The Turkic Languages9986Lars Johanson, Éva Á. Csató Edited by. The Turkic Languages. London and New York: Routledge 1998. xxiii + 474 pp, ISBN: 0 415 08200 5 £95.00 Routledge Language Family Descriptions series

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-23
Author(s):  
H.G.A. Hughes
Author(s):  
Alexander Savelyev

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.


2022 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 304-307
Author(s):  
D. Kenzhebaev ◽  
D. Abdullaev

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.


Author(s):  
Sonja Frazier

This research aims to better understand the link between prosody and verbs in Anishinaabemowin by investigating pitch placement in relation to verb placement in Anishinaabemowin utterances. The data is from a story by Ogimaawigwaebiik archived in Dibaajimowinaan; Anishinaabe Stories of Culture and Respect.  Anishinaabemowin, also known as Ojibwe, is a member of the Algonquin language family and is spoken throughout Southern Ontario and the Northern United States (Fairbanks, 2017). It is a polysynthetic language meaning it primarily uses affixes to convey meaning, particularly on the verbs. Prosody is the organization of various linguistics units (words, pitch, tone) into an utterance in the process of speech production. It conveys not only linguistics information but also contextual cues, intentions and attitudes (Fujisaki, 1997).  This research utilized two audio softwares, Audacity and Praat, to clean and segment the audio into utterances and then token sentences were selected based on verb placement (verb initial, verb second and verb final). These token sentences will be analyzed for pitch placement and then compared to see if verb placement affects prosody, further expanding on the current literature which states that pitch defaults to the verb (Frazier, accepted). This research is particularly important because there is a gap in existing literature on prosody in Anishinaabemowin and there are no experimental studies such as this.  References:  Fairbanks, B. (2017). Ojibwe Discourse Markers. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Frazier, S., Déchaine, R.M, & Dufresne, M. (accepted). The Syntax of Discourse: What an Anishinaabemowin Oral Text Teaches Us. 2020 CLA Proceedings.  Fujisaki, H. (1997). Prosody, models, and spontaneous speech. In Computing prosody (pp. 27-42). Springer, New York, NY.  Ogimaawigwaebiik [Nancy Jones] 2013. Gakina Dibaajimowin Gwayakwaawan.  In Dibaajimowinaan; Anishinaabe Stories of Culture and respect; Nigaanigiizhig [Jim Saint-Arnold] (ed.), Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, 9-10.


Author(s):  
Eleanor Coghill

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document