(PDF) Ареальная типология и эволюция синтаксиса

L. A. Grenoble. Areal typology and syntactic change УДК 81’367 L. A. Grenoble AREAL TYPOLOGY AND SYNTACTIC CHANGE In the present study I make specific claims about the borrowing of structural categories and the impact of such bor- rowings on structural typology. I argue that certain linguistic strategies for clause combining are readily borrowed and that massive borrowing of these categories can result in structural change so extensive/significant that the result is ty- pological shift. Eurasia has long been identified as a particular type of language typology. Early typological studies [1] identified correlations between verb-final word order, postpositions, relative clause before the noun, and, significantly for the present study, subordinate clause before the main verb. Subsequent studies have shown that these correlations are statistically significant only in Eurasia, suggesting that Eurasia is itself a zone for areal typology [2]. Siberia is an important part of that zone, and the indigenous languages of Siberia, are OV (namely the Mongolic, Tungusic and Tur- kic languages, Chukchi, Itelmen, Nivkh, and Yukaghir, as well as the Eskaleut languages). In the present paper I argue that the Siberian languages are undergoing typological shift as a result of contact with Russian, a change which began prior to language attrition which is now well underway for many if not all of the indigenous languages with small numbers of speakers. Key words: language contact, borrowing, grammatical categories, clause-linkage, Tungusic languages, Siberia. In the present study I make specific claims about the speaker has briefly changed codes and is speaking the borrowing of structural categories and the impact Y not X), or if there is interference from Y and the of such borrowings on structural typology. I argue speaker cannot produce the form in X. Space limita- that certain linguistic strategies for clause combining tions prevent full discussion of these issues. Here I fo- are readily borrowed and that massive borrowing of cus on an increase in borrowing of both pattern and these categories can result in structural change so ex- phonetic material from a time when there were mono- tensive/significant that the result is typological shift. lingual speakers of Evenki (a Tungusic Siberian lan- Eurasia has long been identified as a particular type of guage, see below) to the present day, when speakers language typology. Early typological studies [1] iden- are bilingual and language attrition is widespread. tified correlations between verb-final word order, The answer to how languages are restructured is postpositions, relative clause before the noun, and, closely linked to the issue of borrowability. Matras significantly for the present study, subordinate clause argues that certain categories are more readily bor- before the main verb. Subsequent studies have shown rowed than others [7], something which is often ex- that these correlations are statistically significant plained by structural constraints [8]. Even though only in Eurasia, suggesting that Eurasia is itself a zone general consensus is that, under the right circum- for areal typology [2]. Siberia is an important part of stances, anything can be borrowed [3], some catego- that zone, and the indigenous languages of Siberia, are ries require more intensive contact than others. In OV (namely the Mongolic, Tungusic and Turkic lan- fact there are three different explanations for differ- guages, Chukchi, Itelmen, Nivkh, and Yukaghir, as ences in borrowability: (1) borrowability is related to well as the Eskaleut languages). In the present paper I the relative intensity of language contact (the more in- argue that the Siberian languages are undergoing ty- tense the contact, the more likely borrowing); (2) the pological shift as a result of contact with Russian, a outcome of language contact is determined in part by change which began prior to language attrition differences and similarities in the structures of the which is now well underway for many if not all of languages in contact; and (3) borrowability is depend- the indigenous languages with small numbers of ent on semantic-pragmatic and other structural pro- speakers. perties of the categories under consideration. In prac- Relevant to this discussion are two known process- tice, these factors intersect. es associated with language contact. Two different There is good reason to begin answering these processes can be distinguished in this regard: borrow- questions by focusing on the level of the clause and ing (which is in turn often connected to language clause-combining strategies. Within