(2016) Insubordination and the establishment of genealogical relationship. In: Evans, Nicholas & Watanabe, Honore (eds.) Dynamics of insubordination. (Typological Studies in Language.) Amsterdam: Benjamins, 209-245.

(2016) Insubordination and the establishment of genealogical relationship. In: Evans, Nicholas & Watanabe, Honore (eds.) Dynamics of insubordination. (Typological Studies in Language.) Amsterdam: Benjamins, 209-245.
of 39
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  Tis is a contribution from Insubordination . Edited by Nicholas Evans and Honoré Watanabe.© 󰀲󰀰󰀱󰀶. John Benjamins Publishing Company Tis electronic file may not be altered in any way.Te author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: Please contact or consult our website: ables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at John Benjamins Publishing Company    . /tsl. . 󰀰󰀹rob©   John Benjamins Publishing Company  󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁰󰁴󰁥󰁲 􀀹 Insubordination and the establishment of genealogical relationship across Eurasia Martine Robbeets Max Planck Institute or the Science o Human History, JenaIn this chapter, I investigate how our understanding o insubordination can add to the establishment o genealogical relationship between languages. Te particular case that I deal with here is the longstanding affiliation question o the ranseurasian languages. Te term “ranseurasian” reers to a large group o geographically adjacent languages, traditionally known as “Altaic”, that include up to five different linguistic amilies: Japonic, Koreanic, ungusic, Mongolic, and urkic. Comparing the diachronic developments taking place on two sets o deverbal noun suffixes across these languages, I ultimately derive these suffixes rom a neutral deverbal noun suffix proto-ranseurasian *- rA  and a resultative deverbal noun suffix proto-ranseurasian * -xA . Te comparative evidence indicates that these markers srcinated as deverbal noun suffixes, marking a derivational process at the lexical level, were then extended to unction as (ad)nominalizers in dependent clauses at the syntactic level, and were eventually – through a pragmatic role in discourse – extended still urther to mark finite orms in independent clauses. I argue that the sharing o these historical developments on ormally corresponding affixes supports the genealogical affinity o the ranseurasian languages. . Introduction Can our understanding o insubordination be brought to bear beyond purely typo-logical issues in historical linguistics? Can it add, or instance, to the establishment o broader genealogical relationships? In this chapter, I will explore the possibility o employing historical-comparative arguments turning on insubordination in the much debated affiliation question o the ranseurasian languages. Te label “ranseurasian” was coined by Johanson and Robbeets (2010: 1–2) to reer to a large group o geo-graphically adjacent languages, traditionally known as “Altaic”, that includes up to five different linguistic amilies: Japonic, Koreanic, ungusic, Mongolic, and urkic. Te    Martine Robbeets question o whether these amilies go back to a single common ancestor is one o the most disputed issues in historical comparative linguistics. Te controversy is not primarily ueled by a shortage o similarities, but by the parts o language structure to which the similarities belong as well as by the difficulty o accounting or them: first, there is the objection that the languages in question may share lexical items, but that they do not have enough bound morphology in common. Second comes the difficulty o distinguishing between similarities generated by borrowing and those that are true residues o inheritance. In this chapter, I will show that the historical-comparative study o insubordination can contribute to the reutation o both objections, by pro-posing etymologies or bound non-finite and finite markers and by arguing that shar-ing processes o insubordination on ormally relatable morphemes is unlikely to be due to areal actors.For this purpose, I will first ascribe the ranseurasian insubordination pattern o nominalizers marked or perectivity to a special subtype o “direct insubordina-tion”, situating it within other mechanisms or developing finite orms rom non-finite orms cross-linguistically. Focussing on two sets o cognate suffixes reflecting proto-ranseurasian (henceorth pEA) *- rA  and *- xA  in §2 and §3, I will document a recurrent tendency in the ranseurasian languages or deverbal noun suffixes to develop, first, into markers o syntactically dependent clauses and then, directly to markers o ully independent sentences. In §4, I will argue that these changes reflect a grammaticalization process, which also triggers the development o tense distinctions rom srcinal aspectual distinctions across the ranseurasian languages. Finally, I will propose a way o distinguishing between the effects o borrowing and inheritance in generating shared insubordination between different languages and suggest a plausible way to account or the instances o shared insubordination across the ranseurasian languages. . Direct insubordination and other mechanisms of “finitization” Te languages o the world use a variety o mechanisms or bestowing finite unc-tion on ormerly and ormally non-finite suffixes, a process, which can be reerred to as “finitization”. Finite orms can be defined by their morphological marking: they typically carry the maximum marking or such categories as tense, aspect, modality and agreement permitted in the language. Tey can also be defined by their syntactic unction: they have the capacity to unction as the only predicate o an independent clause (rask 1993: 103–104; Nedjalkov 1995: 97; Givón 2001: 25–26; Bisang 2001; Malchukov 2006; Nikolaeva 2007: 1–7). In contrast, verbal nouns, participles and converbs are non-finite verb orms that tend to carry less inflectional marking and whose prototypical unction is to mark argument, adnominal and adverbial subordi-nation respectively.   Insubordination and the establishment o genealogical relationship across Eurasia  Tere are our major pathways by which markers o dependent clauses can come to mark independent clauses. Te first strategy is to reduce the matrix predicate to an affix or a particle on the ormer non-finite verb orm. A common example is the reduction o the uture construction consisting o the Latin infinitive ollowed by a finite orm o the verb ‘to have’, e.g. cantare habemus  to a uture suffix on the ormer infinitive, e.g. cantaremus  ‘we will sing’. Since the element - mus  is a residue o the ormer matrix verb, the source finite orm can be said to contribute to the new finite orm. Another example rom Ket (Yeniseian) is given in (1). Te matrix verb bimbata  ‘it is audible’ is reduced to a present suffix -b ɛ ta  ~ - bata  on verbs expressing sound production, whereas the past verb bil’ata  ‘it was audible’ has evolved into the past su-fix - bil  ɛ ta  ~ bil’ata  (Malchukov 2013: 196–197). According to Werner (1997: 278–279) these finite constructions derive rom the contraction o a verbal noun taking posses-sive agreement (‘my whistling’) and the matrix verb (‘it is/was audible’). As the matrix  verb is contracted but not deleted, it contributes to the resultant finite orm. Although Evans (2007: 385) gives numerous examples o the derivation o evidential affixes rom reduced perception verbs such as ‘hear’ or ‘see’, which all belong to this first category, the Ket example in (1b) has no evidential connotation. (1) Reduction o finite verb to affix in Ket (1a) tam bis’  ɛ ŋ in’ŋ ɛ  j bi-mbata  󰁰󰁴 what sound󰁰󰁲󰁳  ‘a certain sound is audible’ (Werner 1997: 170) (1b)  p-kut  ə l’ej- b ɛ  ta  1󰁳󰁧.󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁳-whistle- 󰁰󰁲󰁳  ‘I whistle’ (Werner 1997: 187)Alternatively, a construction consisting o a nominal predicate plus finite copula can be reanalyzed as a verbal predicate, whereby the copula may be subsequently lost. A classic example is given in (2a/b), where in Old Russian a nominal construction plus copula ‘the land is the one that came about’ is reanalyzed as a verbal predicate ‘the land came about’ and then, later in Russian, the copula is dropped. Although the copula is entirely lost in the contemporary Russian example in (2b) the ending  -l-a reflects predicate material rom the finite verb orm because the ormer non-finite  verb orm was reanalyzed as a periphrastic perect verbal predicate beore the copula was dropped. Evans (2007: 384–385) cites other examples o this type rom Cariban languages, where finite verb orms historically derive rom nominalizations that were part o copular constructions rom which the copula disappeared. (2) Verbalization o nominal predicates plus finite copula in Russian (2a) OR rusk-aja zemlja sta- l  -a es-tĭ   Russian-󰁦.󰁳󰁧 land come.about-󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁦.󰁰󰁣󰁰-󰁦.󰁳󰁧 be-3󰁳󰁧 ‘Te Russian land has come to exist’ (ale o bygone years, Te Laurentian codex, 1377)    Martine Robbeets  (2b) Rus. ty spa- l  -a  you sleep-󰁰󰁳󰁴-󰁦.󰁳󰁧 ‘You slept’Te loss o the copula may pass through an intermediate stage in which the ormer copula grammaticalizes to a sentence-final particle, as is ofen seen in the ibeto- Burman languages (DeLancey 2011). Te Sizang (Northern Chin) finite clause in (3b), or instance, can be derived rom a nominalized construction because the clitic used or verb agreement is a possessive proclitic, also used with nouns as in example (3a). Te equational copula hi  o the srcinal construction has lef a trace in the homopho-nous final particle. (3) Verbalization o nominal predicates plus finite copula in Sizang (3a) kâ mei  1󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁳 tail ‘my tail’ (DeLancey 2011: 350) (3b)  ká pài: hî:  1󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁳 go 󰁰󰁴 ‘I go/went’ (DeLancey 2011: 350)A third strategy involves the entire omission o the matrix predicate and the mainte-nance o the complement, which then takes on the unction o the missing matrix as in example (4) rom Japanese where the dependent conditional clause ‘i you gave it a try’ takes on the pragmatic meaning o the matrix predicate. Tis is the type to which Evans (2007: 367) applies the term “insubordination”, defining it as “the conventional-ized main clause use o what, on prima acie grounds, appear to be ormally subordi-nate clauses”. (4) Omission o verbal predicate in Japanese (4a)  yat-te mi-tara dou desu=ka  do-󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁶 see-󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁤 how be=󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲 (4b)  yat-te mi-tara ? do-󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁶 see-󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁤 ‘Why don’t you give it a try?’As shown by Dwyer (this volume), insubordination o conditional clauses to express polite requests or hortatives is a cross-linguistically requent phenomenon. urkic and Mongolic languages also have abundant examples o this type.Finally, a non-finite predicate may be directly reanalyzed as a finite one, with-out the omission o a specific matrix predicate, as in example (5) rom Barbareño Chumash (Mithun 2016). According to Mithun, the prefix al- began as a derivational nominalizer applied to verb stems to create noun stems, e.g. ‘be hot’ > ‘sun’ in (5a). As
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks