The Northwestern Turkic (Kipchak) languages

2020 ◽  
pp. 370-391
Author(s):  
Éva Á. Csató ◽  
Lars Johanson
Keyword(s):  
Language Family ◽  
Syntactic Features ◽  
Turkic Languages

This chapter deals with the Northwestern (Kipchak) branch of the Turkic language family. Examples taken from this branch of Turkic illustrate phonological, morphological, and syntactic features typical of Turkic languages. Reference is also made to special developments leading to the emergence of non-typical features in some Northwestern languages. Special emphasis is given to the description of the southern Kipchak language, Kazakh, in the middle of the Turkic-speaking world and to the moribund western Kipchak language, Lithuanian Karaim, on its northwestern periphery. Moreover, the typical Turkic features are compared to the 20 core structures (CS) in Transeurasian languages evaluated in Robbeets (2017h and this Oxford Guide).

A Bayesian approach to the classification of the Turkic languages

2020 ◽  
pp. 114-124
Author(s):  
Alexander Savelyev
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Approach ◽  
Controversial Issue ◽  
Language Family ◽  
Independent Verification ◽  
Linguistic History ◽  
The Family ◽  
Turkic Languages ◽  
The Common ◽  
Widespread View

Despite more than 150 years of research, the internal structure of the Turkic language family remains a controversial issue. In this study, the Bayesian phylogenetic approach is employed in order to provide an independent verification of the contemporary views on Turkic linguistic history. The data underlying the study are Turkic basic vocabularies, which are resistant to replacement and likely to reflect the genealogical relationships among the Turkic languages. The method tested in the chapter is based on the strict clock model of evolution, which assumes that relevant changes occur at the same rate at every branch of the family. This study supports the widespread view that the binary split between Bulgharic and Common Turkic was the earliest split in the Turkic family. The model further replicates most of the conventional subgroups within the Common Turkic branch. Based on a Bayesian analysis, the time depth of Proto-Turkic is estimated to be around 2,119 years BP, which is in accordance with the traditional estimates of 2,000–2,500 years BP.

scholarly journals Sogdian Archetypes in Chatkal Oronymia as an Ancient Substrate of Toponyms of Central Asia

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 304-307
Author(s):  
D. Kenzhebaev ◽  
D. Abdullaev
Keyword(s):  
Central Asia ◽  
Language Family ◽  
European Language ◽  
Important Condition ◽  
Mountain Ranges ◽  
Turkic Languages ◽  
History Of ◽  
Linguistic Structures

The relevance of studying the oronymy of the Chatkal area of Kyrgyzstan is associated with the fact that many mountain names are well preserved in sound and semantic terms. This factor is an important condition for studying the retrospective of any language, including the Turkic languages too. Also, in the sound shells of mountain names, despite their deep antiquity, long disappeared elements of languages that are in contact in the same linguistic area in the deep past have survived. As part of the mountain names of the Chatkal zone of the mountain ranges of Kyrgyzstan, individual morphemes and sounds of the ancient Turkic languages have been preserved, and at the same time, East Iranian topolexemes of the Indo-European language family are found. At the same time, the structure of oronyms to some extent shows the evolution of the language as a whole and of each tier in it - in particular. The history of the Kyrgyz language and its interaction with various systemic linguistic structures are reflected in the stratigraphy of oronymy. This allows you to explore the historical plan of the Turkic languages in more depth in the diachronic sense.

Northeastern Neo-Aramaic and Language Contact

2020 ◽  
pp. 493-518
Author(s):  
Eleanor Coghill
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Language Family ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Languages In Contact ◽  
The North ◽  
North Eastern ◽  
Turkic Languages ◽  
Aramaic Dialects

The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects form one of the surviving branches of the Aramaic language family. Extremely diverse, they are or were spoken by Christian and Jewish minorities originating in Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. They have been in intense contact with other languages of the region, most notably Kurdish, but also Arabic, Turkic languages and Persian. As a result, they show a great deal of contact influence, not only in lexicon and phonology but also in morphology and syntax. The precise forms of the borrowings, as well as their behavior, usually reflect the local dialects of the donor language, showing how important fine-grained dialectal data is in a study of language contact. While some of the languages in contact, namely Kurdish, Turkish and Persian, are structurally very different to NENA, structural congruence or compatibility plays at best a fluctuating role in facilitating borrowings.

