Applying popular arguments for and against an independent egophoric grammatical category to Thewo Tibetan

The article provides an overview of the grammatical and syntactical category of negation in diachronic systems. Particular attention is paid to the problem of negation in linguistics, and to negation as a grammatical category and syntactical category on the morphological and syntactic level. The authors argue that, broadly speaking, negation can be expressed in natural languages through morphological and syntactic tools. Negation is expressed by means of a hierarchically organized system of heterogeneous linguistic units connected by similar semantic functions. Based on this theoretical assumption, it is explained that negation as a grammatical category and as a syntactical category can be realized on both morphological and syntactic levels. On the morphological level, negation suffixes and individual part-of-speech paradigms are taken into account, while, on the syntactic level, the entire negative sentence containing one or more negations is considered. The diachronic study of the category of negation at different levels helps to observe the development of specific parts of speech that can express negation and provides a basis for further research on negation in different discourses and communicative situations.

INTRODUCTION In this research, we have had an exact categorization for different kinds of derivational and derivational-compound past participles in the frame of typological prototypes which is a universal approach towards the parts of speech. In this theory, prototypical adjectives with no morphemes belong to the semantic class of ‘property’ and to ‘modification’ in terms of propositional act constructions. These prototypical adjectives should be simple and without any morphemes on the basis of structural coding of typological prototypes theory. Furthermore, the adjectives which are not simple and have morphemes, are considered as marked and non- prototypical adjectives. Indeed, the structural coding criterion specifies only that the marked member is encoded by at least as many morphemes as the unmarked member (croft, 1999:73). This generalization is an implicational universal. If a language codes a typologically unmarked member of a grammatical category by n morphemes (n > 0), then it codes a typologically marked member of that category by at least n morphemes. Past participles which are studied in this research, are marked and are not simple structurally. They are divided to derivational and derivational- compound ones which have all morphemes. Derivational past participles are made by the past stem of verb + a suffix (-h) and the derivational-compound past participles are made by a noun, adjective, adverb, pronoun + derivational past participle (stem of a verb+ suffix(h)). Therefore, they are not prototypical in terms of their structure and their different semantic class. Typological markedness also constrains the distribution of constructions exhibiting the behavioral potential of the categories; if a construction encoding the behavioral potential of members of a grammatical category is found in that category, it is found with at least the unmarked member of that category for that construction.MATERIALS AND METHODSIn this research, examples of derivational and derivational-compound past participles are collected from the definitions and classifications of Persian grammarians and linguists. Then the examples of past participles are verified based on the typological criteria; structural coding and behavioral potential. All the examples are studied through the consideration of their adjectival and nominal behavioral potentials. Finally, their status and positions are specified in the Croft’s parts of speech semantic map. Then the new classification of past participles regarding their nominal and adjectival behaviors are placed in the behavioral diagrams.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONPast participles do not act similarly and are not uniform on the basis of behavioral potential. Therefore, they are not in the same level. Some derivational past participles are used both with adjectival and nominal behavioral potentials. Some of them are used only in modification and propositional constructions and with nominal behavioral criteria. Some are used only in modification and propositional constructions. Some of derivational-compound past participles are used as both adjectives and nouns. Some of them are used only in modification and propositional constructions and with nominal behavioral criteria. Moreover, some are used only in propositional constructions with all of nominal behavioral potentials which are considered as marked nouns. In this research, past participles behavioral potential is verified and at last it is shown that they follow the behavioral potential of typological prototype theory. Totally, their behavioral potential is not more than the behavioral potentials of unmarked nouns. Hence, they are marked category in terms of both structural coding and behavioral potential. Finally, their position is specified on the semantic map and their behavioral potentials are shown through diagrams. The position of derivational and derivational-compound past participles on the semantic map are considered as ‘action’ in terms of semantic class and ‘modification’ in terms of propositional act. Because in all derivational and derivational-compound past participles, we have used an action for the propositional act of modification. In other words, by marking and adding morphemes to an action as a semantic class, we have used it for acting as modification. Therefore, the position of past participles is shown in the semantic map as figure 1 below. CONCLUSIONDerivational and derivational-compound past participles’ new classifications on the basis of their adjectival, nominal or both are placed on the behavioral diagrams. behavioral potentials are shown by ovals and the positions of past participles are shown by (*) in the ovals. One oval is dedicated to adjectival criteria. One oval is dedicated to nominal criteria. These ovals have some common spaces which are considered for past participles which have both the adjectival and nominal behavioral potential."Reference to PDF article"Figure 1. semantic map of Persian parts of speech constructionsAnother classification is considered for a class of derivational- compound past participles which are made by a noun and the past participle of verbs ‘zadeh’: giving birth and ‘xandeh’: to call someone’. This class of derivational-compound past participles have only nominal usage. They are used with all of the nominal behavioral criteria and are not used with specific behavioral potentials of adjectives. In other words, they cannot be gradable, they are not used with intensifiers and are not used in the modification constructions. These are the most specific properties of prototypical adjectives. They only are used in the propositional constructions. It should be mentioned that nouns also could be used in the propositional constructions. So, this class of derivational-compound past participles are considered as marked nouns and not adjectives. Therefore, their position in the semantic map is considered as ‘action’ in terms of semantic class and ‘reference’ in terms of propositional act. If their propositional act was modification, they could be used as adjectives. It means they could be used with the most specific adjectival properties (able to be gradable, used with intensifiers and used in modification constructions). However, Persian speakers have used this construction to refer and name some specific persons. Accordingly, their propositional act would be reference and not modification. Therefore, they are called persons’ name.

