Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=SQZ3xtr7u1BZGvlyuodCV1TTJsXB31QEMLEiGxC7pP8&_path=id%3D1192280%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Dtr%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

On the emergence of inflection classes

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 2, 87 - 110, 31.12.2022

Ömer Demirok

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1192280

Öz

Laz has a rich verb classification system. While the language presents robust morphological correlates of argument structure, it also exhibits finer morphological distinctions that have been argued to encode less canonical semantic features. This paper argues that these distinctions merely constitute inflection classes in the synchronic grammar of Laz but could be a residue of a grammar where these semantic features were active in exponent selection.

Anahtar Kelimeler

inflection classes conjugation allomorphy argument structure

Kaynakça

  • Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Alexiadou, A., & Müller, G. (2008). Class features as probes. In A. Bachrach, & A. Nevins (Eds.), Inflectional Identity (pp. 101-155). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Baker, J. (2018). Split intransitivity: Thematic roles, case and agreement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge.
  • Baker, J. (2020). How thematic suffixes in Georgian reveal event structure. Paper presented at SyntaxLab, University of Cambridge, 16th June 2020.
  • Barillot, X., Bendjaballah, S., & Lampitelli, N. (2018). Verbal classes in Somali: Allomorphy has no classificatory function. Journal of Linguistics 54(1), 3-43. DOI:10.1017/S002222671700024X.
  • Blix, H. (2021). Spans in South Caucasian agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 39: 1–55. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-020-09475-x.
  • Cherchi, M. (2003). How many verb classes are there in Mingrelian? In Holisky, D. A., & Tuite, K. (Eds.), Current trends in Caucasian, East European and Inner Asian linguistics: Papers in honor of Howard I. Aronson (pp. 29-39). John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.246.05che.
  • Corbett, G., & Fraser, N. M. (2000). Gender assignment: a typology and a model. Systems of Nominal Classification, 4, 293-325.
  • Demirok, Ö. (2013). AGREE as a unidirectional operation: evidence from Laz. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University.
  • Demirok, Ö. (2021). Non-linear Blocking Effects on Suppletive Allomorphy. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 32(2): 83-109. DOI: 10.18492/dad.804477.
  • Donohue, M., & Wichmann, S. (2008). The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford University Press.
  • Eren, Ö. (2021). Fake arguments as apparent valency changers: Evidence from Laz. In R. Soo, U. Y. Chow, & Nederveen, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 191-200). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • Eren, Ö. (2022). Preference for Transparency and Locality in Heritage Laz. Paper presented at Theoretical Linguistics and Languages of the Caucasus, İstanbul Bilgi University, 18th June 2022.
  • Erguvanlı Taylan, E., & Öztürk, B. (2014). Transitivity in Pazar Laz. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61(3), 271-296. DOI: 10.1556/ALing.61.2014.3.2.
  • Harris, A. (1985). Syntax and semantics 18: Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. New York: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1163/9789004373143.
  • Hewitt, G. (2008). Cases, arguments, verbs in Abkhaz, Georgian and Mingrelian. In G. G. Corbett, & M. Noonan (Eds.), Case and Grammatical Relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie (pp. 75–104). John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.81.04cas.
  • Holisky, D. A. (1991). Laz. In A. C. Greppin, & A. C. Harris (Ed.), The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus. Volume 1: The Kartvelian Languages (pp.395-472). Delmar/New York: Caravan Books.
  • Krifka, M. (2004). Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 4,1-32.
  • Mithun, M. (1991). Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67(3),510-546.
  • Nash, L. (2017). The structural source of split ergativity and ergative xase in Georgian. In J. Coon, D. Massam, & Travis, L. D. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, ed. Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa Demena Travis. Oxford University Press.
  • Osswald, R., Jr. Van Valin Jr., R., Fleischhauer, R., Latrouite, A., & Van Hooste, K. (2012). On the syntax-semantics interface of directed transport and caused motion expressions. Paper presented at Concept Types and Frames in Language, Düsseldorf, Aug 22-24.
  • Öztürk, B., & Pöchtrager, M. (2011). Pazar Laz. LINCOM.
  • Öztürk, B. (2011). Thematic suffixes. In B. Öztürk, M. Pöchtrager (Eds.), Pazar Laz (pp. 89-95). LINCOM.
  • Öztürk, B. (2021). Transitive unergatives in Pazar Laz. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6(1), 1-24. DOI: 10.5334/ gjgl.828
  • Öztürk, B., and Erguvanlı Taylan, E. (2017). Omnipresent little v in Pazar Laz. In R. D’Alessandro, I. Franco, & A. J. Gallego (Eds.), The Verbal Domain (pp. 207-232). Oxford University Press.
  • Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 4, 157-190.
  • Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. The MIT Press.
  • Rappaport Hovav, M. (2008). Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Crosslinguistic and Theoretical Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect (pp. 13-42). John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI: 10.1075/la.110.03hov
  • Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2000). Classifying single argument verbs. In P. Coopmans, M. Everaert, & J. Grimshaw (Eds.), Lexical specification and insertion (pp. 269-304). John Benjamins.
  • Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2001). An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77(4):766-797.
  • Rothstein, S. (2004). Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4):859-890.
  • Tuite, K. (2017). Alignment and orientation in Kartvelian (South Caucasian). In J. Coon, D. Massam, & L. Travis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ergativity (pp. 1114-1138). Oxford University Press.
  • Williams, A., Pimentel, T., Blix, H., McCarthy, A. D., Chodroff, E., & Cotterell. R. (2020). Predicting declension class from form and meaning. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 6682–6695). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Woolford, E. (2015). Ergativity and transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 46(3):489–531. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00190.

