LINGUIST List 15.1249

Mon Apr 19 2004

Review: Typology/Lang Description: Mattissen (2003)

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomilinguistlist.org>

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in.

If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley Collberg at collberglinguistlist.org.

Directory

  • Wolfgang Schulze, Dependent-Head-Synthesis in Nivkh

    Message 1: Dependent-Head-Synthesis in Nivkh

     Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:28:05 -0400 (EDT)
    From: Wolfgang Schulze <W.Schulzelrz.uni-muenchen.de>
    Subject: Dependent-Head-Synthesis in Nivkh


    AUTHOR: Mattissen, Johanna TITLE: Dependent-Head-Synthesis in Nivkh SUBTITLE: A contribution to a typology of polysynthesis PUBLISHER: John Benjamins Publishing Company SERIES: Typological Studies in Language 57 YEAR: 2003 Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-320.html

    Wolfgang Schulze, IATS, University of Munich.

    TABLE OF PHONETIC SYMBOLS USED IN THIS REVIEW d' = Heavily palatalized alveolar voiced stop (> affricate) e^ = High central vowel g^ = Vocied velar fricative gh = Voiced uvular fricative G = Voiced uvular stop kh = Aspirated voiceless velar stop n' = Palatal nasal ng = Velar nasal r^ = Voiceless dento-alveolar trill t' = Heavily palatalized alveolar voiceless stop (> affricate) th = Aspirated dento-alveolar voiceless stop x^ = Voiceless uvular fricative

    INTRODUCTION

    Nivkh (also known by its xenonym Gilyak) represents a highly endangered language spoken (in terms of four dialects) by roughly 1.000 people in the Lower Amur basin, along the mouth of the Amur River, and in the coastal regions of Sakhalin. The varieties spoken on the mainland are characterized by a relatively strong impact from adjacent Tunguso-Manchu (Sangi 1988:195, also see Burykin 1988). Up to now, no convincing hypothesis has been put forward that would help to illuminate the genetic affiliation of Nivkh, which hence has to be classified as an 'isolated' language.

    Documentary work on Nivkh started as early as 1854-6, when L. v. Schreck and P. v. Glehn led an expedition into the Amur and Sakhalin regions (some results were published by Wilhelm Grube in 1892). Roughly, by the same time, Pere L. Fure and Kausake Okamoto published short word lists of Nivkh. Still, it took another 70 years, until Akira Nakanome published a first grammatical treatment of the language (Nakanome 1927). Today, standard reference grammars are Panfilov 1962/65 and Gruzdeva 1998.

    To my knowledge, the book under review (henceforth 'DHSN') is the first comprehensive look at the morphosyntax of Nivkh from a typological perspective (Russek 1996, too, has taken this perspective. Unfortunately, her thesis has remained unpublished). It represents the revised version of Johanna Mattissen's University of Cologne PhD thesis (2001). The author (henceforth 'J.M.') develops her analyses with the help of a broad textual data base (published texts, grammars, individual studies, usually stemming from the Amur varieties) and 'mediated' fieldwork (carried out by Hidetoshi Shiraishi). The book aims at discussing in details a hotspot of Nivkh linguistics, namely the question of polysynthesis (in its broadest sense). J.M. delimits the organization principles of Nivkh morphosyntax from standard polysynthesis as follows: ''[A] single homogeneous structural principle is active in Nivkh. This principle consist of a systematic and consistent synthesis of heads and their dependents under adjacency in the order dependent-head (...) and leads to the complex word forms characteristic of Nivkh'' (p.1). To illustrate the degree of synthesis that is characteristic of Nivkh, let me quote an example from Gruzdeva 1998, also given by J.M. (p.149):

    t'ig^r-park-e^vr-thar^u-gu-ve (Gruzdeva 1998:39) wood-only-maybe-chop(RED)-CST-IMP.p 'If only you would chop firewood!' [CST = Causative, IMP.p = Imperative Plural; see above for the phonetic symbols]

    Nevertheless, it should be noted that not every Nivkh clause is marked for such a high degree of synthesis, as shown by the following examples (p.8):

    he^-n'ivg^-gu mur-gir-ko qan-gir-ko phre^-d'-g^u that-preson-PL horse-INS-ASC.p dog-INS-ASC.p come-IND/NML-PL 'Those people came by horses and dogs.' [PL = Plural, INS = Instrumental, ASC = correlative-associative, IND/NML = Indicative/Nominalization]

    The overall presence of synthesis strategies in Nivkh necessitates that any description of this feature has to consider a vast range of grammatical features, including morphophonology and pragmatics. In this sense, the reader of DHSN can rightly expect to learn not only about synthesis in Nivkh together with its typological setting, but also about the main aspects of the grammatical architecture of Nivkh. In this sense, the book follows a currently well-established tendency, namely to use a typologically salient parameter crucial for the grammatical organization of a language to do two things at the same time: discuss the parameter itself and present its overall relevance for the functioning of a grammatical system. This double orientation makes DHSN very useful for both the general audience and people interested in Nivkh itself.

    SYNOPSIS

    J.M.'s treatise is organized in ten chapters, preceded by a comprehensive list of abbreviations and 'acknowledgements'. The book ends with an 'appendix' (to chapter 3.4), a list of references, and an extremely helpful 'bibliography on Nivkh' (roughly some 400 titles). Chapter 1 (pp.1-34) is entitled 'Introduction' and offers basic information about both the socio-linguistic setting of Nivkh speakers and the general architecture of Nivkh grammar. Typologically speaking, Nivkh ''shows affinities to Chukchi, Ainu, and Native American languages'' (p.5). Technically speaking, Nivkh is a both prefix- and suffix-agglutinating language furnished with well-elaborated paradigms of nominal and verbal inflection. Nouns lack gender or class indication, but make frequent use of deictic prefixes in terms of locational determiners. Singular possessors (as well as reflexive possessors) can be marked in terms of pronominal prefixes which reflect proclitic variants (or 'clipped forms', Austerlitz 1959) of the corresponding personal pronouns. There are no relational cases (the core relations being expressed with the help of synthesis grading). However, Nivkh knows a number of basically locative case forms (strongly reduced in Eastern Sakhalin) as well as a functionally prominent 'instrumental' case (used to express secondary core relations within the O(bjective) domain). Most locative case forms have a strong tendency towards metaphorization (in the sense of Schulze (in press)). J.M. also notes (p.120) that there is a recent tendency to use the so-called 'causee' case as an accusative-like case marker, obviously based on its use to encode a causee in causative constructions, compare:

    if j-ax kepr-gu-d' (Panfilov 1962:248) he he-CAUSEE stop-CST-IND/NML 'He made him stop' > 'He stopped him.'

    Most importantly, Nivkh operates through a great number of so-called 'relational morphemes' (p.10) or former postpositions that have 'entered' the agglutination chain (in terms of layered morphology, see Mithun 1999). Verbs do not indicate the S/A-domain, but have a slot for referents in O-function. In addition, a number of TAM-related morphemes are added to the verbal stem. Most importantly, the initial consonant of a verbal stem can undergo systematic changes in contact with preceding vowels or consonants. As the segment preceding the stem usually is a unit in O-function, these changes are strongly correlation with transitivity. An example taken from Krejnovic^ 1937:27 is:

    qan r^u-d' dog run=after-IND/NML 'The dog takes up the chase'

    qan qanthud' [qan qan-r^u-d'] dog dog-run=after-IND/NML 'The dog runs after a dog.'

    t'x^an n'sangGanthud' [t'i-qan n'i-t'ang-qan-r^u-d'] 2sg-dog 1sg-white-dog-run=after-IND/NML 'Your (sg.) dog runs after my white dog.'

    Another salient feature of Nivkh is the fact that two converbs can be marked for person:

    jang phr^e^-g-t ezmu-d (p.32) 3sg come-CST-cv:1sg rejoice-IND/NML 'I was happy that he came' (lit. 'I rejoiced letting him come')

    Note that the paradigm of person marked converbs is rather exceptional: The cluster (2/3sg) contrasts with the cluster (1sg/1-3pl).

    As J.M. puts it ''[d]ependent-head synthesis is the principle operative for the encoding of possessors, attributes, objects and complement clauses in Nivkh'' (p.33). Accordingly, most syntactic features alluded to in the 'Introduction' are elaborated in more details in the other chapters of DHSN.

    Chapter 2 (pp.35-64)turns to Nivkh phonology and morphophonemics. As has been said already above, Nivkh is characterized by complex Sandhi phenomena that always affect the initial sound of a head and are triggered by the final sound of the preceding dependent segment, compare zud' 's.o. washes s.th.' > te^mk-zud' 's.o. washes his hands', nge^g^s-t'ud' 's.o. cleans her teeth', n'e^ng-d'ud' 's.o. washes us' etc. (p.50). J.M. carefully examines the relevant alternation patterns and arrives at a very helpful classification of the complex alternation patterns, which serve as a diagnostic feature for the question of wordhood, discussed in Chapter 3 (pp. 65-121). The author considers phonological features (syllable structures, phonotactics, morphophonemics, stress placement), morphological features, and what she calls 'psychological reality' (Nivkh speakers' judgment upon wordhood). In addition, she makes extensive use of non-Nivkh data to both delimit and contextualize the Nivkh findings. She concludes: ''[There] is sufficient evidence for recognizing Nivkh complexes as single morphological words'' (p.121).

    J.M. subdivides the discussion of Nivkh synthesis operations into five chapters. Chapter 4 (pp.122-168) addresses the 'Nivkh noun plus verb complex', that is what is commonly known as O(bjective) incorporation. There are two verb classes in Nivkh, one of which (mono/ditransitives) is obligatorily marked for synthesis. This class can again be subdivided into several, morphophonologically determined subclasses (pending on the type of initial segment of the verb stem). Structurally, J.M. distinguishes five valency classes three of which (avalents, intransitives, intransitives with peripheral participant) do not participate in the dependent-head synthesis as heads (p.136). With monotransitive verbs, various types of 'undergoers' can enter the synthesis 'slot' (patient, product, theme, location, comparational triggers). Ditransitive verbs having two undergoers can be divided into two classes: a) patient/theme + recipient; b) patient/theme + goal. Crucially, synthesis takes place according to the parameter 'primary object' (O (monotransitive) + IO (ditransitive)). But note that the primary object principle is occasionally violated, as in:

    n'i Xevgun t'aqo-asqam-d' (p.146) I Xevgun knife-take=away-IND/NML 'I take the knife from Xevgun'

    (instead of ?*n'i t'aqo Xevgun-asqam-d'). J.M. refers to Russian as a possible source for this type of synthesis. After having monitored properties of referential segments in synthesis, J.M. discusses 'non-synthesization of undergoer and verb', that is constraints on the primary object synthesis. As expected, these constraints mainly concern coordination, topicalization/focus and demotion. An example for primary object demotion is (p.165).

    e^me^k karandas ph-oghla-khim-d' mother pencil REFL-child-give-IND/NML 'Mother gave her child a pencil.'

    e^me^k ph-oghla-dox karandas i-mg^-d'-ra mother REFL-child-ALL pencil 3sgU-give-IND/NML-HILI 'Mother gave a pencil to her child.' [REFL = Reflexive, ALL = Allative, U = undergoer, HILI = Highlighting Focus].

    Primary object synthesis naturally raises the question whether we have to deal with noun incorporation. J.M. addresses this issue in Chapter 5 (pp.169-181). She carefully discusses the well-known parameters of incorporation and concludes that synthesis does not reflect noun incorporation, but rather results from ''dependent-head synthesis operating in the governee-governor relationship'' (p.181).

    A true highlight of J.M.'s book is the discussion of verb-verb synthesis that comes close to what in generally known as verb serialization (Chapter 6, pp.182-201). An example is:

    n'i vi-pher-d' (p.189) I go-(be=)tired-IND/NML 'Walking, I got tired.'

    Obviously, most of these constructions result in some kind of 'manner conflation', ending up in lexicalized forms of verb root serialization (e.g. in'-mangg-d' (eat-strong-IND/NML) > s.o. is voracious' (p.193)).

    In Chapter 7 (pp. 202-219), J.M. asks the question: ''Nivkh - A polysynthetic language?'' Although Nivkh certainly qualifies for a number of features typologically tested for polysynthesis (see Fortescue 1994, Drossard 1997, Evans & Sasse 2002), J.M. again stresses that it the dependent-head template that accounts for the Nivkh synthesis strategy.

    The Nivkh section of DHSN ends with Chapter 8 (pp.220-248) that discusses features of synthesis within the Nivkh nominal complex. It is important to note that for instance with personal 'pronouns', synthesis conditions a shift in function, compare (p.220):

    n'i e^t'x I old=man 'I, the old man'

    n'-e^t'x 1sg:POSS-old=man 'my old man'

    A complex example of NP-internal synthesis is (p.223):

    te^m-bal-ngur^-mi n'-wo-ra this-mountain-heart-inside 1sg-village HILI 'Inside these mountains is my village.'

    Qualifying attributes usually are verbs and thus synthesize in terms of verb-noun clusters. The verbal attribute may be marked as a participle (-n-, Sakhalin) which causes nasal alternation. In addition, a suffix -la- can precede this marker denoting some kind of 'permanent property', compare um-n'ivx 'furious-person' vs. um-la-n'ivx 'nasty (= always furious)-person'. Verbal attribution can render relativization. A relativized noun can then again be synthesized with the verb in case it has primary object function. A nice example is (p.236):

    n'i phi zosq-t'aqo-ve^kz-d' I REFL break-knife-throw=away-IND/NML 'I threw away the knife which I had broken.'

    Note that here, the reflexive pronoun does not become synthesized, as opposed to non-complex NPs, compare the following example taken from Krejnovic^ 1966:44:

    n'i ph-ranr-khez-d' I REFL-sister-speak-IND/NML 'I have spoken to my sister.'

    Obviously, the non-synthesization of phi is conditioned by the fact that it takes 'subject' function (in the relative clause). Recall that synthesis never affects nominals in S(ubjective)/A(gentive) function in Nivkh.

    In Chapter 9 (pp. 249-272), J.M. contextualizes Nivkh NP-internal synthesis by elaborating an extremely valuable study on 'complex noun forms in the world's languages'. Basically, this study aims at the question whether complex noun forms can be considered as polysynthetic or not. J.M. portrays a considerable number of languages with respect to this question, discussing non-root bound morphemes, root concatenation, and inflectional patters. The underlying question cannot be answered even tentatively without approaching the notion of polysynthesis itself. J.M. devotes Chapter 10 (pp.273-289) to this problem. It is entitled 'Typological outlook' and summarizes the findings in Nivkh aiming at an ''overall classification of word complexity depending on its ingredients'' (p.272). J.M. correctly states that ''polysynthesis in the traditional sense is a 'feeling' rather than a clear-cut class'' (p.276). The author carefully examines the different parameters set forth for polysynthesis with the help of data from seventy-five languages. She arrives at two characteristic 'axes' that condition types of polysynthesis (a 'substantial' one yield at the material under synthesis, and a 'structural' one that separates templatic from scope-ordered types). By confronting the typological findings with her Nivkh data, J.M. ends up with the hypothesis that a structurally motivated principle of synthesis may represent at least something different from what is generally known as 'polysynthesis'. Taking into account the fact that at least in Nivkh, this principle also concerns complex noun forms, the author concludes: ''It seems to make sense to acknowledge the overall structural principle as a type in its own right, perhaps even as a morphological type, as it is superordinate to polysynthesis (as it is presently understood)'' (p.289).

    EVAULATION

    It is out of question that DHSN is a 'must' to read for all who are interested in the question of intra-clausal concatenation strategies from a typological point of view. In addition, the book serves another important purpose, namely to introduce the linguistics of Nivkh to the general audience in a way that brings the book close to a 'functional description' of Nivkh. Sure, the book is not a reference grammar of the language. For this, the reader should for instance turn to Gruzdeva 1998. Still, the amazing wealth of data presented by J.M. allows the reader to get a deep insight into the linguistics of Nivkh that goes far beyond other comparable studies.

    Perhaps, the book also profits from the fact that J.M. does not adhere to a specific language or grammar theory. It follows the standards of a typological paradigm (with an admittedly functional perspective). Her approach is related to what can best be called an 'interpretative Basic Linguistic Theory' (iBLT) (modifying Dixon's term (Dixon 1997)). This theory-neutral, nevertheless category-sensitive approach guarantees that J.M.'s analyses are not packed into a format that is at risk to lay more emphasis on the cover than on the contents. DHSN is unbiased towards theoretical issues without being atheoretical. This fact makes the book both a valuable source book and an important contribution to general issues in language typology. Nevertheless, the basically 'structural' approach has its shortcomings, too. For instance, the chapter on wordhood surely is an important issue from a purely structural point of view that posits the existence of 'words' (what ever this may be) in linguistic cognition. However, J.M. herself considers the possibility (p.119) that the concept of wordhood is determined by cultural (especially Western) traditions. The fact that wordhood is often considered as a more or less universal feature of language perhaps unnecessarily complicates the matter. If, for instance, we refer to the concept of 'linguistic information units' (LIU) instead of 'word', we are freed from positing rather complicated and often contradictory parameters for 'words'. Such a cognitive perspective would perhaps also help to account for the most important observation by J.M., namely the dependent-head condition for synthesis in Nivkh (and other languages). In this sense, DHSN lays the ground for a more theory-oriented explanation of this type of synthesis. It is out of question that without the highly learnt and extremely thoughtful approach presented by J.M. this type of explanation would never lurk from beyond the horizon. In this brief review, I cannot illustrate this point in more details, just as it is impossible to comment upon every single claim or observation. Most likely, experts of those languages that are included in J.M.'s typology, will not always agree with the analyses presented by the author. Nevertheless, the book sufficiently shows that a learnt typological embedding of language-specific phenomena can serve at least three interests: The inclusion of a hitherto less considered language in the dimension of cross-linguistic argumentation, the evaluation and refinement of typological generalizations, and - last but not least - the reformulation of theoretical positions.

