A Typological Perspective on the Morphology of Nilo-Saharan Languages

G. Dimmendaal
{"title":"A Typological Perspective on the Morphology of Nilo-Saharan Languages","authors":"G. Dimmendaal","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nilo-Saharan, a phylum spread mainly across an area south of the Afro-Asiatic and north of the Niger-Congo phylum, was established as a genetic grouping by Greenberg. In his earlier, continent-wide classification of African languages in articles published between 1949 and 1954, Greenberg had proposed a Macro-Sudanic family (renamed Chari-Nile in subsequent studies), consisting of a Central Sudanic and an Eastern Sudanic branch plus two isolated members, Berta and Kunama. This family formed the core of the Nilo-Saharan phylum as postulated by Greenberg in his The Languages of Africa, where a number of groups were added which had been treated as isolated units in his earlier classificatory work: Songhay, Eastern Saharan (now called Saharan), Maban and Mimi, Nyangian (now called Kuliak or Rub), Temainian (Temeinian), Coman (Koman), and Gumuz.\n Presenting an “encyclopaedic survey” of morphological structures for the more than 140 languages belonging to this phylum is impossible in such a brief study, also given the tremendous genetic distance between some of the major subgroups. Instead, typological variation in the morphological structure of these genetically-related languages will be central. In concrete terms this involves synchronic and diachronic observations on their formal properties (section 2), followed by an introduction to the nature of derivation, inflection, and compounding properties in Nilo-Saharan (section 3). This traditional compartmentalization has its limits because it misses out on the interaction with lexical structures and morphosyntactic properties in its extant members, as argued in section 4. As pointed out in section 5, language contact also must have played an important role in the geographical spreading of several of these typological properties.","PeriodicalId":331003,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.531","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Nilo-Saharan, a phylum spread mainly across an area south of the Afro-Asiatic and north of the Niger-Congo phylum, was established as a genetic grouping by Greenberg. In his earlier, continent-wide classification of African languages in articles published between 1949 and 1954, Greenberg had proposed a Macro-Sudanic family (renamed Chari-Nile in subsequent studies), consisting of a Central Sudanic and an Eastern Sudanic branch plus two isolated members, Berta and Kunama. This family formed the core of the Nilo-Saharan phylum as postulated by Greenberg in his The Languages of Africa, where a number of groups were added which had been treated as isolated units in his earlier classificatory work: Songhay, Eastern Saharan (now called Saharan), Maban and Mimi, Nyangian (now called Kuliak or Rub), Temainian (Temeinian), Coman (Koman), and Gumuz. Presenting an “encyclopaedic survey” of morphological structures for the more than 140 languages belonging to this phylum is impossible in such a brief study, also given the tremendous genetic distance between some of the major subgroups. Instead, typological variation in the morphological structure of these genetically-related languages will be central. In concrete terms this involves synchronic and diachronic observations on their formal properties (section 2), followed by an introduction to the nature of derivation, inflection, and compounding properties in Nilo-Saharan (section 3). This traditional compartmentalization has its limits because it misses out on the interaction with lexical structures and morphosyntactic properties in its extant members, as argued in section 4. As pointed out in section 5, language contact also must have played an important role in the geographical spreading of several of these typological properties.
从类型学角度看尼罗-撒哈拉语言的形态学
尼罗-撒哈拉,一个主要分布在亚非以南和尼日尔-刚果门以北地区的门,被格林伯格建立为一个遗传类群。格林伯格在1949年至1954年间发表的文章中提出了一个大苏丹语系(在随后的研究中更名为查里-尼罗语),包括一个中苏丹语系和一个东苏丹语系,加上两个独立的成员,贝尔塔语和库纳马语。格林伯格在他的《非洲语言》(the Languages of Africa)中假设,这个语系构成了尼罗-撒哈拉门的核心,在他早期的分类工作中,一些被视为孤立单位的类群被添加进去:Songhay、东撒哈拉(现在称为撒哈拉)、Maban和Mimi、Nyangian(现在称为Kuliak或Rub)、Temainian (Temeinian)、Coman (Koman)和Gumuz。在如此简短的研究中,对属于这一门的140多种语言的形态结构进行“百科全书式的调查”是不可能的,而且考虑到一些主要亚群之间存在巨大的遗传距离。相反,这些遗传相关语言的形态结构的类型变异将是中心。具体而言,这包括对其形式特性的共时性和历时性观察(第2节),然后介绍尼罗-撒哈拉语的派生、屈变和复合特性的本质(第3节)。这种传统的划分有其局限性,因为它错过了与现有成员的词汇结构和形态句法特性的相互作用,如第4节所述。正如第5节所指出的,语言接触也一定在这些类型学特征的地理传播中发挥了重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信