A typology of negation in Tungusic

Hölzl, Andreas

doi:10.1075/sl.39.1.05hoe

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It can be seen that there are two direct paths towards the interrogative category reason, namely from thing and manner. 1 After examining the data from northeast Asia (e.g., Tungusic), Hölzl (2015;2018: 83) extends Cysouw's (2005) derivation paths as in Figure 2. Besides the two additional paths from thing and manner to kind, there is one more derivation from activity to reason, e.g., Manchu ai-na-me (what-v.do-cvb.ipfv) 'why' , literally 'doing what' or 'in order to do what' .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interrogatives of reason in Tibeto-Burman languages of Sichuan

Ding,

Dong

2024

LALI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a typological study of the why-interrogative expressions in Tibeto-Burman languages, or the non-Chinese Sino-Tibetan languages, in Sichuan, southwest China. After examining 22 languages/dialects, the interrogative category of reason is grouped into three types, viz. the distinct why-type, the how-type, and the what-type, according to the interrogative categories from which they are derived. It is discovered that the what-type is the dominant strategy for languages in Sichuan to derive the reason category. It is also common for Tibeto-Burman languages to use verbal interrogatives, namely interrogative verb phrases and interrogative words with verbal origins, dominantly in the sense of ‘to do what’ and ‘to become what’, to ask for reason. After a focused investigation of the verbal interrogatives, it is found that Tibeto-Burman languages in Sichuan distinguish purpose from cause via word/phrase distinction, sentential positions and semantic differences. A path of grammaticalization of the verbal interrogatives is thus proposed and analyzed. Finally, the derivation maps of interrogatives in Cysouw (2005) and Hölzl (2018) are complemented with a refined distinction between purpose and cause.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interrogatives of reason in Tibeto-Burman languages of Sichuan

Ding,

Dong

2024

LALI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Is it possible to prove the Altaic theory on the basis of negative forms in Mongolian, Manchu and Turkish?

Dolińska

2022

ALaL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research question posed in this article is whether the Altaic theory is possible, if it is discussed on the basis of chosen negative forms in Mongolian, Turkish, Manchu and its Sibe dialect. The supporters of the Altaic theory assume that these languages (and some include Japanese, Korean and Ainu to this list (Miller, 1967)) emerged from the same root. The opponents of this theory think that the similarities in these languages have resulted from historical contacts between their speakers (Doerfer, 1966, p.122). This article consists of the analysis of negative forms in various stages of Mongolian, Manchu and Turkish languages carried out on the basis of literary monuments and contemporary resources. The conclusions concerning the possibility of the Altaic theory based on the described negative forms have been presented at the end, accompanied by the Index of negative particles and suffixes.

show abstract

Constructionalization areas

Hölzl

2018

Constructional Approaches to Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heine & Kuteva (2005) proposed the concept of a grammaticalization area. Given the recent appearance of the concept of constructionalization, (Traugott & Trousdale, 2013) it seems reasonable to ask whether there are constructionalization areas as well. The paper exemplifies this concept with the help of the Tungusic language Manchu and some surrounding languages. Manchu does not have the common Tungusic negative verb e‑, but, like Mongolian, employs the negative existential akū instead (e.g., Ikegami, 1999 [1979]). Manchu and Mongolian share not only this development, but also an underlying interlingual constructional network (Höder, 2012). The paper proposes the name areal construction grammar as a label for those aspects of construction grammar that are concerned with the study of language contact.

show abstract

A typology of negation in Tungusic

Cited by 7 publications

References 25 publications

Interrogatives of reason in Tibeto-Burman languages of Sichuan

Interrogatives of reason in Tibeto-Burman languages of Sichuan

Is it possible to prove the Altaic theory on the basis of negative forms in Mongolian, Manchu and Turkish?

Constructionalization areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About