Çekim sınıflarının oluşumu üzerine

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 2, 87 - 110, 31.12.2022

Ömer Demirok

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1192280

Öz

Lazca zengin bir eylem sınıflandırma sistemine sahiptir. Dilde üye yapısının güçlü biçimbirimsel yansımaları dışında, önceki çalışmalarda daha atipik anlamsal özellikleri karşıladığı savunulan biçimbirimsel sınıflandırmalar da vardır. Bu çalışma, bu ayrımların Lazcanın eşsüremli dilbilgisinde sadece çekim sınıflarına karşılık geldiğini ve önerilen anlamsal özelliklerin biçimbirim seçimini belirleyebildiği bir dönemden kalıntı olduğunu savunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

çekim sınıfları eylem çekimi altbiçimlenme üye yapısı

Kaynakça

  • Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Alexiadou, A., & Müller, G. (2008). Class features as probes. In A. Bachrach, & A. Nevins (Eds.), Inflectional Identity (pp. 101-155). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Baker, J. (2018). Split intransitivity: Thematic roles, case and agreement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge.
  • Baker, J. (2020). How thematic suffixes in Georgian reveal event structure. Paper presented at SyntaxLab, University of Cambridge, 16th June 2020.
  • Barillot, X., Bendjaballah, S., & Lampitelli, N. (2018). Verbal classes in Somali: Allomorphy has no classificatory function. Journal of Linguistics 54(1), 3-43. DOI:10.1017/S002222671700024X.
  • Blix, H. (2021). Spans in South Caucasian agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 39: 1–55. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-020-09475-x.
  • Cherchi, M. (2003). How many verb classes are there in Mingrelian? In Holisky, D. A., & Tuite, K. (Eds.), Current trends in Caucasian, East European and Inner Asian linguistics: Papers in honor of Howard I. Aronson (pp. 29-39). John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.246.05che.
  • Corbett, G., & Fraser, N. M. (2000). Gender assignment: a typology and a model. Systems of Nominal Classification, 4, 293-325.
  • Demirok, Ö. (2013). AGREE as a unidirectional operation: evidence from Laz. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University.
  • Demirok, Ö. (2021). Non-linear Blocking Effects on Suppletive Allomorphy. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 32(2): 83-109. DOI: 10.18492/dad.804477.
  • Donohue, M., & Wichmann, S. (2008). The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford University Press.
  • Eren, Ö. (2021). Fake arguments as apparent valency changers: Evidence from Laz. In R. Soo, U. Y. Chow, & Nederveen, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 191-200). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • Eren, Ö. (2022). Preference for Transparency and Locality in Heritage Laz. Paper presented at Theoretical Linguistics and Languages of the Caucasus, İstanbul Bilgi University, 18th June 2022.
  • Erguvanlı Taylan, E., & Öztürk, B. (2014). Transitivity in Pazar Laz. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61(3), 271-296. DOI: 10.1556/ALing.61.2014.3.2.
  • Harris, A. (1985). Syntax and semantics 18: Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. New York: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1163/9789004373143.
  • Hewitt, G. (2008). Cases, arguments, verbs in Abkhaz, Georgian and Mingrelian. In G. G. Corbett, & M. Noonan (Eds.), Case and Grammatical Relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie (pp. 75–104). John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.81.04cas.