studies of bor- maintenance); and interference (which is related to rowability, it has been shown that coordinating con- language shift) [3–5]. Ross [6] adds borrowing in cas- junctions and subordinating strategies are easily bor- es of shift and interference in cases of maintenance to rowed [7, 9]. Matras argues that, cross-linguistically, this list. This categorization is useful only if we can connectors stand out in this regard; they are readily distinguish these processes; in fact it is often difficult borrowed and generally follow a borrowability hierar- with bilingual speakers to determine if the use of a chy for connectors [7, 9, 10]: particular form from Language Y when speaking Language X is a borrowing, a code shift (meaning that but > or > and. — 101 — Вестник ТГПУ (TSPU Bulletin). 2012. 1 (116) This states that the borrowing of and implies the Although they are published in Evenki, they are edited borrowing of both or and but. This hierarchy has been texts, not transcripts. They were recorded from fully shown to hold for a large number of languages. Thus fluent, often monolingual speakers, but show evidence we find examples where all three conjunctions (but, of some editing to make them into polished narratives. or, and) are borrowed, such as Domari, Otomi, Gua- (They do not contain false starts, hesitations, and other rani, Kildin Saami, Western Neo-Aramaic; languag- features typical of unscripted, spontaneous speech.) es in which only two (but, or) are borrowed: Tasawq, Still, they show syntax which is consistent with both Purepecha, Vietnamese, Rumungro, K’abeena, Likpe typological and areal expectations. For the purposes of [7, p. 54]. There are a few exceptions. For example, in this study, the issue centers around determining when Macedonian Turkish, i “and” and ili “or” have been finite clauses represent independent sentences, and borrowed from Macedonian, but the word ama “but” when they are strung together as a single sentence. is still of Turkic origin, so that the hierarchy is viola- Specifically, from the standpoint of a linguist, it is im- ted. Notably, the Turkish word ama “but” has been possible to tell if a comma represents an intonation borrowed into Macedonian [7, p. 54]. contour consistent with continuation, or if it is just an More importantly for our purposes, however, is the orthographic convention. That said, we can be reason- fact that the borrowing of connectors often proceeds ably certain that prior to extensive shift, Evenki clause- hand-in-hand with changes in subordinating strategies. combining was characterized by the following types: For example, Matras notes that converbal morpholo- (1) parataxis; (2) coordination using primarily a con- gy in Macedonian Turkish has been replaced by gram- junctive particle, not a conjunctive adverb; (3) the use maticalized conjunctions and finite verb forms. At the of nominalizations and converbial forms which pre- same time, the language has maintained strong mor- ceded the finite verb of the clause. Examples (1)–(3) il- phological agglutination. He considers this to be lustrate parataxis. In (1), there are two finite verb “a small, yet not insignificant step in the direction of a forms (in this case negatives ətʃəːn ɲiːrə, ətʃəːn buːrəː typological drift. On this basis, we might conclude that “didn’t open, didn’t give”), with no connector; in (2) typological drift begins at the clause level” [7, p. 41]. If we find a string of three finite verbs: əmərən “came”, Matras is correct, then we can expect to find other signs urumuldən “shortened”, urumuldən “shortened”. of initial typological drift at the level of the clause. (1) Ŋinakin ətʃəː-n ɲiːrə ətʃəː-n Such drift is widespread in the indigenous lan- dog NEG-3SG open NEG-3SG guages of Siberia, a situation which is magnified by kulus-pa buːrəː the fact that the changes are coupled with language key-ACC give loss, making it difficult to determine whether we “The dog didn’t open [the door], didn’t give the are in fact witnessing changes in the typological struc- key” [11, p. 322–3]. ture of the languages in question, or rather imperfect (2) Bərəmən əmə-rə-n, əriksə-n acquisition, under influence of Russian. In the latter time come-PST-3SG breath-3SG case, the language could be seen as being in a transi- urumul-də-n, ŋoːnim dʒal-i-n tional state, but not a transitional state from SOV to shorten-NFUT-3SG long thought-EPV-3SG SVO typology, rather in a state from language X urumul-də-n. (the indigenous language) to language Y (Russian). shorten-NFUT-3SG The argument here is based largely on Evenki data, “The time had come, her breath shortened, her That said, it is relevant for other languages of the long