, Muharrem 1974: Dede Korkut Kitabı: I Giriş - Metin - Facsimile. TDKY, 169. Ankara.Google Scholar
Dyrenkova, N.D. 1941. Grammatika šorskogo jazyka. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Dyrenkova, N.P. 1940. Grammatika ojrotskogo jazyka. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Erdal, M. 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Isxakov, F.G., Pal’mbax, A.A. 1961. Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostočnoj literatury.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 2003. The Mongolic Languages. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jastremskij, S.V. 1898. Padežnye suffixy v jakutskom jazyke. Irkutsk.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 1999. The dynamics of code-copying in language encounters. In Language Encounters across Time and Space, Bernt Brendemoen, Elizabeth Lanza & Else Ryen (eds), 37–62. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Menges, Karl Heinrich. 1959. Das Sojonische und Karagassische. In Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta I, Jean Deny, Louis Bazin, Pertev Nailî Boratav, Hans Robert Roemer & György Hazai (eds), 640–670. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Mirzaev, M. 1957. Ob upotreblenii datel’nogo i mestnogo padežej v buxarskom govore uzbekskogo jazyka. In Učenye Zapiski Buxarskogo GPI, Ė.D. Frejdenberg (ed), 99–121. Taškent: BGPI.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina A. 1996. Situativnye lokativnye značenija šorskix padežej. In Jazyki Korennyx Narodov Sibiri. Vypusk 3, M.I. čeremisina (ed), 98–113. Novosibirsk: Izdatel’stvo Sibirkogo otdelenija Rossijskoj akademii nauk.Google Scholar
. 1997. Tipologija lokativnyx konstrukcij v tjurkskix jazykax Južnoj Sibiri (na materiale šorskogo jazyka): Avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie učenoj stepeni doktora filologičeskix nauk. Novosibirsk: Institut filologii Sibirkogo otdelenija Rossijskoj akademii nauk.Google Scholar
. 2000. Upotreblenie datel’nogo padeža v statičeskom značenii v šorskix prostranstvennyx konstrukcijax. In Altajskaja filologija, L.N. Tybykova, (ed), 75–81. Gorno-Altajsk: Izdatel’stvo Gorno-Altajskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irini A. 2001. Varying marking of spatial arguments in Siberian Turkic languages: a static Dative and a dynamic Locative. InVariierende Markierung von Nominalgruppen in Sprachen unterschiedlichen Typs [Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 4], Winfried Boeder & Gerd Hentschel (eds), 293–305. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina A. & Menz, Astrid. 2003. The static dative as a South Siberian areal feature. In Studies in Turkic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference in Turkish Linguistics, S. Özsoy, et al. (eds), 373–385. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina A. 2005. Prostranstvennye otnošenija v tjurkskix jazykax Južnoj Sibiri (na materiale šorskogo jazyka). Novosibirsk: Nika.Google Scholar
Özkan, F. (1997). Osmaniye Tatar Ağzı. TDKY, 668. Ankara.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina 2008. Depictive secondary predicates in South Siberian Turkic. In Secondary Predicates in Eastern European Languages and beyond[Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 16], Christoph Schroeder, Gerd Hentschel & Winfried Boeder (eds), 275–295. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg.Google Scholar
Ozonova, Ajana. 2006. Die syntaktischen Funktionen des Ablativs und des Dativs im Altaitürkischen. In Exploring the Eastern Frontiers of Turkic [Turcologica 60], Marcel Erdal, & Irina Nevskaya (eds), 131–152. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2007. Contact in the Prehistory of Sakha (Yakuts): Linguistic and Genetic Perspectives. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Radloff, W. 1908. Das jakutische Sprache in ihrem Verhältnis zu den Türksprachen[Zapiski AN. VIII serija. Nomer 7]. Saint Petersburg.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V.I. 1978. Morfologija tofalarskogo jazyka v sravnitel’nom osveščenii. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Rešetov, V.V. 1950. Uzbekskij Jazyk, Tom I: Vvedenie. Fonetika. Taškent.Google Scholar
Sagaan, N. 2006. The use of case forms in Tuvan spatial constructions. In Exploring the Eastern Frontiers of Turkic [Turcologica 60], Marcel Erdal & Irina Nevskaya (eds), 193–210. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Sat, š.č. 1966. Tuvinskij jazyk. In Jazyki narodov SSSR. Tjurkskie jazyki, N.A. Baskakov (ed), 387–402. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ščerbak, A.M. 1977. Očerki po sravnitel’noj morfologii tjurkskix jazykov. Imja. Leningrad.Google Scholar
Schönig, Claus. 1988. Materialien zur Stellung des Lenatürkischen unter den Türksprachen. Materialia Turcica 14: 41–57.Google Scholar
. 1990. Classification Problems of Yakut. L’asie centrale et ses voisins, Remy Dor (ed.). Paris: INALCO, 1990: 91–102.Google Scholar
. 1995. *qa:ño und Konsorten. In Bälek Bitig: Sprachstudien für Gerhard Doerfer zum 75. Geburtstag[Turcologica 23], Marcel Erdal & Semih Tezcan (eds). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Skribnik, Elena. 2003. Buryat. In The Mongolic Languages, Jahu Janhunen (ed.), 102–128. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stachowski, Marek & Menz, Astrid. 1999. Yakut. In The Turkic Languages, Lars Johanson & Éva Ágnes Csató (eds), 417–433. London: Routledge Language Family Descriptions.Google Scholar
Tekin, Talát. 1968. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ubrjatova, E.I. 1982. Grammatika sovremennogo jakutskogo literaturnogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Seržant, Ilja A.
2021. Typology of partitives. Linguistics 59:4 ► pp. 881 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.