A semantic map is a method for visually representing cross-linguistic regularity or universality in semantic structure. This method has proved attractive to typologists because it provides a convenient graphical display of the interrelationships between meanings or functions across languages, while (at the same time) differentiating what is universal from what is language-specific. The semantic map model was initially conceived to describe patterns of polysemy (or, more generally, of co-expression) in grammatical categories. However, several studies have shown that it can be fruitfully extended to lexical items and even constructions, suggesting that any type of meaning can be integrated in a map. The main idea of the method is that the spatial arrangement of the various meanings reflects their degree of (dis)similarity: the more similar the meanings, the closer they are placed—in accordance with the so-called connectivity hypothesis. Within the semantic map tradition, closeness has taken different forms depending on the approach adopted. In classical semantic maps (alternative terms: “first generation,” “implicational,” “connectivity” maps), the relation between meanings is represented as a line. This is the graph-based approach. In proximity maps (alternative terms: “similarity,” “second generation,” “statistical,” “probabilistic” maps), the distance between two meanings in space— represented as points—indicates the degree of their similarity. In this scale- or distance-based approach, the maps are constructed using multivariate statistical techniques, including the family of methods known as multidimensional scaling (MDS). Both classical and proximity maps have been widely used, although the latter have recently gained interest and popularity under the assumption that they can cope with large data more efficiently than classical semantic maps. However, classical semantic maps continue to be useful for studies aiming to discover universal semantic structures. Most importantly, classical maps can integrate information about directionality of change by drawing an arrow on the line connecting two meanings or functions. Beyond the choice between the two types of maps, one of the issues that has sparked debate and critical reflection among researchers is the universal relevance of semantic maps. The main question that these researchers address is whether semantic maps reflect the global geography of the human mind. Another much discussed issue is the identification of the factors that increase the accuracy of semantic maps in a way that allows for valid cross‐linguistic generalizations. Such factors include the choice of a representative language sample, the quality of the collected cross‐linguistic material, and the establishment of valid cross-linguistic comparators. Acknowledgments: The author wishes to thank one anonymous reviewer for their useful comments. For discussion of the material in this article, the author is grateful to Stéphane Polis.

