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. 287–310

Chapter 13. Paradigm copying in Tungusic

The Lamunkhin dialect of Ėven and beyond

| Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage, UMR5596, CNRS & Université cLyon Lumière 2
While it is generally acknowledged that shared correspondences in inflectional morphology provide solid evidence for a genealogical relationship between languages, inflectional paradigms are not immune to copying: two cases of verbal paradigms copied from the Turkic language Sakha (Yakut) into North Tungusic lects are known. In this paper I survey over 20 dialect descriptions of the North Tungusic languages Evenki and Ėven in order to elucidate the factors that play a role in paradigm copying. I show that both intimate contact (intermarriage) and structural congruence are necessary, but not sufficient, prerequisites for such copying and argue that the decisive factor in the known cases of paradigms copied from Sakha is the specific structure of Sakha TAM morphology.
Published online: 8 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.161.20pak
References (37)
References
Backus, Ad & Verschik, Anna. 2012. Copiability of (bound) morphology. In Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 123–149. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bibiko, Hans-Jörg. 2005. WALS – The Interactive Reference Tool. Available on CD-ROM accompanying Haspelmath et al. 2005, and on [URL]
Bulatova, Nadezhda. 1999. Jazyk saxalinskix evenkov. Saint Petersburg: Sankt-Peterburgskij Fond ‘Beskonfliktnyj Sever’.Google Scholar
Duggan, Ana T., Whitten, Mark, Wiebe, Victor, Crawford, Michael, Butthof, Anne, Spitsyn, Victor, Makarov, Sergey, Novgorodov, Innokentiy, Osakovsky, Vladimir & Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2013. Investigating the prehistory of Tungusic peoples of Siberia and the Amur-Ussuri region with complete mtDNA genome sequences and Y-chromosomal markers. PLOS ONE 8 (12): e83570. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Dutkin, Xristofor I. 1995. Allaixovskij govor evenov Jakutii. Saint Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Dutkin, Xristofor I. & Beljanskaja, Marija X. 2009. Tundrennyj dialekt zapadnogo narečija evenskogo jazyka. Saint Petersburg: Bel’veder.Google Scholar
Dybo, Anna V. & Starostin, George S. 2008. In defense of the comparative method, or the end of the Vovin controversy. Aspects of Comparative Linguistics 3: 119–258.Google Scholar
Gardani, Francesco. 2008. Borrowing of Inflectional Morphemes in Language Contact. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2012. Plural across inflection and derivation, fusion and agglutination. In Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 71–97. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1978. Linguistic Diffusion in Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Korkina, Evdokija I. 1970. Naklonenija glagola v jakutskom jazyke. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Korkina, Evdokija I., Ubrjatova, Elizaveta I., Xaritonov, Luka N. & Petrov, N.E. 1982. Grammatika sovremennogo jakutskogo literaturnogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Kuz’mina, Raisa P. 2010. Jazyk lamunxinskix evenov. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar
Lebedev, Vasilij D. 1978. Jazyk evenov Jakutii. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
. 1982. Oxotskij dialekt evenskogo jazyka. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2006. Yakut interference in North-Tungusic languages. In Turkic Languages in Contact, Henrik Boeschoeten & Lars Johanson (eds), 122–138. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2007. The borrowability of structural categories. In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds), 31–73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meakins, Felicity. 2011. Case-marking in Contact. The Development and Function of Case Morphology in Gurindji Kriol [Creole Language Library 39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myreeva, Anna N. 1962. Očerk tommotskogo govora. In Očerki tokkinskogo i tommotskogo dialektov, Agnija V. Romanova & Anna N. Myreeva (eds), 50–104. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
. 1964. Očerk govora učurskix ėvenkov. In Očerki učurskogo, majskogo i tottinskogo govorov, Agnija V. Romanova & Anna N. Myreeva (eds), 6–74. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor. 1997. Evenki. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2009. Intensive contact and the copying of paradigms: an Ėven dialect in contact with Sakha (Yakut). Journal of Language Contact Varia 2: 85–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. forthcoming. A comparison of copied morphemes in Sakha (Yakut) and Ėven. In Borrowed Morphology, Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev & Nino Amiridze (eds). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Rankin, Robert L. 2003. The comparative method. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 183–212. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Robbek, Vasilij A. 2007. Grammatičeskie kategorii ėvenskogo glagola v funkcional’no-semantičeskom aspekte. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar
Romanova, Agnija Vasil’evna & Myreeva, Anna Nikolaevna. 1962. Očerki tokkinskogo i tommotskogo dialektov. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
. 1964. Očerki učurskogo, majskogo i tottinskogo govorov. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2003. Diagnosing prehistoric language contact. In Motives for Language Change, Raymond Hickey (ed), 174–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sotavalta, Arvo & Halén, Harry. 1978. Westlamutische Materialien. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Steinkrüger, Patrick. 2003. Morphological processes of word-formation in Chabacano (Philippine Spanish Creole). In Phonology and Morphology of Creole Languages, Ingo Plag (ed.), 253–268. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 1997. Mednyj Aleut. In Contact Languages. A Wider Perspective, [Creole Language Libary 17], Sarah G. Thomason (ed), 449–468. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Vasilevič, Glafira Makar’evna. 1948. Očerki dialektov ėvenkijskogo (tungusskogo) jazyka. Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe učebno-pedagogičeskoe izdatel’stvo Ministerstvo prosveščenija RSFSR, Leningradskoe otdelenie.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander. 2005. The end of the Altaic controversy. Central Asiatic Journal 49(1): 71–132.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David P. 1996. Morphology. In Contact Linguistics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdeněk Starý & Wolfgang Wölck (eds), 109–117. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar