Типология морфосинтаксических параметров. Материалы международной конференции «Типология морфосинтаксических параметров 2016»
The present volume continues the thematic series “Typology of morphosyntactic parameters”. Parametric description of grammatical systems is a priority field of research in linguistic typology and grammar theory. Grammar as the most regular component of linguistic structure provides the best opportunity in modeling universal characteristics of a human language on the basis of a limited number of factors. This volume is primarily dedicated to the interaction of grammar mechanisms and to interface phenomena — syntax-prosody interface, syntax-semantics interface, information structure-syntax interface. The volume presents two types of research articles: those discussing general characteristics of languages sharing the same combination of parameters and those investigating the interrelation of the universal and language-specific features in the grammar of a given language.
This study deals with the locative systems of seventeen northern dialects of the Dargwa language (the Dargwa group of the Northeast Caucasian language family). In the first part of the paper I discuss the relations between spatial and non-spatial uses of the localization morphemes. Here I prove that locatives are not equal in their ability to be used in non-spatial contexts and most of such uses concentrate around two morphemes: *cːi INTER and *ki SUPER, while other morphemes either develop a very limited set of non-locative uses or do not develop them at all. The second point of this part is that the semantic source of the non- spatial uses of the locatives is their spatial meaning at the moment of their grammaticalization and not their synchronic spatial meaning. In the second part of the paper I apply statistical methods to the distribution of the non- locative contexts among the morphemes of localization and orientation. Here I show that even though the non-spatial semantics of inter and super are not always connected to their locative semantics, the choice between the two localization is not random and the contexts form two clear clusters. In this section, I also analyze the non-locative uses of orientations and show that the vagueness of the difference between lative and essive that exists in spatial contexts is reflected in non-spatial contexts as well.
This paper is devoted to Old Church Slavonic (OCS) and Old Russian (OR) compound verbs with stacked prefixes. Although prefixes are a well investigated topic as regards modern Slavic languages, multiple prefixation in ancient Slavic languages still needs to be extensively explored. This work is a further step in this direction: via a careful manual scrutiny of the relevant data automatically extracted from the TOROT Treebank, we compare OCS and OR prefix orderings and we analyze multiply prefixed verbs both semantically and syntactically. As regards semantics, prefix stacking only rarely results in a fully compositional compound. More often, the resulting compounds are partially compositional or lexicalized. However, OCS and OR prefixes still retain (at least partially) their lexical value and are far from being pure perfectivity markers. Consequently, this also affects their syntactic behavior: the lexical modifications brought about by prefixes sometimes have the side effect of modifying the case taken by verbal compounds.
Tupí-Guaraní (and a few other Tupí) languages manifest a distinctive construction of predicative possession, minimally consisting of the possessee noun marked with a pronominal prefix cross-referencing the possessor. Some authors suggested analyzing such structures as existential clauses containing a zero copula. In this paper, I attempt to show that such an analysis is not viable for Paraguayan Guaraní. After a brief summary of the modern typology of predicative possession (§1) and the distinctive Tupí-Guaraní pattern (§2), I outline basic facts of predicative possession in Paraguayan Guaraní (§3), and provide arguments against the zero copula hypothesis (§4), drawing evidence from distribution of cross-reference markers, locus of predicative inflection, and possessor accessibility for questioning and relativization. Some of these arguments have not previously been brought into discussion of predicative possession in Tupí-Guaraní and thus open new avenues for further comparative and language-specific research.