The impact of language contact on Hinuq

2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Forker
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Language Family ◽  
Loan Words ◽  
Syntactic Features ◽  
Constituent Order ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis paper investigates the impact of language contact on the Nakh-Daghestanian language Hinuq. Hinuq is a rather small language that has been in contact with larger languages for several centuries; among them the traces of Avar and Russian are particularly visible. The paper provides an overview about all observable influences on the phonology, morphology and syntax of Hinuq as well as on the lexicon. Avar is the main source for borrowed morphology and loan words. The influence of Russian on the Hinuq lexicon is growing, especially among the young speakers, but it is still smaller compared to Avar. With respect to the syntax no Avar impact can be detected since the languages belong to the same language family and large parts of the syntactic features and rules bear strong resemblances in the two languages. By contrast, Russian, which is genetically unrelated and typologically different from Hinuq, has some influence on the Hinuq constituent order.

scholarly journals Bayesian phylolinguistics infers the internal structure and the time-depth of the Turkic language family

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Savelyev ◽  
Martine Robbeets
Keyword(s):  
Internal Structure ◽  
Language Family ◽  
Language Varieties ◽  
Quantitative Basis ◽  
Turkic Languages ◽  
Divergence Dates ◽  
Basic Vocabulary ◽  
Historical Comparative ◽  
Lexical Data ◽  
Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference

Abstract Despite more than 200 years of research, the internal structure of the Turkic language family remains subject to debate. Classifications of Turkic so far are based on both classical historical–comparative linguistic and distance-based quantitative approaches. Although these studies yield an internal structure of the Turkic family, they cannot give us an understanding of the statistical robustness of the proposed branches, nor are they capable of reliably inferring absolute divergence dates, without assuming constant rates of change. Here we use computational Bayesian phylogenetic methods to build a phylogeny of the Turkic languages, express the reliability of the proposed branches in terms of probability, and estimate the time-depth of the family within credibility intervals. To this end, we collect a new dataset of 254 basic vocabulary items for thirty-two Turkic language varieties based on the recently introduced Leipzig–Jakarta list. Our application of Bayesian phylogenetic inference on lexical data of the Turkic languages is unprecedented. The resulting phylogenetic tree supports a binary structure for Turkic and replicates most of the conventional sub-branches in the Common Turkic branch. We calculate the robustness of the inferences for subgroups and individual languages whose position in the tree seems to be debatable. We infer the time-depth of the Turkic family at around 2100 years before present, thus providing a reliable quantitative basis for previous estimates based on classical historical linguistics and lexicostatistics.

scholarly journals A Comparative Study of the Simple Clause in Akan, Dagaare and English

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 62
Author(s):  
Levina Nyameye Abunya ◽  
Edward Owusu ◽  
Faustina Marius Naapane
Keyword(s):  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Significant Variation ◽  
Language Family ◽  
Linguistic Features ◽  
African Languages ◽  
Syntactic Features ◽  
Basic Word ◽  
Serial Verb Construction ◽  
Serial Verb

The paper compares how the simple clause is expressed in Akan (Kwa, Niger-Congo), Dagaare (Gur, Niger-Congo) and English. It examines the simple clause in relation to noun phrase, verbal phrases, adpositional phrases, basic word order in declarative and focus constructions, and the basic locative construction. Basically, the study reveals that despite the differences, Akan and Dagaare have a lot in common as compared to English. This of course shows how distant English is from the two African languages. Certain linguistic features such as serial verb construction and focus constructions were unique to Akan and Dagaare and this, is not surprising since languages within the same language family (Niger Congo) tend to share certain lexical, phonological, morphological and syntactic features. The significant variation between these languages shows where Akan and Dagaare languages diverge into other sub-family groups: Kwa and Gur, respectively.

scholarly journals INTERJECTIVE CONSTRUCTIONS WITH COMPONENT ADA IN THE TURKIC AND MONGOLIAN LANGUAGES: ON THE NATURE OF INTERJECTIONS

2022 ◽  
pp. 60-68
Author(s):  
М. Д. Чертыкова
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Structure ◽  
Evil Spirit ◽  
Syntactic Features ◽  
Turkic Languages

Статья посвящена описанию феномена тюркско - монгольской лексемы ада, пока ещё спорной в плане исторической принадлежности, обладающей гибкостью и сложностью семантической структуры. В монгольских и якутском языках ад (также адьарай/ажарай) является полноценной единицей с обобщённой семантикой «демон, злой дух». В тюркских языках слово ада действует как компонент междометных конструкций, имеющих семантические, грамматические и синтаксические особенности. Ада в них полностью десемантизировался, сохранив свои грамматические свойства. Конструкции с ада выражают различные эмоции: удивление, восторг, восхищение и т. д. Лингвоспецифичность хакасских междометных конструкций заключается в том, что они представляют собой реакцию говорящего на чьё - либо высказывание, оцененное как абсурдное, недостоверное. The article is devoted to the description of the phenomenon of the Turkic-Mongolian lexeme of hell, which is still controversial in terms of historical affiliation, and has a flexible and complex semantic structure. In the Mongolian and Yakut languages, ad (also adyaray / azharay) is a full - fledged unit with the generalized semantics of 'demon, evil spirit'. In the Turkic languages, word ada acts as a component of interjective constructions that have semantic, grammatical and syntactic features. Ada in them is completely desemanticized, retaining its grammatical properties. Constructions with ada express various emotions: surprise, delight, admiration, etc. The linguistic specificity of Khakass interjective constructions is that they represent a speaker's reaction to someone's statement, evaluated as absurd, unreliable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document