Chapter 8. Acquisition of nominal morphology in Norwegian L2

Author(s):  
Linda Evenstad Emilsen
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Francesca Di Garbo ◽  
Yvonne Agbetsoamedo

This chapter investigates interactions between gender and number, and between gender and evaluative morphology in eighty-four African languages. It argues that interactions of gender with other grammatical domains (e.g. number) and/or with domains of derivational morphology (e.g. diminutive/augmentative) represent instances of non-canonical gender. This is based on two assumptions: (1) canonical morphosyntactic features should be maximally independent from each other, and (2) canonical gender should be an inherent lexical property of nouns, not manipulable for semantic or pragmatic purposes. The gender systems of the sampled languages appear to be frequently non-canonical because they are prone to interact with the morphosyntactic encoding of number distinctions and with the formation of diminutive and augmentative nouns. The chapter further outlines some suggestions as to how interactions between gender and other domains of nominal morphology may contribute to assess asymmetries between gender and other functional domains, as well as the complexity of gender systems.


2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (s41) ◽  
pp. 37-65
Author(s):  
Julia Fernández-Cuesta ◽  
Nieves Rodríguez-Ledesma

Abstract One of the most characteristic features of the grammar of the Lindisfarne Gospel gloss is the absence of the etymological -e inflection in the dative singular in the paradigm of the strong masculine and neuter declension (a-stems). Ross (1960: 38) already noted that endingless forms of the nominative/accusative cases were quite frequent in contexts where a dative singular in -e would be expected, to the extent that he labeled the forms in -e ‘rudimentary dative.’ The aim of this article is to assess to what extent the dative singular is still found as a separate case in the paradigms of the masculine and neuter a-stems and root nouns. To this end a quantitative/statistical analysis of nouns belonging to these classes has been carried out in contexts where the Latin lemma is either accusative or dative. We have tried to determine whether variables such as syntactic context, noun class, and frequency condition the presence or absence of the -e inflection, and whether the distribution of the inflected and uninflected forms is different in the various demarcations that have been identified in the gloss. The data have been retrieved using the Dictionary of Old English Corpus. All tokens have been checked against the facsimile edition and the digitised manuscript in order to detect possible errors.


2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 71-76
Author(s):  
Uldanay Jumabay ◽  

The paper presents a review of Düysen ̣ ȧlị Ȧbdịlȧšịm’s monograph “The Old Kazakh Written Language” (“Eskị Ḳazaḳ J̌ azba Tịlị”), which is written in Kazakh and published in Beijing in 2014. The monograph is a linguistic description of the documents of the Kazakh Khanates written in the period from the first half of the 18th century until the early 19th century. The Old Kazakh documents were mostly written by Kazakh Khans and Sultans and sent to Chinese emperors of the Qing dynasty and to officials in charge of the border. Currently all the documents are preserved in the First Historical Archives of China in Beijing. The monograph is designed as a manual for university students studying Kazakh philology. The significance of the book lies in its being the first and only book providing a comprehensive linguistic description of the Old Kazakh historical documents. The monograph is divided into three chapters. The phonetics and writing system of the Old Kazakh documents are studied in the first chapter. Chapter 2 investigates the nominal morphology, in which five word classes: nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals, and function words have been discussed. The last chapter presents lexical terms for temporal units. The review provides a short description of all chapters and points out that the usage of the term “Turki” is more appropriate for defining the language of the presented documents than the term “Old Kazakh Written Language”, since it manifests prevalence of non-Kazakh features.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document