    We have to thank J.M. for having prepared this wonderful and stimulating book, which is formally well-done and accurate in the presentation of both data and analyses.

    REFERENCES

    Austerlitz, Robert (1959) Semantic Components of Pronominal Systems: Gilyak. Word 15:102-109.

    Burykin, A.A. (1988) Tunguso-man'c^z^uro-nivxskie svjazi i problema genetic^eskoj prinadlez^nosti nivxskogo jazyka. In: Ju. A. Sem & A. I. Gamilov (red.) Voprosy leksiki i sintaksisa jazykov narodov Krajnogo Severa SSSR, 136-150. Leningrad: Leningradskij Ped. Inst.

    Dixon, R.M.W. (1997) The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Drossard, Werner (1997) Polysynthesis and polysynthetic languages in comparative perspective. In: B. Palek (ed.). Proceddings of Linguistics and Phonetics 1996, 251-264. Prague: Charles University Press.

    Evans, Nicholas & Hans-Juergen Sasse (eds.) (2002) Problems of Polysynthesis. Berlin: Akademie.

    Fortescue, Michael (1994) Morphology, polysynthetic. In: R.E. Asher & M.Y. Simpson (eds.). The Encyclodpedia of Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 5, 2600-2602. Oxford etc.: Pergamon Press.

    Gruzdeva, E. Ju. (1998) Nivkh. Munich: Lincom.

    Krejnovic^, E.A. (1937) Fonetika nivxskogo jazyka. Moskva / Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe uc^ebno-pedag. izd.

    Krejnovic^, E.A. (1966) Ob inkorporirovanii i primykanii v nivxskom jazyke. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1966,3:36-51.

    Mithun, Marianne (1999) The reordering of morphemes. In: S. Gildea (ed.). Reconstructing Grammar. Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization, 231-255. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.

    Nakanome, Akira (1927) Grammatik der Nikbun Sprache (des Giljakischen). Research Review of the Osaka Asiatic Society, Vol. 5. Osaka: Osaka Asiatic Society.

    Panfilov, V.Z. (1962/65) Grammatika nivxskogo jazyka. 2 Vols. Moskva/Leningrad: Nauka.

    Russek, Susanne (1996) Studien zur Morphosyntax des 'einfachen Satzes' im Gilyak. Muenchen: IATS (MA thesis).

    Sangi, V.M. (1988) Jazykovaja situacija na Saxaline i v nizov'jax Amura. In: V.I. Bojko (otv. red.). Nivxi Saxalina: Sovremennoe social'no-ekonomic^eskoe razvitie, 195-201. Novosibrisk: Nauka.

    Schulze, Wolfgang (in press). Invariance, self-similarity and metaphorization: The dynamics of case semantics in East Caucasian. In: Antonio Barcelona, Klaus-Uwe Panther, Guenter Radden & Linda L. Thorburg (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

    ABOUT THE REVIEWER

    Wolfgang Schulze is the Head of the Institute for General Linguistics and Language Typology at the University of Munich (German). His main research topics include among others Language Typology, Cognitive Typology, Historical Linguistics, language contact, the languages of the Eastern Caucasus, and 'Oriental' languages. He currently works on the edition of the Caucasian Albanian (Old Udi) Palimpsest from Mt.Sinai, on a Functional (Cognitive) Grammar of Udi and on a comprehensive presentation of the framework of a Grammar of Scenes and Scenarios in terms of Cognitive Typology.