  • Holisky, D. A. (1991). Laz. In A. C. Greppin, & A. C. Harris (Ed.), The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus. Volume 1: The Kartvelian Languages (pp.395-472). Delmar/New York: Caravan Books.
  • Krifka, M. (2004). Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 4,1-32.
  • Mithun, M. (1991). Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67(3),510-546.
  • Nash, L. (2017). The structural source of split ergativity and ergative xase in Georgian. In J. Coon, D. Massam, & Travis, L. D. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, ed. Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa Demena Travis. Oxford University Press.
  • Osswald, R., Jr. Van Valin Jr., R., Fleischhauer, R., Latrouite, A., & Van Hooste, K. (2012). On the syntax-semantics interface of directed transport and caused motion expressions. Paper presented at Concept Types and Frames in Language, Düsseldorf, Aug 22-24.
  • Öztürk, B., & Pöchtrager, M. (2011). Pazar Laz. LINCOM.
  • Öztürk, B. (2011). Thematic suffixes. In B. Öztürk, M. Pöchtrager (Eds.), Pazar Laz (pp. 89-95). LINCOM.
  • Öztürk, B. (2021). Transitive unergatives in Pazar Laz. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6(1), 1-24. DOI: 10.5334/ gjgl.828
  • Öztürk, B., and Erguvanlı Taylan, E. (2017). Omnipresent little v in Pazar Laz. In R. D’Alessandro, I. Franco, & A. J. Gallego (Eds.), The Verbal Domain (pp. 207-232). Oxford University Press.
  • Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 4, 157-190.
  • Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. The MIT Press.
  • Rappaport Hovav, M. (2008). Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Crosslinguistic and Theoretical Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect (pp. 13-42). John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI: 10.1075/la.110.03hov
  • Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2000). Classifying single argument verbs. In P. Coopmans, M. Everaert, & J. Grimshaw (Eds.), Lexical specification and insertion (pp. 269-304). John Benjamins.
  • Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2001). An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77(4):766-797.
  • Rothstein, S. (2004). Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4):859-890.
  • Tuite, K. (2017). Alignment and orientation in Kartvelian (South Caucasian). In J. Coon, D. Massam, & L. Travis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ergativity (pp. 1114-1138). Oxford University Press.
  • Williams, A., Pimentel, T., Blix, H., McCarthy, A. D., Chodroff, E., & Cotterell. R. (2020). Predicting declension class from form and meaning. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 6682–6695). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Woolford, E. (2015). Ergativity and transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 46(3):489–531. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00190.
Toplam 36 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Dilbilim
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Ömer Demirok 0000-0002-2536-5247

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Aralık 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022 Cilt: 33 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Demirok, Ö. (2022). On the emergence of inflection classes. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 33(2), 87-110. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1192280

88x31.png

Bu eser


Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad