do caucasian languages exist? areal features in the languages of the caucasus

DO CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES EXIST?Areal Features in the Caucasus

‘A Mountain of Languages’ Why do we talk about ‘Caucasian languages’, aside from the fact they’re there?


Do they have anything in common?


Do they have anything in common?

Or, are they just all the languages that don’t fit into one of groups outside of the Caucasus?

The Debate Investigate these questions through three often contradictory views about language contact in the Caucasus:


Klimov (1965, 1973) on ‘stadialism’ and the languages of the Caucasus



Tuite (1998) on the ‘Myth of the Caucasian Sprachbund’



Tuite (1998) on the ‘Myth of the Caucasian Sprachbund’

Chirikba (2008) in favor of a Sprachbund

The Caucasus:

A Mountain of Languages

‘The autochthones’ To keep things simple, this talk will focus only on the so-called ‘indigenous’ languages:

‘The autochthones’ To keep things simple, this talk will focus only on the so-called ‘autochthonous’ languages:

South Caucasian, AKA Kartvelian



Northwest Caucasian, AKA Abkhaz-Adyghean



Northwest Caucasian, AKA Abkhaz-Adyghean

Northeast Caucasian, AKA Nakh-Daghestanian

‘The autochthones’

Note that already the names of the families treat them as representatives of a geography, rather than a people!

‘The autochthones’

Note that already the names of the families treat them as representatives of a geography, rather than a people!

Languages that have been spoken in the region for centuries (Armenian, Russian, Azeri, etc.) are (usually) not considered autochthonous.

Sprachbünde Trubetskoy invented the idea of

Sprachbund or ‘language union’ as having positive and negative criterial features (Tuite 1998: 2):



Positive similarities in: syntax, morphology, shared cultural vocabulary and phonetics



Positive similarities in: syntax, morphology, shared cultural vocabulary and phonetics

Without having: systematic sound correspondences; shared morphology; shared basic vocabulary (i.e., not genetically related).

Features of the Balkan Sprachbund: no infinitive; bare subjunctive for commands; postposed article; four cases, but syncretism of case forms; number formation; innumerable lexical loans.

Sprachbünde More recent researchers (e.g. Aikhenvald et al. 2001) would add at least three other potential sources of language similarity aside from genetic retention and language contact:

Sprachbünde More recent researchers (e.g. Aikhenvald et al. 2001) would add at least three other potential sources of language similarity aside from genetic retention and language contact: Linguistic universals and tendencies (p’ is more marked than k’);


Convergent evolution (loss of front rounded vowels like ü and ö in English and certain German dialects);


Convergent evolution (loss of front rounded vowels like ü and ö in English and certain German dialects);

Chance similarities (English dog and Mbabaram dog, English bad and Persian bad, etc.);

Sprachbünde

It is noteworthy that Trubetskoy was one of the greatest Caucasologists of the 20th century and the father of language contact studies but he did not identify the Caucasus as a Sprachbund!

Klimov (1965) Kavkazskie jazyki the first widely available source on comparative Caucasology


Posited five main features common to all Caucasian languages:


Posited five main features common to all Caucasian languages: Glottalized (ejective) consonants


Posited five main features common to all Caucasian languages: Glottalized (ejective) consonants Pharyngeal/epiglottal POA


Posited five main features common to all Caucasian languages: Glottalized (ejective) consonants Pharyngeal/epiglottal POA Agglutinative morphology


Posited five main features common to all Caucasian languages: Glottalized (ejective) consonants Pharyngeal/epiglottal POA Agglutinative morphology Agreement with both subject and object


Posited five main features common to all Caucasian languages: Glottalized (ejective) consonants Pharyngeal/epiglottal POA Agglutinative morphology Agreement with both subject and object Ergativity

Khwarshi

Klimov (1965) Georgian present verb form (w/o ergative):

ნნნნ ნნნნ ნნნნნნნNino imas sa-č’m-el-sNino.NOM 3SG.DAT FUT.PART-eat-PART-DAT

ნნნნნნნნნნნნნše-m-a-č’m-ev-in-eb-sPVB-1SG-PRV-eat-CAUS-CAUS-PRES-3SG‘Nino is making me feed the food (to him)’

Klimov (1965) Georgian aorist verb form (w/ ergative): ნნნნნ ნნნნ ნნნნნნნNino-m imas sa-č’m-el-iNino-NARR 3SG.DAT FUT.PART-eat-PART-NOM

ნნნნნნნნნნნše-m-a-č’m-ev-in-aPVB-1SG-PRV-eat-CAUS-CAUS-AOR3SG‘Nino made me feed the food (to him)’

Klimov (1973) Klimov later argued that typological properties of languages were not accidents: a whole range of properties ((in)alienable possession, sg/pl and anim./inan. lexical suppletion, no copula, etc.) patterned parasitically after alignment type (active, ergative, accusative).

Sa/Sp

A P

‘Active’


Sa/Sp Sa/Sp

A P A P

‘Active’ ‘Ergative’


Sa/Sp Sa/Sp Sa/Sp

A P A P A P

‘Active’ ‘Ergative’ ‘Accusative’

Klimov (1973) Even more importantly: a diachronic hierarchy of alignment types [active > ergative > accusative] applied universally and crosslinguistically: the stadialist hypothesis.

