Negation - univie.ac.at · 2008-12-10 · Negation in existential clauses Negative indefinite...

Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Negation 1

Negation:Typology and Uralic languages

Matti Miestamo, Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies<[email protected]>

Beáta Wagner-Nagy, Universität Wien <[email protected]>

UTDB Kick-off ConferenceVienna, September 26-27, 2008

2

Introduction

Overview1. Typological aspects of negation

Overview of existing typological studies (cf. Miestamo 2007) Standard negationNegation in imperativesNegation in existential clausesNegative indefinite pronouns

Towards a typological questionnaire on negation2. Uralic languages3. Conclusions

Issues of explanation not addressed, focus is on taxonomies and structural features observed in typological literature.

1. Typological aspects 3

Standard negation

The negation of declarative verbal main clausesParameters in typological studies:

Type of negative marker (Dahl 1979; Payne 1985, Dryer 2005)Position of negative marker (Dahl 1979; Dryer 1988, 1992)Symmetric vs. asymmetric negation, subtypes of asymmetric negation (Miestamo 2005).


Type of negative marker: affix


Type of negative marker: particle


Type of negative marker: verb


Negation 2


Negative markers (Dryer 2005)


Position of negative marker

Jespersen (1917): Neg-FirstDahl (1979): Tendency to occur close to finite elementDryer (1992): negative particles tend to be pre-posed, negative auxiliaries show correlation with basic word orderPreposed: Latvian, Indonesian, Evenki, TonganPostposed: Lezgian, Sawu, SelknamCircumposed: Chukchi, French


Position of negative marker: Clause-peripheral examples

These are not frequent.


Symmetric and asymmetric negation (Miestamo 2005)

In symmetric negation, negatives do not differ structurally from affirmatives except for the presence of the negative marker(s).In asymmetric negation, there are structural differences, i.e. asymmetry, between affirmatives and negatives in addition to the presence of the negative marker(s).Symmetry and asymmetry can be observed in constructions and paradigms.Asymmetric negation can be further divided into subtypes.


Symmetric constructions

Negatives differ from their corresponding affirmative by the mere presence of negative markers.


Symmetric paradigmsThe correspondences between the members of the paradigms used in affirmatives and negatives are one-to-one.


Negation 3


Asymmetric constructions

Negatives differ from their corresponding affirmatives by something else than the mere presence of negative marker(s).


Asymmetric paradigmsThe correspondences between the members of the paradigms used in affirmatives and negatives are not one-to-one.


Symmetric and asymmetric negation

NB! The maps concerning standard negation are based on an areally and genealogically balanced subsample (179/297 languages).


Subtype A/FinNegatives differ from affirmatives in that the lexical verb (LV) loses its finiteness, in one or more of the following ways: i) it becomes syntactically dependent on a finite element (FE) added in the negative, ii) it is in a form primarily used as a syntactically dependent verb in the language, iii) it has nominal characteristics.


Subtype A/Fin/Neg-LVThe lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker attaches to the lexical verb.


Subtype A/Fin/Neg-LVThe lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker attaches to the lexical verb.


Negation 4


Subtype A/Fin/Neg-FE

The lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker attaches to the added finite element.


Subtype A/Fin/Neg-FEThe lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker attaches to the added finite element.


Subtype A/Fin/NegVerbThe lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker isthe finite element of the negative clause.


Comrie’s hierarchy (1981)

imperative > {tense / person / number}

> mood > aspect

> voice

Revisited in Miestamo (2004)Valid for non-Uralic languages as well.With the exception of the imperative, this hierarchy conforms to what is marked on finite auxiliaries and dependent (lexical) verbs more generally in the world’s languages.


Subtype A/Fin/NegVerbThe lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker isthe finite element of the negative clause.


Subtype A/NonReal

The negative differs from the corresponding affirmative in that it is marked for a category that denotes non-realized states of affairs.


Negation 5


Subtype A/NonRealThe negative differs from the corresponding affirmative in that it is marked for a category that denotes non-realized states of affairs.


Subtype A/Emph

The negative differs from the corresponding affirmative in that it is marked for a category that expresses emphasis in non-negatives.


Subtype A/EmphThe negative differs from the corresponding affirmative in that it is marked for a category that expresses emphasis in non-negatives.