The comprehension of admirativeness as an independent category took place relatively recently – at the end of the 20th century. Until now, some scholars have not recognized an independent character of admirative. However, in recent years there has been an increasingly noticeable tendency to recognize the separate role of admirativeness and to indicate that the expression of surprise evoked by unexpected information cannot be combined with similar meanings. At the same time, the ways and degree of expression of admirativeness in different language systems vary significantly. The introduction of such grammatical category as admirativeness and the term “admirative” refers to the second half of the 19th century. In 1879, O. Dozon coined the term in his works on the Albanian language. The choice of this name (Fr. admiratif comes from the verb “to admire”) is determined by the fact that the linguist interpreted the concept as a certain sense of admiration or surprise, often having an ironic character. Further the development of this direction showed that admirative had the meaning of surprise rather than admiration. In this connection, in 1997, S. de Lancey first singled out this concept into a separate grammatical category. The scholar substantiates it by the fact that in a number of languages, such as Korean, Turkish, Tibetan, Dardic, Sanvar, etc., admirative has a separate grammatical expression. The identification of admirativeness as a separate linguistic phenomenon with a number of specific features has been still the subject of controversy among the researchers. Characteristics and distinctive features of admirativeness, allowing for the separation it from other similar categories will be considered later in the paper (Davletbaeva et al., 2013). In his writings, S. de Lancey uses the term “mirative”, thereby excluding its correlation with admiration introduced by O. Dozon from the meaning of the concept, and indicating that its primary function is to convey the subject’s astonishment. To date, the term “mirative” is widely used in English-language grammar. V.A. Plugnyan notes that the use of this term is more grounded from a typological point of view, however, the use of the concept “admirative” is often retained in domestic works (Smagina, 1996).

Although semantic maps and typological hierarchies are different analytical tools and make different predictions, there is, arguably, a particular kind of a semantic map that shares certain features with typological hierarchies, in particular, the property of directionality. First, we briefly illustrate that such maps are based on the notion of local markedness and are designed to model the interaction between grammatical categories. We then explore the Actionality Hierarchy, formulated in terms of Vendlerian classes, which models the interaction between actionality and grammatical aspect. On the one hand, it will be shown that the Actionality Hierarchy can be reconstructed as a semantic map, based on common semantic features shared selectively between individual Vendlerian classes. Notably, it is directional and can be used to capture relations of local markedness between actionality and aspect. On the other hand, we will provide first systematic, quantitative evidence for the Actionality Map, using cross-linguistic parallel corpus data of four languages.

It is known that Soviet Turkologists believe that the affix of the instrumental suffix exists only in the Kazakh language among Turkic-speaking peoples. Because in the modern Kazakh language, “birlan”, which is the archetype of the form “men”, which was once a case affix, once a conjunctional functional word, was not an affix of the case category, but a particle functional word. Also, when developing the theory of grammar of the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, linguists of the national republics were guided by the grammatical theory of the Russian language. And in the grammar of the Russian language, the number of declensions is six. For such reasons, in most modern Turkic peoples, only six types of the category of declension are indicated. The article shows the forms formed by the mosaic method in modern Turkic languages from the early particle “birlan”, some of which are used as affixes, that is, the affixes of the instrumental case exist not only in Kazakh, but also in other Turkic languages. The modern Kazakh version of the former particle “birlan” is “men”. The grammatical function of this form in the modern Kazakh language is very large: despite the change in form, it has retained its original meaning, as well as many functions that have been added later. However, the semantic motivation between the conjunction and conjunctive is observed, and nevertheless the two are developing separately as two different grammatical categories.