thoughts shortened” [11, p. 46]. North in contact with Russian. Evenki, a Tungusic There is no apparent upper limit for the number language spoken by perhaps 9 000 people in Siberia of finite verbs which can be joined paratactically, today. The ethnic population of Evenki is much larger but there are seldom more than three in the folklore (an estimated 45,000 in 2001), living throughout much texts. of Siberia. The language is still robustly spoken in Historically, some constructions used coordina- Sakha, Yakutia and in the Amur Region, and in scat- tion. By far the most frequent device is the coordinat- tered villages elsewhere, including in the region of the ing particle, -dV, which is a clitic and attaches to the former Evenki Autonomous District, part of the pre- first of the conjoined phrases. (The vowel of the parti- sent-day Kransnoyarsk Region. cle is determined by the usual rules of vowel harmo- There are some difficulties in fully reconstructing ny.) Use of this particle is attested in folklore and in Evenki clause-combining strategies prior to extensive my field recordings, as in (3), although it is more fre- contact and shift. Earlier documentation of Evenki quent in the folklore texts: consists of grammars, dictionaries, and text collec- (3) {in response to the question: How many chil- tions; the overwhelming majority of texts which would dren do you have?} give full evidence of these structures are not spontane- V živyx umukoːn hunaːdʒ-m-da ous conversation but are published as folklore texts. Alive one daughter-1SG.POSS-PRT — 102 — L. A. Grenoble. Areal typology and syntactic change omoːlgi-m (6) Hurkəːkəːr soːt dərurə i soːt son-1SG.POSS boy-PL very tire-NFUT and very “I have one daughter and one son alive” [Iengra, dᶚəmullə Sakha/Yakutia, 1998]. eat-A.INGR-NFUT Another device is the use of connectors described as “The boys were very tired and got very hungry” temporal adverbs, most frequently taːduk “then” [12]. [12, p. 250]. Text counts provide some indication of how frequently This supports Matras’s claim that conjunctions are such connectors were used. An example is provided by easily borrowed, inasmuch as Konstantiva [12] worked the long folktale (from which example (2) was taken). It with the language at a time when it was still fluently was recorded in 1966 from a speaker born in 1908 who is spoken by monolingual speakers. To what extent described as not knowing Russian [11]. It consists of the introduction of conjunctions represents a syntactic 466 sentences, with a total of 42 adverbs used as coordi- change is questionable. On the one hand, it can be ar- nators: taːduk “then” is used 25 times, and tarit “there- gued that the use of conjunctions represents a change fore” 17 times. Example (4) shows a typical instance: in syntax, from parataxis to coordination. On the other, (4) ər omolgiː, tymaːtna ərdəkəːn Johannessen [13] argues that conjunctions are easily this boy morning early borrowed because such languages are best described ili-ksaː, tuːksa-tʃaː, taːduk kirəktə-ßə as having asyndetic coordination. The syntax already get.up-CVB.ANT run-PST woodpecker-ACC has a position for conjunctions, i. e., they are not con- ßaː-ksaː əniːn-dulə-ßi tuːksaː-ßna then junctionless but rather have zero conjunctions. In this kill-CVB.ANT mother-LOC-REFL run-CVB.SIML analysis, the use of coordinators does not represent a əmuß-tʃaː change, but just the filling of an already existing slot. bring-PST However, it is clear that historically the Tungusic lan- “Early the next morning this boy got up and ran guages, including Evenki, did not use conjunctions to (out); then, having killed a woodpecker, he brought it conjoin noun phrases [12, 14, 15]. This is a relatively back to his mother, while running” [11, p. 46]. new usage, illustrated in (7), recorded in Tura in This illustrates a characteristic use of taːduk: it is (2008), where taduk conjoins two NPs: consistently used in folklore texts of this time period (7) Omolgitʃaːn dᶚuləduː ŋənədᶚərən, taduk at the beginning of a new sentence or clause. The boy in front go-A.IMPF-3SG and punctuation here suggests that this is one long sen- ŋinakin, taduk čərəpaxa tence, but the punctuation is clearly an orthographic dog and turtle decision on the part of the editors. It follows a fi- “The boy goes in front, and then the dog and the nite verb form, and the folklore texts of this time peri- turtle”. od consistently show verb-final (OV) word order. The Here it functions as a conjunction, with its dia- distribution is very clear: it occurs after a clause/sen- chronic meaning of a temporal adverb clearly bleached, tence boundary, marked by a finite verb, and links it even more