密切联系语言的基本词汇:克里米亚半岛突厥语的个案研究

Q2 Arts and Humanities
I. Egorov
{"title":"密切联系语言的基本词汇:克里米亚半岛突厥语的个案研究","authors":"I. Egorov","doi":"10.31826/jlr-2020-183-406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present paper provides two case studies of the basic vocabulary of the Turkic languages spoken on the Crimea Peninsula. Its aim is to illuminate the issues that a historical linguist, and in particular a phylogeneticist, faces when analyzing the basic vocabulary of closely related languages in a situation of intensive contact. The first case study is dedicated to the onomasiological reconstruction of the Proto-Karaim Swadesh list. The main problem here is detection of the West Oghuz loans and especially of contact-induced archaization (fake archaisms) in Crimean Karaim. The objective of the second case study is to identify the genealogical affiliation of the Crimean Tatar dialects. Both the manual analysis of the innovations in the basic vocabulary and the computational lexicostatistics (Bayesian approach, Neighborjoining, Maximum Parsimony Analysis) confirm the traditional view that the Coastal dialect belongs to the Oghuz subgroup, the Orta dialect – to the West Kipchak subgroup, and the Steppe dialect – to the Nogai Kipchak subgroup. Such affiliations fully fit the documented ethnic history. The correct genealogical affiliation of the dialects in question became possible only after exclusion of all the loans, which has not been done in previous lexicostatistical studies of Crimean Tatar. Both cases show that careful elimination of areal influences is crucial for semantic (onomasiological) reconstruction and phylogenetic studies.","PeriodicalId":52215,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language Relationship","volume":" ","pages":"170 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Basic vocabulary of closely related languages in contact: case study of Turkic languages on the Crimean Peninsula\",\"authors\":\"I. Egorov\",\"doi\":\"10.31826/jlr-2020-183-406\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present paper provides two case studies of the basic vocabulary of the Turkic languages spoken on the Crimea Peninsula. Its aim is to illuminate the issues that a historical linguist, and in particular a phylogeneticist, faces when analyzing the basic vocabulary of closely related languages in a situation of intensive contact. The first case study is dedicated to the onomasiological reconstruction of the Proto-Karaim Swadesh list. The main problem here is detection of the West Oghuz loans and especially of contact-induced archaization (fake archaisms) in Crimean Karaim. The objective of the second case study is to identify the genealogical affiliation of the Crimean Tatar dialects. Both the manual analysis of the innovations in the basic vocabulary and the computational lexicostatistics (Bayesian approach, Neighborjoining, Maximum Parsimony Analysis) confirm the traditional view that the Coastal dialect belongs to the Oghuz subgroup, the Orta dialect – to the West Kipchak subgroup, and the Steppe dialect – to the Nogai Kipchak subgroup. Such affiliations fully fit the documented ethnic history. The correct genealogical affiliation of the dialects in question became possible only after exclusion of all the loans, which has not been done in previous lexicostatistical studies of Crimean Tatar. Both cases show that careful elimination of areal influences is crucial for semantic (onomasiological) reconstruction and phylogenetic studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52215,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Language Relationship\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"170 - 198\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Language Relationship\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31826/jlr-2020-183-406\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language Relationship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31826/jlr-2020-183-406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提供了克里米亚半岛突厥语基本词汇的两个案例研究。它的目的是阐明历史语言学家,特别是系统发育学家在分析密切联系的语言的基本词汇时所面临的问题。第一个案例研究致力于原始karaim Swadesh列表的象声学重建。这里的主要问题是对西奥古兹贷款的检测,特别是在克里米亚卡拉伊姆的接触诱发的仿古(假仿古)。第二个案例研究的目的是确定克里米亚鞑靼方言的宗谱关系。对基本词汇创新的人工分析和计算词汇统计(贝叶斯方法、邻域连接、最大简约分析)都证实了沿海方言属于奥古兹亚群、奥尔塔方言属于西基普恰克亚群、草原方言属于诺盖基普恰克亚群的传统观点。这种从属关系完全符合记载的民族历史。只有在排除了所有的借调后,才有可能正确地确定这些方言的宗谱关系,这在以前对克里米亚鞑靼语的词典统计研究中是没有做到的。这两种情况都表明,仔细消除地域影响对于语义(象声学)重建和系统发育研究至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Basic vocabulary of closely related languages in contact: case study of Turkic languages on the Crimean Peninsula
The present paper provides two case studies of the basic vocabulary of the Turkic languages spoken on the Crimea Peninsula. Its aim is to illuminate the issues that a historical linguist, and in particular a phylogeneticist, faces when analyzing the basic vocabulary of closely related languages in a situation of intensive contact. The first case study is dedicated to the onomasiological reconstruction of the Proto-Karaim Swadesh list. The main problem here is detection of the West Oghuz loans and especially of contact-induced archaization (fake archaisms) in Crimean Karaim. The objective of the second case study is to identify the genealogical affiliation of the Crimean Tatar dialects. Both the manual analysis of the innovations in the basic vocabulary and the computational lexicostatistics (Bayesian approach, Neighborjoining, Maximum Parsimony Analysis) confirm the traditional view that the Coastal dialect belongs to the Oghuz subgroup, the Orta dialect – to the West Kipchak subgroup, and the Steppe dialect – to the Nogai Kipchak subgroup. Such affiliations fully fit the documented ethnic history. The correct genealogical affiliation of the dialects in question became possible only after exclusion of all the loans, which has not been done in previous lexicostatistical studies of Crimean Tatar. Both cases show that careful elimination of areal influences is crucial for semantic (onomasiological) reconstruction and phylogenetic studies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Language Relationship
Journal of Language Relationship Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.80
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信