Subtype A/CatNegatives differ from affirmatives in how grammatical categories are marked, but no generalizations can be made about how the categories are affected (as is done in the other three subtypes). Grammatical distinctions made in the affirmative are often lost in the negative.


Subtype A/Cat/TAMA/Cat asymmetry affecting the marking of tense-aspect-mood.


Subtype A/Cat/TAM

A/Cat asymmetry affecting the marking of tense-aspect-mood.


Negation 6


Subtype A/Cat/PNG A/Cat asymmetry affecting the marking of person-number-gender.


Subtype A/Cat/PNG

A/Cat asymmetry affecting the marking of person-number-gender.


Variation in the marking of negation

Certain grammatical environments are more likely than others to have negative constructions different from standard negation.In Kahrel’s (1996: 70–71) 40-language sample, imperatives, existentials and nonverbal clauses were the most common environments for nonstandard negative constructions:

imperatives showed nonstandard negatives in 17 languages,existentials in nine languagesnonverbal clauses in eight languages.In addition to these three clause types, different environments,e.g. different TAM categories, may show different negative constructions, even within SN, but no typological generalizations can be made over these environments.


Negative imperatives: Type I (van der Auwera & Lejeune 2005)

The prohibitive uses the verbal construction of the second singular imperative and a sentential negative strategy found in (indicative) declaratives


Negative imperatives: Type II (van der Auwera & Lejeune 2005)

The prohibitive uses the verbal construction of the second singular imperative and a sentential negative strategy not found in (indicative) declaratives


Negative imperatives: Type III (van der Auwera & Lejeune 2005)

The prohibitive uses a verbal construction other than the second singular positive imperative and a sentential negative strategy found in (indicative) declaratives


Negation 7


Negative imperatives: Type IV (van der Auwera & Lejeune 2005)

The prohibitive uses a verbal construction other than the secondsingular positive imperative and a sentential negative strategy not found in (indicative) declaratives

Asymmetry between negative and positive imperatives addressed byMiestamo & van der Auwera (2007).


Negative imperatives (van der Auwera & Lejeune 2005)


Negative existentials: Type A (Croft 1991)

The ordinary existential predicate is negated by the verbal negator


Negative existentials: Type B (Croft 1991)

There is a negative existential predicate different from the verbal negator


Negative existentials: Type C (Croft 1991)

The negative existential is identical to the verbal negator

Nonverbal and existential negation also studied by Eriksen (2005) and Veselinova (2006).


Negative indefinites: Type I (Kahrel 1996)

Standard negation is found with ordinary (positive) indefinites


Negation 8


Negative indefinites: Type II (Kahrel 1996)

Standard negation appears with a special indefinite different from the one used in corresponding positives


Negative indefinites: Type III (Kahrel 1996)

There is an inherently negative indefinite pronoun without standard negation


Negative indefinites: Type IV (Kahrel 1996)

An inherently negative indefinite pronoun is accompanied by standard negation


Negative indefinites: Type V (Kahrel 1996)

There is no indefinite pronoun at all, and the equivalent function is expressed with an existential construction


Negative indefinites: Haspelmath’s (1997) semantic map

(1) (2) (3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)(9)

specific known

specific unknown

irrealisnon-specific

conditional

question

comparative

indirect negation

direct negation

free choice


Negative indefinites: Type NV-NI (Haspelmath 1997, 2005)


Negation 9


Negative indefinites: Type V-NI (Haspelmath 1997, 2005)


Negative indefinites: Type (N)V-NI (Haspelmath 1997, 2005)


Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation (Haspelmath 2005)


Towards a typological questionnaire of negation

Clausal negationDescribe the different constructions used to express negation.

Negative marker(s): type, position, number (single, double?)Structural differences between affirmatives vs. negatives?

constructional asymmetry? any paradigmatic asymmetry involved?note the details specific to the subtypes found.

Which environments are they used in (e.g., different TAM categories, different clause types, main vs. dependent clauses, etc.)? Note specifically which categories/environments use the same construction.

