{"title":"可汗国连词的出现与短语协调","authors":"Lena Borise, K. Kiss","doi":"10.1075/jhl.21016.kis","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Prior to widespread contact with Russian, Khanty (Uralic; Finno-Ugric) did not have overt conjunctions or phrasal\n coordination. Instead, Khanty texts from the late 19th–early 20th centuries only include examples of conjunction-less clausal juxtaposition,\n which was used for both clausal and phrasal coordination. By comparing Khanty texts over the 20th century, we trace the emergence of overt\n conjunctions and coordination of phrasal constituents. We show that overt conjunctions first appeared in the context of clausal\n coordination, followed by coordination of smaller phrases. Based on novel elicitation data, we demonstrate that, in contemporary Khanty, (i)\n overt conjunctions are commonplace, (ii) coordinated clausal constituents may be derived via phrasal coordination or clausal coordination\n with conjunction reduction/ellipsis, but (iii) ellipsis of syntactic heads is banned (nouns & postpositions) or dispreferred (verbs).\n Based on this diachronic picture, we conclude that the coordination of phrasal constituents only emerged in Khanty once overt conjunctions\n became available. We derive this correlation from the Maximize On-line Processing principle (Hawkins\n 2004), and show that this maxim, usually invoked in the context of speech planning and production, can be successfully applied to\n modelling language change.","PeriodicalId":42165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Linguistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The emergence of conjunctions and phrasal coordination in Khanty\",\"authors\":\"Lena Borise, K. Kiss\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/jhl.21016.kis\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Prior to widespread contact with Russian, Khanty (Uralic; Finno-Ugric) did not have overt conjunctions or phrasal\\n coordination. Instead, Khanty texts from the late 19th–early 20th centuries only include examples of conjunction-less clausal juxtaposition,\\n which was used for both clausal and phrasal coordination. By comparing Khanty texts over the 20th century, we trace the emergence of overt\\n conjunctions and coordination of phrasal constituents. We show that overt conjunctions first appeared in the context of clausal\\n coordination, followed by coordination of smaller phrases. Based on novel elicitation data, we demonstrate that, in contemporary Khanty, (i)\\n overt conjunctions are commonplace, (ii) coordinated clausal constituents may be derived via phrasal coordination or clausal coordination\\n with conjunction reduction/ellipsis, but (iii) ellipsis of syntactic heads is banned (nouns & postpositions) or dispreferred (verbs).\\n Based on this diachronic picture, we conclude that the coordination of phrasal constituents only emerged in Khanty once overt conjunctions\\n became available. We derive this correlation from the Maximize On-line Processing principle (Hawkins\\n 2004), and show that this maxim, usually invoked in the context of speech planning and production, can be successfully applied to\\n modelling language change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Historical Linguistics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Historical Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.21016.kis\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Historical Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.21016.kis","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The emergence of conjunctions and phrasal coordination in Khanty
Prior to widespread contact with Russian, Khanty (Uralic; Finno-Ugric) did not have overt conjunctions or phrasal
coordination. Instead, Khanty texts from the late 19th–early 20th centuries only include examples of conjunction-less clausal juxtaposition,
which was used for both clausal and phrasal coordination. By comparing Khanty texts over the 20th century, we trace the emergence of overt
conjunctions and coordination of phrasal constituents. We show that overt conjunctions first appeared in the context of clausal
coordination, followed by coordination of smaller phrases. Based on novel elicitation data, we demonstrate that, in contemporary Khanty, (i)
overt conjunctions are commonplace, (ii) coordinated clausal constituents may be derived via phrasal coordination or clausal coordination
with conjunction reduction/ellipsis, but (iii) ellipsis of syntactic heads is banned (nouns & postpositions) or dispreferred (verbs).
Based on this diachronic picture, we conclude that the coordination of phrasal constituents only emerged in Khanty once overt conjunctions
became available. We derive this correlation from the Maximize On-line Processing principle (Hawkins
2004), and show that this maxim, usually invoked in the context of speech planning and production, can be successfully applied to
modelling language change.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Historical Linguistics aims to publish, after peer-review, papers that make a significant contribution to the theory and/or methodology of historical linguistics. Papers dealing with any language or language family are welcome. Papers should have a diachronic orientation and should offer new perspectives, refine existing methodologies, or challenge received wisdom, on the basis of careful analysis of extant historical data. We are especially keen to publish work which links historical linguistics to corpus-based research, linguistic typology, language variation, language contact, or the study of language and cognition, all of which constitute a major source of methodological renewal for the discipline and shed light on aspects of language change. Contributions in areas such as diachronic corpus linguistics or diachronic typology are therefore particularly welcome.