Reviewed by: New perspectives on Chinese syntax by Waltraud Paul1 Jinglian Li and Fanjun Meng New perspectives on Chinese syntax. By Waltraud Paul. (Trends in linguistics, studies and monographs 271.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2015. Pp. xvi, 357. ISBN 9783110338683. $154 (Hb). Mandarin Chinese, as an isolating language, presents considerable challenges to the syntactic study of word-order typology, the inventory of lexical categories, sentence-peripheral elements like topic, sentence-final particles (SFPs), and so on. Waltraud Paul’s book New perspectives on Chinese syntax boldly takes on these controversial and recalcitrant issues and aims to reaccommodate them into a broader linguistic landscape. In short, P has managed to reconcile some noisy facts in Chinese and has cogently falsified some pervasive, long-term conceptions in Chinese syntax. The book is organized into eight chapters. The first chapter sets the stage for the book and provides a synopsis of the subsequent chapters. In Ch. 2, word order in Chinese is submitted to typological scrutiny from a historical perspective. Chinese is argued to have undergone two major word-order changes: OV > VO > OV (see Li & Thompson 1974). Specifically, pre-Archaic Chinese originated as an SOV language and then changed to SVO between the tenth and the third centuries bc, further followed by a shift back to SOV, which is still in progress in Modern Mandarin. P argues against this and, based on the Shang inscriptions (see Djamouri 1988), shows that even in pre-Archaic Chinese, the dominant word order is SVO instead of SOV. The so-called SOV in pre-Archaic Chinese, involving focalization of the object and object pronouns in negated sentences, turns out to be de facto the head-complement configuration, thus consistent with the SVO order. The core evidence for Li and Thompson’s (1974) hypothesis of SOV order in Modern Chinese is [End Page 1006] the bǎ-construction. P succeeds in reconciling the bǎ-construction with the head-complement configuration. She assumes bǎ to be a higher functional head subcategorizing a vP or AspP as complement, rather than a preposition. Importantly, P further postulates that the object of V moves to [Spec, bǎP] and bǎ head-moves to the higher v (leaving aside many details). Consequently, the complement of bǎ is now to its right in Modern Mandarin, a compliant VO order. Hence, Chinese is systematically an SVO language. The following three chapters concern a number of lexical categories in Chinese. It has been claimed that Chinese, an isolating language, lacks these categories. Ch. 3 probes the properties of prepositions and argues that prepositions form an independent category distinct from verbs, rather than the alleged categorially dual V/P hybrid (see Huang et al. 2009). The evidence P provides is as follows. First, a preposition is distinct from a verb in terms of syntactic distribution. Prepositions are incompatible with adverbs and negation, contra typical verbs, regardless of whether there is a homophonous verbal counterpart. Second, prepositions cannot function as predicates. Verbs and prepositions that are homophonous display different selectional restrictions, and only the former is compatible with aspectual affixes, which argues against the conflation of the two. Third, no preposition stranding is allowed, even in the Shang inscriptions, whereas verbs do license null complements. Finally, diachronically, not all prepositions have verbal origins. For instance, exclusive prepositions such as zì ‘from’ and yú ‘at, to’ are attested in the Shang inscriptions; there is no evidence to suggest that they are deverbal. The argument for the preposition as an independent syntactic category is further supported by the observation that PPs pattern with NPs, rather than VPs, given that PPs also show adjunct/argument asymmetry, akin to NPs. In a similar vein, Ch. 4 primarily argues for postpositions as an independent adpositional category. P first argues against the conflation of postpositions with nouns. Unlike nouns, the postposition requires an overt complement (e.g. *(zhuōzi) shàng ‘on the table’), and no intervention is allowed between them. The existence of deverbal postpositions (e.g. lái ‘during, over’, qǐ ‘starting from’) substantially undermines the nominal analysis of postpositions. The postposition is also distributionally different from the preposition. In contrast with prepositions, argumental spatial postpositions can be the subjects...

SummaryThis article examines the approaches to classifiers within the Western tradition, ranging from the earliest accounts of the languages of Mesoamerica and East Asia from the 16th-17th centuries to ongoing discussions regarding their semantic motivation and functionality. I show that in spite of the limited attention they attracted before the 1970s, classifiers have played an important role in discussions concerning such notions as the functions of grammatical categories, the distinction between grammar and lexicon as well as the cognitive and cultural correlates of linguistic structure. In addition, I attribute common assumptions about classifiers to projections of typical properties of grammatical gender and, more generally, semantic and morphosyntactic properties of non-classifier languages.

The grammatical category of case, as one of the most discussed grammatical categories in English and one of the most specific categories in Albanian, has always attracted the researchers’ attention and, therefore, there are numerous studies about this category in these two respective languages. However, the main purpose of this article is to indicate that despite their different morphological structure which implies differences in their grammatical categories, English and Albanian, also show some similarities that concern the grammatical category of case and especially the genitive case as the only marked case in English nominal system. This article examined the grammatical category of case in English and Albanian nominal system through the contrastive method, emphasizing the differences that regard several aspects of the category of case, such as the number of cases in these two languages, the way they build their case forms, the use of prepositions in building the case forms, i.e., prepositions as case markers, and also several characteristics of the category of case that these two languages have in common. The results indicate that the similarities concern mainly the genitive case. Nouns in the genitive case, in English and Albanian, share some characteristics that concern their semantic functions, their use in “the double genitive” constructions, rules of forming such constructions, and the omission of the case markers without affecting meaning.

This study recommends a comparative-typological classification to categorize archaic words according to their semantic functions. Through this study, we clarify the pragmatic content of three related terms archaic words, historical words and anachronisms in terms of their similarities and differences. Moreover, we provide detailed explanation of archaic words existed in English and Uzbek languages. Mainly, through this study, we propose a revision of the semantical classification of archaic words to simplify their typology. This framework is conducted based on the other classifications of the archaic words. Existing categorizations of archaic words refer to lexical and grammatical categories that are referential in function, with the additional categories of phonetic and derivational archaic words. We suggest bringing semantic categories of archaic words, such as medical archaisms, occupational archaisms, zooarchaisms, phytoarchaisms, topoarchaisms and hydroarchaisms.

This study proposed a change in the direction of Korean language education on vagueness in terms of viewing vagueness as a natural language attribute and communication strategy. The point of the proposal is that the various semantic functions of vagueness should be incorporated into the educational content. Chapter 2 sets the foundation for educational discussion by clarifying the conceptual domain of vagueness and describing its core semantic functions. We discussed that vagueness is a dynamic concept that occurs in communication situations, and that its fundamental function is ‘extension of interpretable scope’. In addition, it was emphasized that ‘expanding the interpretable range’ plays a role in leading communication to various forms by influencing the establishment of relationships between expressors and receptors, the main agents of communication. Chapter 3 reflected on the current status of Korean language education on vagueness and proposed that the contents of education limited to the “accuracy” layer should be expanded to the “appropriateness and validity” level. Chapter 4 presents various semantic functions in which vagueness is expressed in conjunction with the context of communication, focusing on the syntax of dependent noun ‘Deung’, and presents detailed goals that Korean language education can take in each aspect. The above discussion is significant in that it pointed out the limitations of traditional Korean language education, which has beendealing only with vagueness as a negative factor that impairs ‘accuracy’, and proposed a more extended educational perspective.

Reliable estimates of genetic diversity among the accessions in a breeding population is important knowledge for use in breeding. Among the different types of molecular markers, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and simple sequence repeat (SSR) are largely used by breeders; however, our knowledge of the reliability of the estimates of genetic diversity based on these two types of markers in multiple populations is limited. In this study, a doubled haploid (DH) and an inbred population developed from Brassica napus × Brassica oleracea interspecific crosses were used for comparative analysis of these two types of markers. The estimates based on SNP and SSR markers showed a stronger correlation in the inbred population which was expected to carry greater genetic diversity as compared to the DH population. This inference was also evident from the analysis of different diversity groups (least, intermediate, and most similar) of these two populations for significant difference between the groups for six agronomic and seed quality traits, where this analysis failed to differentiate the diversity groups of the DH population for any of the traits. However, both marker types could differentiate the diversity groups of the inbred population for several traits. Furthermore, the six sub-populations of the inbred population could also be differentiated by both marker types. Thus, the results demonstrate the greater utility of the SSR and SNP markers in a genetically diverse population. This knowledge can be used while grouping a breeding population for diversity groups; however, caution needs to be taken while using the markers in a genetically narrow population.

Die Disposition von DaF-Lernergrammatiken ist geprägt von der Grammatik der einzelnen Wortarten und des Satzbaus. Dieser Aufbau orientiert sich zum einen an der Duden-Grammatik, die bis zur sechsten Auflage (1998) der Phrase als selbständiger grammatischer Kategorie praktisch keinen eigenen Platz einräumt; zum anderen aber steht dafür die Grammatik von Helbig & Buscha (2001) Pate, die als eine Mischung aus funktionaler und valenzorientierter Grammatik die Kategorie Phrase außer Betracht lässt. Der Ausschluss der Kategorie Phrase suggeriert jedoch einen direkten Übergang vom Wort zum Satz und rührt letztlich von der Vorstellung her, dass der Satz aus einer geordneten Menge von Einzelwörtern besteht. Doch spätestens dann, wenn die Rede auf die Bestimmung von ‚Satzgliedern‘ kommt, werden Lerner mit genau jener Größe konfrontiert, die zwischen der Ebene des Einzelworts und der des Satzes angesiedelt ist, in ihrer Erweiterbarkeit und Vielgestaltigkeit dem Satz in nichts nachsteht, von deren Strukturerkennung jedoch letztlich auch diejenige des gesamten Satzes abhängt.Der folgende Beitrag verfolgt das Ziel, anhand der Erörterung komplexer Nominalphrasen und ihrer Rolle bei der Entstehung von Garden-path- und ähnlichen Konstruktionen auf die Wichtigkeit der Behandlung von Nominalphrasen aus linearer Sicht sowie einige ausgewählte Aspekte aufmerksam zu machen, die in einer Lernergrammatik anlässlich der Behandlung der Kategorie Phrase zur Sprache kommen müssten. Es wird sich zeigen, dass die Thematisierung der Phrasentopologie zum besseren Verständnis des Satzgliedbaus seitens des Lerners führen und ihm somit zur Rezeption und Produktion hochkomplexer Gebilde im Deutschen verhelfen kann.

