Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:39:07.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - The Transeurasian Languages

from Part II - Case Studies for Areal Linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2017

By
Martine Robbeets
Edited by
Raymond Hickey
Raymond Hickey
Affiliation:
Universität Duisburg–Essen
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics , pp. 586 - 626
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra, 2013. Areal diffusion and parallelism in drift: Shared grammaticalization patterns. In Robbeets, and Cuyckens, (eds), pp. 23–42.Google Scholar
Alpatov, Vladimir and Podlesskaya, Vera, 1995. Converbs in Japanese. In Haspelmath, and König, (eds), pp. 465–486.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory, 2005. The velar nasal (ŋ). In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 42–45.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory, 2006. Towards a typology of the Siberian linguistic area. In Matras, Yaron, McMahon, April and Vincent, Nigel (eds), Linguistic Areas: Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective, pp. 266–300. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bengston, John D. and Blažek, Václav, 2009. Ainu and Austric: Evidence of genetic relationship. Journal of Language Relationship 2: 1–24.Google Scholar
Benzing, Johannes, 1955. Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 11: 949–1099.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter, 1995. Verb serialization and converbs: Differences and similarities. In Haspelmath, and König, (eds), pp. 137–188.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter, 1998. Structural similarities of clause combining in Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu-Tungusic and Japanese: A typological alternative to the hypothesis of a genetic relationship. In Johanson, Lars (ed.), The Mainz Meeting: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, pp. 199–223. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bugaeva, Anna, 2015. Causative constructions in Ainu: A typological perspective with remarks on the diachrony. STUF – Language Typology and Universals (Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung) 68 (4): 439–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulatova, Nadežda Ja. and Grenoble, Leonore A. 1999. Evenki. Languages of the World/Materials, vol. 141. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Collinder, Björn, 1965. An Introduction to the Uralic Languages. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, 1981. Negation and other verb categories in the Uralic languages. In Ikola, Osmo (ed.), Congressus Quintis Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, vol. VI, pp. 350–355. Turku: Suomen Kielen Seura.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, 2008. The areal typology of Chinese: Between North and Southeast Asia. In Djamouri, Redouane, Meisterernst, Barbara and Sybesma, Rint (eds), Chinese Linguistics in Leipzig, pp. 1–21. Collection des Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale, vol. 12. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Centre de Recherches Linguistiques sur l’Asie Orientale.Google Scholar
Croft, William, 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael, 2005. Inclusive/exclusive forms for ‘we’. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 162–169.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen, 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17: 79–106.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger, 2005. Distance contrasts in demonstratives. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 170–173.Google Scholar
Doerfer, Gerhard, 1978. Urtungusisch ö. In Doerfer, Gerhard and Weiers, Michael (eds), Beiträge zur nordasiatischen Kulturgeschichte, pp. 66–116. Tungusica, vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Doerfer, Gerhard, 1985. Mongolo-Tungusica. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Domii, Tumurtogoo, 2006. The inclusive and the exclusive in Mongolian. In Shagdarsursen, T. (ed.), Mongol ulsin ix sürgüülijn: Erdem šinžilgeenij bičig, pp. 77–78. Acta Mongolica, vol. 6.267. Ulanbaatar: National University of Mongolia.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., 2005a. Prefixing versus suffixing in inflectional morphology. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 110–113.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., 2005b. Order of subject, object, and verb. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 330–333.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., 2005c. Order of genitive and noun; Order of adjective and noun. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 350–357.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew, 2005d. Negative morphemes. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 454–457.Google Scholar
Erdal, Marcel, 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, 2008. Insubordination and its uses. In Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, pp. 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Filchenko, Andrey Yury, 2007. A Grammar of Eastern Khanty. PhD dissertation, Rice University, Houston.Google Scholar
Frellesvig, Bjarke, 2010. A History of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frellesvig, Bjarke and Whitman, John, 2008. Evidence for seven vowels in Proto-Japanese. In Frellesvig, Bjarke and Whitman, John (eds), Proto-Japanese: Issues and Prospects, pp. 15–41. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, vol. 294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly, 2008. Negative cycles. Linguistic Typology 12: 195–243.Google Scholar
Georg, Stefan, 2007. A Descriptive Grammar of Ket (Yenisei-Ostyak), part 1: Introduction, Phonology, Morphology. Folkestone: Global Oriental.Google Scholar
