Abstract
Abstract This paper contributes to the typology of “active-stative” split intransitivity and middle voice with a detailed case study: it proceeds from a typological comparison of the two phenomena, which are usually treated apart, to an analysis of the Enets data and a discussion of its place in the typology of possible intransitive splits. Enets (Uralic, Samoyedic) has two classes of intransitive verbs, and each class uses its own cross-reference paradigm in all finite forms. The paper provides an account of the morphology of this intransitive split and its connection to the lexical aspect, followed by an overview of semantic composition of the two lexical classes; special attention is given to cases of class variation available for a dozen verbs. The research is based on the data of a fieldworkers’ corpus and thus also shows the advantages of a corpus-based approach to this phenomenon.
Highlights
1.1 The phenomenonThis paper is a study of two classes of intransitive verbs in a Northern Samoyedic (< Uralic) language of northern Siberia, Enets
The two classes of Enets intransitive verbs have been described in this paper from morphological and lexical points of view
The description of the morphology of the Enets intransitive split has shown quite good results both for form building and for derivation connections between the two classes, but the description of the lexical distribution has turned out to be more challenging for this type of data
Summary
This paper is a study of two classes of intransitive verbs in a Northern Samoyedic (< Uralic) language of northern Siberia, Enets. Enets has two classes of intransitive verbs defined by a series of cross-reference markers that the verbs take for indexing the person and number of the subject. Some intransitive verbs ( subjective verbs) take “subjective cross-reference series”, which is used for indexing person and number of the subjects of transitive verbs. The other intransitive verbs ( middle verbs) take “middle cross-reference series” attested exclusively with this class. All Northern Samoyedic languages have the two inflectional patterns available for intransitive verbs. For details of the intransitive split in other Northern Samoyedic languages, see Salminen (1997: 95–96), Khanina (2008), Nikolaeva (2014: 78–79), Tatevosov (2016) for Tundra Nenets, Verbov (1975: 90–92) for Forest Nenets, and Tereščenko (1979: 183–196) for Nganasan. Together with the other Northern Samoyedic languages, has derivational viewpoint aspect, as well as extensive aspectual and some valencychanging derivations, so the intransitive split is one more dimension in which the Enets verbal lexicon is structured
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