Kiplik, konuşurun önermeye veya önermenin tanımladığı duruma ilişkin öznel görüş ve tutumunun ifadesidir. Konuşurun bir duruma veya cümlenin içeriğine ilişkin bilişsel, duyusal veya istemsel bakış açısını gösteren kiplik, konuşurun iletişimle ilgili tavrını belirten göstergelerdir. Anlamsal bir kategori olarak değerlendirilen kiplik; morfolojik, sözcüksel, söz dizimsel, prozodik araçlarla veya farklı kategorilerin kombinasyonuyla çeşitli şekilde işaretlenebilir. Kiplik işaretleyicileri arasında yer alan modal sözler, konuşurun önerme ve olgulara karşı bakış açısını gösteren; kelime, kelime grubu veya cümlenin anlamına ek bir anlam nüansı katan yardımcı sözcüklerdir. Türkçe literatürde modal sözler farklı tanım ve izahlarla, oldukça çeşitli anlamsal kategorilerle sınıflandırılmaktadır. Aynı zamanda modal sözlerin ayrı bir sözcük kategorisi oluşturup oluşturmadığı veya başlı başına bir sözcük kategorisi değilse hangi sözcük türü içerisinde ele alınması gerektiği konusu da tartışmalıdır. Bu durum Türkmen Türkçesi için de geçerlidir. Türkmen Türkçesi gramerlerinde, modal sözlerin ele alınışı ve değerlendirilişinde birbirinden farklı yaklaşımlar tespit edilebilmektedir. Özellikle modal sözlerin yapısının ve türünün tanımlanması, işlevlerinin belirlenmesi ve sınıflandırılması gibi hususlar Türkmen Türkçesi gramerlerinin tartışmalı meseleleri arasındadır. Türkmen Türkçesi gramerciliğinde modal sözleri müstakil bir sözcük kategorisi olarak değerlendiren, mevcut sözcük kategorileri içerisinde ele alan veya tamamen farklı bir dil bilgisel düzeyde enklitik olarak etiketleyen çeşitli yaklaşımlar söz konusudur. Bu çalışmada, Türkmen Türkçesi gramerlerinde modal söz kavramının nasıl tanımlandığı, hangi ölçütlerle nasıl sınıflandırıldığı ve hangi sözcüksel türlerle değerlendirildiği incelenerek modal sözlerin hangi kategoriye dâhil edilmesi gerektiğine dair öneriler sunulacaktır. Konunun aydınlatılması için çalışmanın girişinde kısaca kip, kiplik ve modal söz kavramları üzerinde durulacak; Türkçe literatürdeki genel eğilimi ortaya koymak için diğer modern Türk lehçelerinde konuyla ilgili yaklaşımlara değinilecektir. Çalışmanın temel amacı, özelde Türkmen Türkçesinde, genelde ise tipolojik olarak Türkçede heterojen bir gruba işaret eden modal sözlerin dil bilgisel kategoriler içindeki yerinin belirlenmesidir. Burada modal sözlerin sözcük kategorisindeki yerinin belirlenmesi için özellikle yardımcı/işlevsel sözcük kategorisi altında yer alan diğer türlerle (edat, bağlaç, ünlem, enklitik) karşılaştırma yoluna giderek bir sonuca ulaşılmaya çalışılacak, konu üzerindeki tartışmalara yeni bir bakış açısı önerilecektir.

This article discusses the predicate category, which, like grammatical categories, has its own valency potential and is an independent grammatical category. At the same time, it is stated that the predicate category is a superparadigm formed by a combination of several categories, such as affirmation-negation, mood-modality, tense, person-number.