Non-clausal negationNegative indefinites: negativity of the indefinite (cf. semantic map), cooccurrence with clausal negationConstituent negation (e.g., Foc Neg-Verb vs. Neg-Foc Verb) (and scope-related questions more generally)Negative derivationNegative polarityNegative transport

2. Uralic languages 53

Uralic languages

SourcesGrammarsNative speakersTextbooks

the data from several languages are incomplete or inexact, thus the classification is not totally final


Standard Negation

Komi, Mari, UdmurtA/Cat/TAMA/Cat

Enets, Estonian, Finnish,Ingrian, Kamass,Karelian, Khanty,Komi, Livonian, Mansi,Mari, Mordvin, Nenets,Nganasan, Selkup, Saami,Udmurt, Veps, Votic

A/Fin/NegVerb

MariA/Fin/Neg-FEA/Finasymmetricnegation

Khanty, Hungarian,Kamass, Komi, Mansi,Mordvin, Selkup, Udmurt

Ssymmetricnegation

LanguagesFurtherSubtypes

SubtypeType


Negation 10


Standard NegationSymmetric vs. asymmetric negation

There are languages where differences are found in structure or in negative markersin different tenses.

different negative marker:Komi

structural differences:Kamass, Selkup, Mari, Mordvin, Udmurt,


Symmetric negation

Ugric languages: in all tensesSamoyed: Selkup and Kamass

Kamass: in past tense, participial and gerundial structures (secondary process) Selkup

Volgaic and Permic languages:Mordvin: in present, future and in past tense 2Permic languages: only in past tense

2. Uralic languages 57 2. Uralic languages 58


Asymmetric negationUralic languages most often use the structure A/Fin

A/Fin/Neg-FE: only in MariA/Fin/NegVerb: most frequently

There are languages, where this structure's appearance depends on the tense

Kamass, Mordvin, Permic languagesNo occurrence in:

Hungarian


Subtype: A/Fin/NegVerbThe negative verb can be an auxiliary or an other negative verbMost of the Uralic languages use an auxiliaryParadigm of negative auxiliary

Nganasan: full paradigmsFinnish: number is marked on the auxiliary, but tense on the lexical verbEstonian: the negative auxiliary has lost all verbal inflections and looks like a particle; but the lexical verb does not carry any inflections


Negation 11


Paradigm of negative Auxiliaries

Cf. Comrie‘s hierarchy (1981)


63

Depending on tense, the verb form can also change:Komi: present o-, past e-

Change of the negative marker


The negative verb is not an auxiliary, but an existential verb

Selkup, Khanty, Mansi


Subtype: A/Fin/Neg-FE

Not at all typical for Uralic languages, occurs only in Mari (Past 2) (Past2: etymologycally a gerund)

notice the word order: V Aux

A/Fin/Neg-FE: the finite element is non-negative, the negative marker is placed in relation to the finite element , cf. slide 19


Subtype: A/Cat/TAM

Not at all typical for Uralic languages, occurs in Udmurt (Past 2: etymologically a PtcpPast and PtcpPastNeg) and in Komi

A/Cat asymmetry affecting the marking of tense-aspect-mood, cf. slide 29


Negation 12


Position of negative marker in Uralic languages

Negative particles tend to be pre-posed (Mansi, Khanty, Hungarian, Selkup, Mordvin)

Word order of structures with auxiliaries:

Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Veps,Votic, Ingrian, Saami

VO & AuxV-----VO & VAux

Kamass, Komi, Enets, Mari, MordvinNenets, Nganasan, Udmurt,

OV & AuxVEastern MariOV & VAuxLanguagesWord order


Non-standard NegationSemantically not empty negative auxiliaries

In all North-Samoyedic languages

cf: different word order, different form of lexical verb


Negative lexical verbsIn all North-Samoyedic languages


Negative imperativeVan der Auwera & Lejeune (2005) only deal with the imperative of the 2nd person singular, while several Uralic languages have a full paradigm (e.g. Northern Samoyedic languages, Hungarian)In many Uralic languages the imperative is treated differently, The Neg of the imperative can also be used in other moods (e.g. Enets: debitive)Aux is often not able to take up mood markers (e.g. Finnish, Veps)

‘I would give’


Type I: Normal imperative – normal negative

only in Nganasan (in contrast to WALS (spec.-spec.))


Type II: Normal imperative – special negative

Ugric and Samoyedic languages (except Nganasan); Mordvin, Finnish, Estonian, Mari


Negation 13


Type IV: Special imperative – special negative


Negative existentials

In the Uralic languages Type B (special existential negation) is the most frequentThere can be divergencies between the marking of the different tenses, cf. Hungarian, Selkup.