Gil, David, 2005. Numeral classifiers. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 226–229.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslï and Kerslake, Celia, 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gorelova, Liliya, 2002. Manchu Grammar. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Grönbech, Karl, 1936. Der Türkische Sprachbau. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Gruzdeva, Ekaterina, 1998. Nivkh. Languages of the World/Materials, vol. 111. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, Mantaro, 1986. The Altaicization of Northern Chinese. In McCoy, John and Light, Timothy (eds), Contributions to Sino-Tibetan Studies, pp. 76–97. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Haspelmath, and König, (eds), pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds), 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin and König, Ekkehard (eds), 1995. Converbs in Cross-linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms – Adverbial Particles, Gerunds. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey, 1998. Hermit crabs: Formal renewal of morphology by phonologically mediated affix substitution. Language 74: 728–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honti, László, 1997. Die Negation im Uralischen, parts I–III. Linguistica Uralica 2: 81–96, 161–176, 241–252.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha, 1981. Korean vowel system in North Asian perspective. Hangeul 172: 129–146.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha, 1982. On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 44: 23–42.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha, 1996. Manchuria: An Ethnic History. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, vol. 222. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha, 1997. Problems of primary root structure in pre-proto-Japanic. International Journal of Central Asian Studies 2: 14–30.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha, 2007. Typological interaction in the Qinghai Linguistic Complex. Studia Orientalia 101: 85–103.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha, 2009. Proto-Uralic: What, where, and when? Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 258: 57–78.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha, 2012. Mongolian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha, 2013. Personal pronouns in Core Altaic. In Robbeets, and Cuyckens, (eds), pp. 211–226.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars, 1995. On Turkic converb clauses. In Haspelmath, and König, (eds), pp. 313–348.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars and Robbeets, Martine, 2010. Introduction. In Johanson, Lars and Robbeets, Martine (eds), Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance, pp. 1–5. Turcologica, vol. 78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Stefan, Ichikawa, Yasuko, Kobayashi, Noriko and Yamamoto, Hirofumi, 2001. Japanese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ko, Seongyeon, 2012. Tongue Root Harmony and Vowel Contrast in Northeast Asian Languages. PhD dissertation, Cornell University, New York.Google Scholar
Ko, Seongyeon, Whitman, John and Joseph, Andrew, 2014. Comparative consequences of the tongue root harmony analysis for proto-Tungusic, proto-Mongolic, and proto-Korean. In Robbeets, Martine and Bisang, Walter (eds), Paradigm Change in the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond, pp. 141–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kortlandt, Frederik, 2004. Nivkh as a Uralo-Siberian language. In Hyllested, Adam, Jørgensen, Anders Richardt, Larsson, Jenny Helena and Olander, Thomas (eds), Per aspera ad asteriscos: Festschrift in Honour of Jens E. Rasmussen, pp. 285–289. Innsbruck: IBS.Google Scholar
Lee, Ki-Mun and Ramsey, Robert, 2011. A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian, 2005. Tone. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 58–61.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, 2012. Tungusic converbs and a typology of taxis. In Malchukov, Andrej and Whaley, Lindsay J. (eds), Recent Advances in Tungusic Linguistics, pp. 213–228. Turcologica, vol. 89. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, 2013. Verbalization and insubordination in Siberian languages. In Robbeets, and Cuyckens, (eds), pp. 177–208.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel Elmo, 1988. A Reference Grammar of Japanese. Tokyo: Tuttle.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel Elmo, 1992. A Reference Grammar of Korean. Tokyo: Tuttle.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena, 2003a. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Mouton Grammar Library, vol. 27. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena, 2003b. Tundra Yukaghir. Languages of the World/Materials, vol. 372. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, 2005. Standard Negation: The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main Clauses in a Typological Perspective. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, vol. 31. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Murayama, Shichirō, 1992. Ainugo no kigen [Origins of the Ainu Language]. Tokyo: San’ichi Shobo.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor V., 1994. Negation in Evenki. In Kahrel, Peter and van den Berg, René (eds), Typological Studies in Negation, pp. 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor V., 1995. Converbs in Evenki. In Haspelmath, and König, (eds), pp. 441–464.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor V., 1997. Evenki: Descriptive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina, 2010. Inclusive and Exclusive in Altaic Languages. In Johanson, Lars and Robbeets, Martine (eds), Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance, pp. 115–128. Turcologica, vol. 78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, 2012. Selection for M : T pronominals in Eurasia. In Johanson, Lars and Robbeets, Martine (eds), Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, pp. 47–70. Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture, vol. 2. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna and Peterson, David, 2005. Personal pronouns. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 546–553.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina, 1999. Ostyak. Languages of the World/Materials, vol. 305. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Norman, Jerry, 1988. Chinese. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, John R., 1985. Negation. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause Structure, pp. 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas, 1954. Grammar of Written Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas, 1955. Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, vol. 110. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas, 1964. Der altaische Sprachtyp. In Spuler, B. et al. (eds), Mongolistik, pp. 1–16. Handbuch der Orientalistik, vol. 5.2. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Rickmeyer, Jens, 1989. Japanisch und der altaische Sprachtyp. Eine Synopsis struktureller Entsprechungen. Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 12: 313–323.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Turcologica, vol. 64. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, 2007a. How the actional suffix chain connects Japanese to Altaic. Turkic Languages 11 (1): 3–58.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, 2007b. The causative-passive in the Trans-Eurasian languages. Turkic Languages 11 (2): 235–278.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, 2008. If Japanese is Altaic, why is it so simple? In Lubotsky, Alexander, Schaeken, Jos and Wiedenhof, Jeroen (eds), Evidence and Counter-evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt, vol. 2: General Linguistics. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, vol. 33. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, 2009. Insubordination in Altaic. Journal of Philology, vol. 31. Ural-Altaic Studies 1: 61–79.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, 2010. Transeurasian: Can verbal morphology end the controversy? In Johanson, Lars and Robbeets, Martine (eds), Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance, pp. 81–114. Turcologica, vol. 78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, 2012. Shared verb morphology in the Transeurasian languages: Copy or cognate? In Johanson, Lars and Robbeets, Martine (eds), Copies vs. Cognates in Bound Morphology, pp. 427–446. Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture, vol. 3. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, 2013. Genealogically motivated grammaticalization. In Robbeets, and Cuyckens, (eds), pp. 147–175.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, 2014. The development of negation in the Transeurasian languages. In Suihkonen, Pirkko and Whaley, Lindsay J. (eds), On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia, pp. 401–420. Studies in Language Companion Series, vol. 164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, 2015. Diachrony of Verb Morphology: Japanese and the Transeurasian Languages. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, vol. 291. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, 2016. Insubordination and the establishment of genealogical relationship. In Evans, Nicholas and Watanabe, Honore (eds), Insubordination, pp. 209–246. Typological Studies in Language, vol. 115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds), 2013. Shared Grammaticalization: with Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages. Studies in Language Companion Series, vol. 132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rybatzki, Volker, 2003. Middle Mongol. In Janhunen, Juha (ed.), The Mongolic Languages, pp. 57–82. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi, 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min, 1994. Korean. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min, 2009. The semantics of clause linking in Korean. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra (eds), The Semantics of Clause Linking: A Cross-linguistic Typology, pp. 285–317. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon, 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon, 2005a. Predicative possession. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 474–477.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon, 2005b. Predicative adjectives. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 478–481.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon, 2005c. Comparative constructions. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 490–493.Google Scholar
Street, John, 1957. The Language of the Secret History of the Mongols. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Suihkonen, Pirkko, 2002. The Uralic languages. Fennia 180 (1/2): 165–176.Google Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof, 1985. Vowel harmony shift in Mongolian. Lingua 67 (4): 283–327.Google Scholar
Tamura, Suzuko, 2000. The Ainu Language. ICHEL Linguistic Studies, vol. 2. Tokyo: Sanseidō.Google Scholar
Vajda, Edward J., 2004. Ket. Languages of the World/Materials, vol. 204. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander, 1993. A Reconstruction of Proto-Ainu. Brill’s Japanese Studies Library, vol. 4. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander, 2005. A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese, part 1: Sources, Script and Phonology, Lexicon, Nominals. Languages of Asia, vol. 3. Folkestone: Global Oriental.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander, 2009. A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese, part 2: Adjectives, Verbs, Adverbs, Conjunctions, Particles, Postpositions. Languages of Asia, vol. 8. Folkestone: Global Oriental.Google Scholar
Weiers, Michael, 1966. Untersuchungen zu einer Historischen Grammatik des Präklassischen Schriftmongolisch. PhD dissertation, Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn.Google Scholar
Werner, Heinrich, 1997. Die ketische Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. and Li, Fengxiang, 2000. Emphatic reduplication in Oroqen and its Altaic context. Linguistics 38 (2): 355–372.Google Scholar
Whitman, John Bradford, 1990. A rule of medial *-r- loss in pre-Old Japanese. In Baldi, Philip (ed.), Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology, pp. 511–545. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, vol. 45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wohlgemuth, Jan, 2009. A Typology of Verbal Borrowings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wrona, Janick, 2008. The nominal and adnominal forms in Old Japanese: Consequences for a reconstruction of pre-Old Japanese syntax. In Frellesvig, Bjarke and Whitman, John (eds), Proto-Japanese: Issues and Prospects, pp. 193–215. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, vol. 294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha and Matthews, Stephen, 2008. The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. In López-Couso, María José and Seoane, Elena (eds), Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives, pp. 309–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, 2007. A Grammar of Mantauran (Rukai). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×