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. 311–336

Chapter 14. Ural-Altaic

The Polygenetic Origins of Nominal Morphology 
in the Transeurasian Zone

| University of Helsinki-Helsingfors
The paper reviews the data concerning the nominal inflectional morphology in the chain of languages comprising Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic and Japonic, collectively termed “Ural-Altaic”. Although nominal morphology has traditionally been quoted in support of the hypothesis concerning the genetic relationship of these languages, a more detailed survey of the data shows that the extant parallels are in various ways secondary and/or accidental. This suggests that Ural-Altaic is an areal and typological complex of languages, but not a genetic entity. On the other hand, it is also evident that much of the synchronically observed nominal morphology in the languages of this complex is relatively recent. The only examples of potentially relevant inter-family morphological parallels can be found between Mongolic and Tungusic.
Published online: 8 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.161.21jan
References (42)
References
Abondolo, Daniel. 1998. The Uralic Languages [Routledge Language Family Series]. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aikio, Ante & Ylikoski, Jussi. 2007. Suopmelaš gielaid l-kásusiid álgovuođđu sáme- ja eará fuolkegielaid čuovggas [The origin of the l-cases in the Finnic languages in the light of Saami and other related languages]. In Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit: Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007 [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 253], Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski (eds), 11–71. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Austerlitz, Robert. 1970. Agglutination in Northern Eurasia in perspective. In Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics Presented to Shirô Hattori on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Roman Jakobson & Shigeo Kawamoto (eds), 1–5. Tokyo: TEC Corporation for Language and Educational Research.Google Scholar
Bárczi, Géza, Benkő, Loránd & Berrár, Jolán 1967. A magyar nyelv története [History of the Hungarian language]. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Bartens, Raija. 2000. Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys [The Structure and Development of the Permic Languages] [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 238]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Benzing, Johannes. 1956. Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik [Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1955: 11]. Wiesbaden: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz.Google Scholar
Bopp, Franz. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskrit-Sprache, in Vergleichung mit denem des griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache, herausgegeben und mit Vorerinnerungen begleitet von Dr. K. J. Windischmann. Frankfurt-am-Main: Andreäischen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Castrén, M.A. 1845. Anteckningar om Samojediskans förvandtskap med de Finska språken [Notes on the relationship of Samoyed with the Finnish languages]. Suomi 5: 177–186.Google Scholar
Collinder, Björn. 1934. Indo-uralisches Sprachgut: Die Urverwandtschaft zwischen der indoeuropäischen und der uralischen (finnischugrisch-samojedischen) Sprachfamilie [Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1934(1)]. Uppsala: Lundeqvistska bokhandeln.Google Scholar
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1977. Zu türk. bana ‘mir’, sana ‘dir’. Central Asiatic Journal 21: 208–214.Google Scholar
. 1981. The conditions for proving the genetic relationship of languages. The Bulletin of the International Institute for Linguistic Sciences 2(4): 39–58.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 1982. On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 44: 23–42.Google Scholar
. 1989. Samojedin predestinatiivisen deklinaation alkuperästä [On the origin of the predestinative declension in Samoyedic]. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 82: 298–301.Google Scholar
. 1996. Prolegomena to a comparative analysis of Mongolic and Tungusic. In Proceedings of the 38th Permanent International Altaistic Conference (PIAC, Kawasaki, Japan 1995), Giovanni Stary (ed.), 209–218. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1997. Problems of primary root structure in Pre-Proto-Japanic. International Journal of Central Asian Studies 2: 14–30.Google Scholar
. 2003. On the taxonomy of nominal cases in Mongolic. Altai Hakpo 13: 83–90.Google Scholar
. 2003. The Mongolic Languages [Routledge Language Family Series]. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2005. On the convergence of the genitive and accusative cases in languages of the Ural-Altaic type. In Les langues ouraliennes aujourd’hui: Approche linguistique et cognitive [Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences historiques et philologiques, Tome 340], M.M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest (ed.), 133–144. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha 2012a. On the hierarchy of structural convergence in the Amdo Sprachbund. In Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations [Studies in Language Companion Series 126], Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie & Valery Solovyev (eds), 177–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 2012b. Non-borrowed non-cognate parallels in bound morphology: Aspects of the phenomenon of shared drift with Eurasian examples. In Copies Versus Cognates in Bound Morphology [Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture 2], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 23–46. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Personal pronouns in Core Altaic. In Shared Grammaticalization With Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 132], Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 211–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars & Csató, Éva Á. 1998. The Turkic Languages [Routledge Language Family Series]. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars & Robbeets, Martine. 2009. Introduction. In Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance [Turcologica 78], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 1–5. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kane, Daniel. 2009. The Kitan Language and Script [Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII, vol. 19]. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kiyose, Gisaburo N. 1995. Japanese Grammar: A New Approach. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Ki-Moon & Ramsey, S. Robert. 2011. A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehtisalo, Toivo. 1936. Über die primären ururalischen Ableitungssuffixe [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 72]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Luutonen, Jorma. 2011. Chuvash Syntactic Nominalizers: On *-ki and its Counterparts in Ural-Altaic Languages [Turcologica 88]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1966. Lexical evidence relating Korean to Japanese. Language 12: 185–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pevnov, A.M. 2013. O mongol’skom proïsxozhdeniï man’chzhurskogo pokazatelia datel’nogo padezha [On the Mongolic origin of the dative case marker in Manchu]. In Mongolian Languages: History and Present [Extended Abstracts for the Conference St. Petersburg, October 21–23, 2013], 79–83. Saint Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas. 1955. Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 110]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Ramstedt, G.J. 1933. Persoonapäätteellisen verbitaivutuksen synnystä [On the origin of verbal personal conjugation]. In Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian esitelmät ja pöytäkirjat, 125–128. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
. 1952–1964. Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft. I. Lautlehre. II. Formenlehre. III. Register [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 104: 1–3], bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Pentti Aalto. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Räsänen, Martti. 1957. Materialien zur Morphologie der türkischen Sprachen [Studia Orientalia 21]. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? [Turcologica 64]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2012. Shared verb morphology in the Transeurasian languages: copy or cognate? In Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology [Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture 2], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 427–446. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönig, Claus. 2005. Türkisch-mongolische Sprachbeziehungen: Versuch einer Zwischenbilanz. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 19: 131–166.Google Scholar
Sinor, Denis. 1988. The problem of the Ural-Altaic relationship. In The Uralic Languages: Description, History and Foreign Influences [Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII, Vol. 1], Denis Sinor (ed.), 706–741. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander. 2005. The end of the Altaic controversy. In memory of Gerhard Doerfer. Central Asiatic Journal 49: 71–132.Google Scholar
. 2005–2009. A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese 1–2 [The Languages of Asia Series]. Folkestone: Global Oriental.Google Scholar
. 2011. Koreo-Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin [Hawai‘i Studies on Korea]. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi. 2011. Länsiuralilaisten s-sijojen alkuperästä [On the origin of the s-cases in Western Uralic], 1–20. Unpublished lecture handout, Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. [URL].Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

PİİSPAANEN, Peter
2021. Nikolaeva, I. Yukaghir Morphology in a Historical and Comparative Perspective, München: Lincom Europe, 2020, pp. 122, ISBN: 978-3862-900466. Journal of Old Turkic Studies 5:1 ► pp. 212 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.