Type A: Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian (Past and Future)

Type B: Enets, Hungarian (Present), Kamass, Khanty, Mansi Mordvin, Nenets, Nganasan (proform existential), Selkup

Type C: Mansi, Khanty, Selkup (Past)


Type A: normal–normal (L Neg cop T)

Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian (Past and Future)

Estoniana. Ma ei näe raamatut. ‘I don’t see a book.’b. Laual on raamat. ‘There is a book on the table.’c. Laual ei ole raamatut. ‘There is no book on the table.’

Hungarian (Past and Future)a. Nem látok almát. ‘I don’t see any apples.’b. Az asztalon van alma. ‘There is an apple on the table.’c. Az asztalon nem volt alma. ‘There were no apples on the table.’d. Az asztalon nem lesz alma. ‘There will be no apples on the table.’


Type B: special existential negation (L NegExst T)

Enets, Hungarian (Present), Kamass, Khanty, MansiMordvin, Nenets, Nganasan (proform existential), Selkup

HungarianAz asztalon nincs alma. ‘There are no apples on the table.’ (L NegExst T)

Mordvina. A sodasa ťe avańť. ‘I don't know this woman.’b. Tuvor langso umaŕ. ‘There are apples on the table.’c. Tuvor langso umaŕ araś. ‘There are no apples on the table.’

2. Uralic languages 77 2. Uralic languages 78

Distinction between SN, EN and NonverbalNegation

Komi, Khanty, Mansi

Hung., Mordvin, Nenets, Enets, Selkup

Nganasan

Estonian, Finnish

NNNonverbal Negation

ENExistential Negation

SNStandard Negation


Negation 14


No distinction between standard, existential and nonverbal negation

Estonian, Finnish

Mikko ei laula. ‘Mikko doesn't sing.’Mikko ei ole lääkäri. ‘Mikko is not a doctor.’Pöydällä ei ole omenoita. ‘There are no apples on the table. ’


Three way distinctiononly in Nganasan


SN and NN versus ENHungarian, Mordvin, Nenets, Enets, Selkup


SN versus EN NNKomi, Khanty, Mansi


Negative indefinites: sources

negative indefinite from non-negative scalar focus particles

Selkup: ‘nobody’, Nganasan, Nenets, Enets

negative indefinite from negative scalar focus particles

Hun. sem-mi ‘nothing’, Selkup ‘nobody’, Mansi ‘nothing’, Finnish, Estonian etc.


Negative Indefinite and Verbal NegationUralic languages: the negative indefinite always co-occurs with SN: verbal negation + negative indefinite(Type NV-NI)


Negation 15

3. Conclusions 85

Conclusions

Proposed typological parameters do not cover all relevant distinctions in the domain.To have full coverage of the domain of negation in Uralic languages, we have to go beyond what has been proposed in the typological literature so far.But this naturally applies to every functional domain to be included in the database.

86

ReferencesAlhoniemi, Alho 1985: Marin kielioppi, Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, HelsinkiAriste, Paul 1968: A Grammar of the Votic Language, Mouton & Co. – Indiana University, The Hague –Bloomington.Auwera, Johan van der , and Ludo Lejeune. 2005. The prohibitive. World atlas of language structures, ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie, 290-293. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bartens, Raija 2000: Permilästen kielten rakenne ja kehitys = MSFOu 238, HelsinkiBereczki, Gábor 1990: Chrestomathia Ceremissica, Tankönyvkiadó, BudapestBowden, John. 1997. Taba (Makian Dalam): Description of an Austronesian Language from Eastern Indonesia.Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Melbourne.Bright, William. 1957. The Karok Language. University of California Publications in Linguistics 13. Berkeley: University of California Press.Capell, A., and H. E. Hinch. 1970. Maung Grammar. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 98. The Hague: Mouton.Chamoreau, Claudine. 2000. Grammaire du purépecha. Lincom Studies in Native American Linguistics 34. Mü nchen: Lincom Europa.Chelliah, Shobhana L. 1997. A Grammar of Meithei. Mouton Grammar Library 17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Churchward, C. Maxwell. 1953. Tongan Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Comrie, Bernard 1981. Negation and Other Verb Categories in the Uralic Languages, CIFU VI, Turku, 350–355.Cornyn, William. 1944. Outline of Burmese Grammar. Language Dissertation 38. Supplement to Language vol. 20, no. 4. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.Croft, William 1991: The evolution of negation, Linguistics 27, 1-27Csepregi, Márta 1998: Szurguti osztják chrestomathia = SUA Supplementum 6, SzegedDahl, Östen 1979: Typology of sentence negation, Linguistics 17, 79–106.Dayley, Jon P. 1985. Tzutujil grammar. University of California Publications in Linguistics 107. Berkeley: University of California Press.Donaldson, Tasmin. 1980. Ngiyambaa: The Language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dryer, Matthew. 1988. Universals of negative position. Studies in syntactic typology, ed. by Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik, and Jessica Wirth, 93-124. Typological Studies in Language 17. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Dryer, Matthew. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68.81-138.

