The inflected possessive form of the type of Russian ixnij, its rise and variation across the East Slavic dialects and languages are analyzed. Whereas this form has been long fluctuated on the verge of Standard Russian and nevertheless has not been accepted as normative, it has been successfully adopted into Standard Ukrainian (superseding the older jix form) and widely used in Belarusian, although reluctantly accepted in grammars and dictionaries.
This paper explores how evidentiality is defined in recent research. It was inspired by the recent publication of The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality and several other volumes, which provide a rich body of new material. The definition (or rather demarcation) of evidentiality encompasses both morphosyntactic and semantic parameters. I will address criteria for the distinction of dedicated grammatical evidentials, and survey the values distinguished in evidentiality’s semantic domain. In addition, I discuss deictic views of evidentiality, which seem a fruitful approach to the study of evidentials in context.
Book review of S. E. Murray. The semantics of evidentials.
This paper presents a review of the book The acquisition of heritage languages. by an American linguist Sylvina Montrul.
In this paper, we discuss the most recent trends in the study of space and time. We consider four volumes [Filipović and Jaszczolt 2012], [Vulchanova and van der Zee 2013], [Moore 2014], and [Luraghi et al. 2017] that cover an relatively broad set of topics and approaches. The main topics the authors focus on are: language-specific systems of space and time conceptualization, cultural differences in understanding time, space and time (dis)analogy, granularity, frame of reference, verbs of motion, and Source vs. Goal asymmetry. The methods that the contributors apply are versatile ranging from formal and experimental to anthropological participant observation, and lexical typology. Many of the papers collected in these volumes deal with similar problems applying different frameworks to them, which makes it possible to compare how different approaches handle similar problems and thus reveal how they may be combined. This reflects one of the strongest trends in modern linguistics, namely the tendency to conduct interdisciplinary studies that allow to simultaneously view the same data from different angles.
Classical models of speech production have primarily focused on the psycholinguistic aspects of the process, identifying its components (i. e., meaning generation, lexical selection, functional assignment, phonological encoding and articulation) and how they interact [Bock, Levelt 1994; Dell, Change, Griffin 1999; Fromkin 1973; Garrett 1975 et al.]. This integral approach has pro- vided us with a solid conceptual understanding of the various processes involved at every stage of speech production, suggesting, however, that each of these stages is likely to have its own unique operational mechanisms. Thus, a more detailed exploration of each of these individual components of the speech production system is now required to build more refined and realis- tic models of speech production, reflecting how this multicomponent task of communication is orchestrated by the brain. For example, the articulation of speech needs to be studied separately from the lexical selection process because each relies on its own specific set of neuroanatomical structures and has its individual mechanisms of functioning and pathogenesis. “Neural Control of Speech” by F. H. Guenther is a brilliant attempt to tackle the problem using the “divide and conquer” approach.
Conceptualisation of Hebrew language history at the turn of 19th—20th centuries poses a curious and problematic case for sociolinguistics. Modern theories on this subject, often contradicting one another, have one assumption in common: Hebrew underwent crucial linguistic changes in Palestine during the period. The Hebrew language modernization usually referred to as Hebrew «revival» faced inter alia a challenge to expand Hebrew vocabulary.
The article at hand presents an analysis of European loanwords (500 lexemes), found in a daily Hebrew newspaper, published in Moscow in 1917—1918. Orthographic, morphological and grammar adaptation of the loanwords, as well as functional groups of borrowings, are examined, building on the data of Hebrew newspapers of the previous period (the second half of the 19th century). The analysis shows that basic models of loanword adaptation, which are still actual in Modern Hebrew, were elaborated in the early 20th century far away from Palestine, i.e. both from activity of Ben-Yehuda and from first generations of Hebrew speakers, thus our general interpretations of Hebrew history remain open to question.
The article is a preliminary publication of the birchbark documents found in Novgorod during the archeological season of 2014.
The article is a preliminary publication of the birchbark letters found in Novgorod during the archeological season of 2015.
The article is a preliminary publication of the birchbark letters found in Novgorod and Staraya Russa during the archeological season of 2016.
The article is a preliminary publication of the birchbark letters found in Novgorod and Staraya Russa during the archeological season of 2017. This is the last publication in the series prepared by Andrey Anatolyevich Zaliznyak.
The article is a preliminary publication of the birchbark letters found in Veliky Novgorod and Staraya Russa during the archaeological season of 2018.
In Old Russian hymns one sporadically observes the letter Э, incorporated in the text of a hymn. The author argues that this letter refl ects some Hebrew phrases referring to the name of God: he establishes connections between the hymnographic Э and some specifi c hebraisms in the Russian Old Testament manuscripts. The article deals both with the origin of the letter Э and its subsequent evolution.