Cover not available
Part of
Insubordination
Edited by Nicholas Evans and Honoré Watanabe
[Typological Studies in Language 115] 2016
► pp. 171–182

Chapter 7. Insubordination in the Tsezic Languages

ORCID logo | Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyUniversity of Bamberg
| University of Bamberg
| Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyUniversity of Bamberg
The Tsezic languages present a number of prima facie instances of insubordination, given current definitions of this phenomenon. For the purposes of this chapter, we base ourselves on the definition provided by Evans (2007: 367): “[Insubordination is] the conventionalized main clause use of what, on prima facie grounds, appear to be formally subordinate clauses.” While some instances of insubordination in Tsezic languages seem to illustrate typical instances, others present synchronic and diachronic issues that probe the phenomenon’s boundaries.
Published online: 18 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.07com
References (22)
References
Abdulaev, Arsen K. & Abdullaev, Isa K. 2010. Cezyas Folklor (Tsez folklore). Makhachkala: Lotos.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria. 2007. Evidentials in Tsez. In L’énonciation médiatisée II: Le traitement épistémologique de l’information: Illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes, Zlatka Guentchéva & Jon Landaburu (eds), 335–350. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2009. Participles and finiteness: The case of Akhvakh. Linguistic Discovery 7(1): 106–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2009. Finiteness in Hinuq. Linguistic Discovery 9(2): 3-29.Google Scholar
. 2011. Evidentiality and new media in the Caucasus – the case of Hinuq. In Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 3, Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, Lutz Marten & David Nathan (eds), 101–110. London: University of London.Google Scholar
. 2012. The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh-Daghestanian. Folia Linguistica 46: 75–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. A Grammar of Hinuq [Mouton Grammar Library 63]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Hinuq verb forms and finiteness. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 66(1): 69–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The grammar of knowledge in Hinuq. In The Grammar of Knowledge: A Cross-linguistic Typology, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 52–68. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagliardi, Annie, Goncalves, Michael, Polinsky, Maria & Radkevich, Nina. 2014. The biabsolutive construction in Lak and Tsez. Lingua 150: 137–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 74]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imnajšvili, David S. 1963. Didojskij jazyk v sravnenii s ginuxskim i xvaršijskim jazykami (The Dido [Tsez] language in comparison with the Hinuq and Khwarshi languages). Tbilisi: Izdatel´stvo Akademii Nauk Gruzinskoj SSR.Google Scholar
Kalinina, Elena & Sumbatova, Nina. 2007. Clause structure and verbal forms in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 184–249. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin. 1998. On patient demotion in Lak. In Typology of Verbal Categories: Papers Presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday [Linguistische Arbeiten 382], Leonid Kulikov & Heinz Vater (eds), 95–115. Tübingen: Niemeyer DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001. Umen´šenie perexodnosti: binominativnaja konstrukcija. In Bagvalinskij jazyk, Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), 394–399. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. & Testelec, Jakov G. 1999. Struktura sostavljajuščix. In Èlementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii, Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), 314–346. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A Grammar of Khwarshi [Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap 234].Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
. 2011. Evidentiality in Tsezic languages. Linguistic Discovery 9(2): 30–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2010. Typology of finiteness. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(12): 1176–1189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salvi, Gianpaolo. 1987. Syntactic restructuring in the evolution of Romance auxiliaries. In Historical Development of Auxiliaries [Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 35], Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat (eds), 225–236. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, Helma. 1995. A Grammar of Hunzib (with Texts and Lexicon) [Lincom Studies in Caucasian Linguistics 01]. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Daniels, Don
2024. Semi-embedded clauses in Aisi. Functions of Language DOI logo
la Roi, Ezra
2021. The Insubordination of If- and That-Clauses from Archaic to Post-Classical Greek: A Diachronic Constructional Typology. Symbolae Osloenses 95:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.