87

References [cont.]Dryer, Matthew. 2005. Negative morphemes. World atlas of language structures, ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie, 454-457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Eriksen, Pål Kristian. 2005. On the typology and the semantics of non-verbal predication. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.Everett, Dan, and Barbara Kern. 1997. Wari', The Pacaas Novos Language of Western Brazil. Descriptive Grammars. London: Routledge.Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existential and other Locatives, Language 68: 553-595. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Mouton Grammar Library 9. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation. World atlas of language structures, ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie, 466-469. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Honti, László 1997: Die Negation im Uralischen I–III., LU XXXIII, 81–96, 161–176, 241–252.Itkonen, Erkki 1960: Lappische Chretomathie mit grammatikalischem Abriss und Wörterverzeichnis, Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura, HelsinkiJacobsen, William. 1964. A Grammar of the Washo Language. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Jacobson, Steven A. 1990. A Practical Grammar of the St. Lawrence Island / Siberian Yupik Eskimo Language.Preliminary edition. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, College of Liberal Arts, University of Alaska.Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Konelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser I,5. Copenhagen: Høst.Joki, Aulis 1944: Kai Donners Kamassisches Wörterbuch nebst Sprachproben und Hauptzügen der Grammatik. Lexika Societatis Fenno-Ugricae VIII, HelsinkiKahrel, Peter. 1996. Aspects of Negation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Kálmán, Béla 1965: Vogul Chrestomathy, Bloomington, Indiana UniversityKämpfe, Hans-Rainer, and Alexander P. Volodin. 1995. Abriss der Tschuktschischen Grammatik auf der Basis der Schriftsprache. Tunguso-Sibirica 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Kel'makov, Valentin – Sara Hännikäinen 1999: Udmurtin kielioppia ja harjoituksia, SUS, Helsinki

88

Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1991. Koasati Grammar. Studies in the Anthropology of North American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Koehn, Edward, and Sally Koehn. 1986. Apalai. In Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum, ed., Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 33-127.Kozmács, István 1998: Udmurt nyelvkönyv, Szeged-KecskemétKettunen, Lauri 1938: Livisches Wörterbuch, SUS, Helsinki. Klumpp, Gerson 2001: Alte Negation und neue Tempora im Kamassischen, in Eichner, Heiner – Peter-Arnold Mumm – Oswald Panagl – Eberhard Winkler: Fremd und Eigen, Edition Preasens, Wien, 117–128.Laanest, Arvo 1982: Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen, Buske, HamburgLazdiņa, Terẽza B. 1966. Latvian. (Teach Yourself Books.) London: The English Universities Press.Mészáros, Edit 1998: Erza-mordvin nyelvkönyv kezdőknek és középhaladóknak, JATEPress, SzegedMiestamo,Matti. 2004 Suomen kieltoverbikonstruktio typologisessa valossa. Virittäjä 108: 364–388.Miestamo,Matti. 2005. Standard negation: the negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Miestamo, Matti. 2007. Negation – An Overview of Typological Research. Language and Linguistics Compass 1 (5): 552-570.Miestamo, Matti, and Johan van der Auwera. 2007. Negative declaratives and negative imperatives: similarities and differences. Linguistics Festival, May 2006 Bremen, ed. by Andreas Ammann, 59-77. Diversitas Linguarum 14. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Najlis, Elena Lidia. 1973. Lengua Selknam. Filolog¡a y Ling ¡stica 3. Buenos Aires: Universidad del Salvador.Nedjalkov, Igor. 1994. Evenki. In Peter Kahrel and Ren‚ van den Berg, ed., Typological Studies in Negation.Typological Studies in Language 29. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1 34.Newman, Paul. 1970. A Grammar of Tera. University of California Publications in Linguistics 57. Berkeley: University of California Press.Nikolaeva, Irina 1999: Ostyak, Lincom Europa, MünchenOwens, Jonathan. 1985. A Grammar of Harar Oromo (Northeastern Ethiopia). Kuschitische Sprachstudien 4. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Payne, John. R. 1985. Negation. Language typology and syntactic description, volume I, Clause structure, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 197-242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Penchoen, Thomas G. 1973. Tamazight of the Ayt Ndhir. Afroasiatic Dialects 1. Los Angeles: Udena Publications.

References [cont.]

89

Ramstedt, G. J. 1997. A Korean Grammar. Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia LXXXII. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. [Reimpression, originally published in 1939]. Rédei, Károly 1978: Syrjänische Chrestomathie, Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs, WienRiese, Timothy 2001: Vogul. Languages of the World/Materials 158, Lincom Europa, MünchenRombandeeva, Evdokija 1995: Sygvinskij dialekt mansijskogo (voguľskogo) jazyka. Mitteilungen der SocietasUralo-Altaica 14, HamburgSapir, J. David. 1965. A Grammar of Diola-Fogny. West African Language Monographs 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Savijärvi, Ilkka 1977: Itämerensuomalasten kielten kieltoverbi, I. Suomi, SKS, HelsinkiSchaaik, Gerjan van. 1994. Turkish. Typological studies in negation, ed. by Peter Kahrel, and René van den Berg, 35-50. Typological Studies in Language 29. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Sneddon, James Neil. 1996. Indonesian, A Comprehensive Grammar. Comprehensive Grammars. London: Routledge.Sorokina, I. P. – Bolina, D. S. 2001: Slovar' enecko-russkij i russko-eneckij, St. PetersburgSorokina, I. P. – Bolina, D. S. 2005: Eneckie teksty, Nauka, Sankt-PetersburStevenson, R. C. 1969. Bagirmi Grammar. Linguistic Monograph Series 3. Khartoum: Sudan Research Unit, University of Khartoum.Tereshchenko, N. M. 1966: Nenecko-russkij slovar', MoscowVeselinova, Ljuba 2006. Towards a typology of negation in non-verbal and existential sentences. Paper given at The 80th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, January 5-8, 2006, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. [www.ling.su.se/staff/ljuba/Non-verbalNegation01.pdf ]Walker, Alan T. 1982. A Grammar of Sawu. NUSA Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Languages in Indonesia 13. Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya.Wagner-Nagy, Beáta (ed.) 2002: Chrestomathia nganasanica = SUA Sup. 10, Szeged Weir, Helen. 1994. Nadëb. In Peter Kahrel and René‚ van den Berg, ed., Typological Studies in Negation.Typological Studies in Language 29. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 291-323.

References [cont.]

90

1 first person, 2 second person, 3 third person, ABS absolutive, ACC accusative, ACT actual, ADEL adelative, ADJ adjective, AFFaffirmative, ALL allative, ART article, ASS assertive, AUX auxiliary, CAR caritive, CERT certitive, CLT clitic, CMPL completive, CNconnegative, CONT continuative, COP copula, CVB converb, DATdative, DECL declarative, DEF definite, DUR durative, EL elative, ERG ergative, EX existential, EXCL exclusive, F feminine, FOCfocus, FUT future, GER gerund, GND gender, HAB habitual, HYPhypothetical, IMP imperative, IMPF imperfective, IMPSTimmediate past, INCL inclusive, IND indicative, INDEF indefinite, INF infinitive, IRR irrealis, LOC locative, M masculine, N neuter, N~ non~ (e.g. NPST = nonpast), NEG negation/negative, NOMACT nomen actionis, O objective conjugation, PART partitive, PERF perfect, PFV perfective, PL plural, POT potential, PRESpresent, PROF proform, PST past, PTCL particle, PTCP participle, R realis, RS relativized subject, SBJN subjunctive, SG singular, SUBJ subject, SURP surprise mood, T theme, V verb.

Abbreviations

Date post:	05-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

Negation - univie.ac.at · 2008-12-10 · Negation in existential clauses Negative indefinite...

Documents