so than in examples (4) and (5). This is a with the upcoming clause/sentence. It is impossible to case of structural borrowing, without borrowing of tell from the texts if punctuation is orthographic or phonetic material. stylistic, or if it represents intonational contours. In The phonetic material is also borrowed and use of other words, we cannot say with certainty that. Russian conjunctions is widespread in Siberian and In more recent recordings, such as my fieldwork other languages in contact with Russian. Nikolaeva beginning in the late 1990s, taːduk is often used to and Tolskaya [14] describe Udihe as using not only the join two sentences, and is found alongside Russian particle -dV, but also Russian i, a, and no. As early as conjunctions, such as i “and” and potom i “then”, as in 1922, Bogoras noted the use of i, daj and potom the following example recorded in Iengra (Sakha/Ya- in Itel’men [16]. In Turkic languages, the Russian con- kutia) in 1998, where sentence-final, falling intona- junctions i, a, to, nu to are attested in Karaim [17]; tion is indicated by a period (.): ili… ili, no, kogda in Shor [18]; ili, no (and subordinat- (5) Potom ilan anŋaniː-ßa təgə-t-ty-n. ing conjunctions čto, čtoby, potomu što) in Tatar [19]; then three years-ACC sit-DUR-PST-3SG. and i, ili, a, tak, and a tak in Uzbek [20]. This list of Taːduk juː-tʃəː-n languages could easily be expanded. then leave-PST-3SG Syntactic change is unambiguous in the use of in- “Then he sat [was in prison] for three years. Then terrogative pronouns as subordinators, a strategy not he got out”. native to Evenki but common in Russian (and other This accurately suggests that Russian conjunctions Indo-European languages). In her study of Evenki are used in Evenki. In fact, they have been attested as syntax, Kolesnikova [15, p. 19] notes that the struc- early as the 1960s according to Konstantinova’s descrip- ture of Evenki subordinate sentences is affected by tive grammar [12, p. 250], as seen in her example (6): Russian, with an observable increase in the use of in- — 103 — Вестник ТГПУ (TSPU Bulletin). 2012. 1 (116) terrogative pronouns as subordinators, such as aŋe, 3 пока Ljuda-ßa baka-dᶚinaː-ß aŋi “which” iːduː “where”, iːləː “where to”, oːkiːn until Ljuda-ACC find-FUT-1SG “when”, oːn “how”. She adds that this change is found “It was far until I would get there, until I would not only in Evenki, but in all Tungusic languages, reach the village, until I would find Ljuda”. seen in (8): The first line shows a calque of the Russian syntax, (8) Alaguːßdʒaril alaːttʃərə oːkiːn while the next two lines use Russian directly. The use Pupils wait when of poka/oːkiːn as a connective is consistent throughout alaguːmniː klassu-laː i:dʒən this excerpt but it is hard to determine whether this is teachers class-LOC enter a case of borrowing, code-switching or interference; if “Pupils wait for teachers to enter the class” [14, a borrowing, it represents a change in the Evenki p. 19]. strategies for clause combining. It does show a loss of This was published in the 1960s, prior to extensive converbs in clause combining (or at least the absence shift and attrition, when there were will monolingual of their use), not discussed here due to space limita- Evenki speakers. tions, but well documented in Evenki grammatical de- Now, with shift well underway, similar examples scriptions [11, 15]. are frequent, as in (9), from Iengra, Sakha/Yakutia, Conclusion 1999: The syntax of coordination and subordination is (9) Hunaːtkaːn-miː еле дождалась oːkiːn undergoing change due to Russian influence. Al- girl-REFL hardly waited when though historically Evenki used few coordinating con- huru-ßruː junctions, the use of Russian coordinators such as i, a, go-PFT no, potom is widespread, as is the use of what histori- “His girlfriend could hardly wait until they would cally in Evenki were temporal adverbs, such as taːduk go”. “then”. At present, there is a difference in how far This example illustrates another frequent phe- these changes have spread In contrast, changes in su- nomenon in modern Evenki conversation: code- bordinating strategies are sporadic, not regular, in the switching with Russian. In fact, such code-switch- sense that not all speakers use the same strategies in ing is so prevalent that it is difficult to determine in predictable ways. More specifically, some use native certain cases whether the speaker is speaking Evenki Evenki (Tungusic) strategies for subordination, some (with Russian borrowings), is code-switching into use borrowed structures, either borrowing subordina- Russian, or is experiencing interference from Rus- ting adverbs/pronouns/interrogatives from Russian, or sian. Consider (10): calquing the construction, using Evenki interrogative (10) (Иенгра, Саха, 1998; 53 лет. женщина) pronouns as subordinators. In general there is a trend 1 goroː oːkiːn is-tʃanaː-ß tar away from the use of non-finite subordinate verb far until reach-FUT-1SG there forms toward the use of finite verb forms in subordi- 2 пока до посёлка is-tʃanaː-ß nate clauses, again on a Russian (or Indo-European) until to village reach-FUT-1SG model. References 1. Greenberg J. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements // Universals of Human Language / J. H. Greenberg (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1963. P. 73–113. 2. Bickel B. Typology in the 21st century: major current developments // Linguistic Typology. 2007. 11. P. 239–251. 3. Thomason S., Kaufman T. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. 411 p. 4. Guy G. R. The sociolinguistic types of language change // Diachronica. 1990. 7. P. 47–67. 5. Van Coetsam F. A General and Unified Theory of the Transmission Process in Language Contact. Heidelberg: Winter, 2000. 303 p. 6. Ross M. D. Refining Guy’s sociolinguistic types of language change // Diachronica. 1991. 8. P. 119–129. 7. Matras Y. The borrowability of structural categories // Empirical Approaches to Language Typology: Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective / Y. Matras, J. Sakel (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001. P. 31–73. 8. Campbell L. On proposed universals of grammatical borrowing // Historical Linguistics 1989: Papers from the 9th International Conference on Historical Linguistics / H. Aertsen, R. Jeffers (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1993. P. 91–109. 9. Matras Y. The function and typology of coordinating conjunctions: evidence from discourse and language-contact situations // Discourse and Prag- matics in Functional Grammar / J. H. Connolly, R. M. Vismans, C. S. Butler, R. A. Gatwards (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997. P. 177–191. 10. Elšik V., Matras Y. Markedness and Language Change: the Romani Sample. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006. 475 p. 11. Романова А. В., Мыреева А. Н. Фольклор эвенков якутии. Л.: Наука, 1971. 12. Константинова О. А. Эвенкийский яык. М.–Л.: Наука, 1964. 271 c. 13. Johannessen J. B. Coordination. N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 1998. 292 p. — 104 — L. A. Grenoble. Areal typology and syntactic change 14. Nikolaeva I., Tolskaya M. A Grammar of Udihe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001. 968 p. 15. Колесникова В. Д. Синтаксис эвенкийского языка. М.–Л.: Наука, 1966. 246 c. 16. Comrie B. Language contact in Northeastern Siberia (Chukotka and Kamchatka) // Language Contact in the Arctic: Northern Pidgins and Contact Languages / E. H. Jahr, I. Broch (eds.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. P. 33–45. 17. Csató E. A. Syntactic code-copying in Karaim // The Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contact / O. Dahl, M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. P. 265–277. 18. Nevskaja I. Shor-Russian contact features // Languages in Contact / D. Gilbers, J. Nerbonne, J. Schaeken (eds.). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2000. P. 283–298. 19. Wertheim S. Discourse pragmatics as a means of contact-induced change. URL: http://www.suzannewertheim.com/publications/CLIC–LISO.pdf 20. Baran D. The role of Russian function words in urban colloquial Uzbek // Proceedings From the Eighth Annual Symposium about Language and Society. Austin: Texas Linguistic Forum 44/1. 2000. 18–32. Grenoble L. A., PhD Linguistics, Professor Department of Linguistics. The University of Chicago. 1130 East 59th Street, Chicago, IL, USA, 60637. E-mail:

Материал поступил в редакцию 25.11.2011. Л. А. Гренобль АРЕАЛЬНАЯ ТИПОЛОГИЯ И ЭВОЛЮЦИЯ СИНТАКСИСА Рассматривается процесс заимствования грамматических категорий и эффект подобного заимствования на структурную типологию. Некоторые стратегии образования сложных предложений могут легко заим- ствоваться, в то время как масштабные заимствования таких грамматических категорий могут приводить к структурным изменениям такой степени, что результатом их может явиться типологический сдвиг всей системы. На примере синтаксиса сложного предложения в тунгусcких языках иллюстрируется, что языки Сибири подвергаются масштабному воздействию русского языка, результатом которого является типологи- ческий сдвиг. Ключевые слова: ареальная типология, языковые контакты, заимствования, грамматические катего- рии, сложные предложения, тунгусcкие языки, Сибирь. Университет Чикаго. 1130 Ист 59 Стрит, Чикаго, США, 60637. E-mail:

— 105 —