Sa/Sp Sa/Sp Sa/Sp

A P A P A P

‘Active’ ‘Ergative’ ‘Accusative’

Klimov (1973) For Klimov, stadialism and areal features were intertwined:


Languages had the features they did because of the stage of development they had reached


Languages had the features they did because of the stage of development they had reached

Therefore: if the Caucasian languages seemed different, that was because as a whole they had not developed as far as standard average European languages (Marxist/Hegelian teleology)

Tuite (1998) ‘Caucasian Sprachbund is a myth’ resulting from secondary theoretical agendas

Tuite (1998) ‘Caucasian Sprachbund is a myth’ resulting from secondary theoretical agendas

A Sprachbund is not merely features which languages share, but typologically unusual features that can’t be explained by universals, genetic retention, chance or convergent evolution.

Tuite (1998)

(courtesy WALS)

Tuite (1998)

‘Ergativity’ in Georgian:ნნნნნ ნნნნნ ნნნნ ნნნნნნNino-m i-cin-a Nino mo-k’v-d-a

Nino-NARR PRV-laugh-AOR3SG Nino.NOM PVB-die-INTR-AOR3SG

‘Nino laughed’ ‘Nino died.’

Tuite (1998)

‘Ergativity’ in Georgian:ნნნნნ ნნნნნ ნნნნ ნნნნნნNino-m i-cin-a Nino mo-k’v-d-a

Nino-NARR PRV-laugh-AOR3SG Nino.NOM PVB-die-INTR-AOR3SG

‘Nino laughed’ ‘Nino died.’

Thus there are two classes of intransitives – they do not form a uniform class, and so Georgian can’t be called ergative as such.

Tuite (1998)

(courtesy WALS)

Chirikba (2008) Old ideas die hard: Chirikba (2008) resurrects the Sprachbund idea with a list of more than three dozen different grammatical features common across Caucasian languages

Chirikba (2008) Old ideas die hard: Chirikba (2008) resurrects the Sprachbund idea with a list of more than three dozen different grammatical features common across Caucasian languages

Again, we are faced with the question: what number and kind of features constitute the threshold necessary to call a linguistic region a ‘Sprachbund’?

Chirikba (2008)

Chirikba (2008) Phonology:1. Glottalization2. Uvular POA3. Phar /Epiglottal POA4. Secondary Labial.5. ‘Rich’ sibilant system6. ‘Numerous’ postvelars7. Presence of Schwa8. Absence of lab. fric.9. Absence of initial /r/

Geo Sv Abk Kab Ch Bats

Lez Khw Tsa

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √X X √ √ √ √ √ √! √X X √ √ X X √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √? √ √ √X √ √ √ X √ X X √v v X X v v f √ fX! X √ √ X X X √

Tsakhur

Chirikba (2008) Morphosyn.1. Ablaut2. Directional preverbs3. Morphocausatives4. Evidentiality5. Potentials6. SG/PL lex. suppletion7. Polysynthesism8. NOUN-PL-CASE9. Reduplication10. Bahuvrihi11. Group inflection √ √


Lez Khw Tsa

√ √ √ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √X! X √ X√ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ X X X√ √ X X √ √√ √ √ √ √√ √ √√ √ √

Chirikba (2008) Abkhaz inferential evidential:

d-c’˚əwa-zaarən ‘She had (apparently) been she-cry-INFER2 crying’

Svan ablaut (Tuite :pxiž-e ‘he spreads it’

vs. pxež-n-i ‘it is spread’ kwic-e ‘he cuts it’

vs. kwec-n-i ‘it is cut’

Chirikba (2008) Morphosyn.12. Sg after quant.13. Masdar infinitives14. Double coordination15. Weak dist. N vs. V16. Inverse constr.17. Agr for gender/class


Lez Khw Tsa

√ √ √ √ √ √ X? X √√ √ √ X XX X √ √ √ √ √√? √ √ √ X? X√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √X! X! X X √ √ X √ √

Chirikba (2008) Lezgian has both sg. and pl after quantifiers (Haspelmath 1993): gzaf insan-ar (scalar)many human-PL

Za-z q’we nuk’ aku-na (cardinal numeral) I-DAT two bird see-AOR

Coordination on both conjuncts in Chechen (Chirikba 2008):

vaša=a jiša=abrother=and sister=and

Chirikba (2008) Other:1. Vigesimal number sys.,2. ‘thin’/’thick’ flat+round

But are all of these equally convincing?


Lez Khw Tsa

√ √? √ √ √ √ X X√ √ √ √

Chirikba (2008) Chirikba can say this partly because many of his criteria are very vague:

Chirikba (2008) Chirikba can say this partly because many of his criteria are very vague: How ‘rich’ does the sibilant system have to be?


How ‘numerous’ do the postvelars need to be?



Polysynthesis is a famously squirrelly subject!



Polysynthesis is a famously squirrelly subject!

Does a language not have labial fricatives (f, v) if it only has one (f or v, but not both)?


How ‘numerous’ do the postvelars need to be? Polysynthesis is a famously squirrelly subject!

Does a language not have labial fricatives (f, v) if it only has one (f or v, but not both)?

Also: many of his criteria are clearly crosslinguistically common features for all languages.

Glottalization

Reduplication

Morphocausatives

Evidentials

Uvulars

Polysynthesis

Number Suppletion

Pharyngeals

Vigesimal Number System

‘Th’-sounds

Chirikba (2008) Some of these commonalities probably result from retention of features from the three respective protolanguages (e.g., all three are reconstructed with vigesimal number systems)


If at this point all three families shared a given feature, it might result from very deep language contact.


If at this point all three families shared a given feature, it might result from very deep language contact.

It is, however, difficult to answer some questions because of the incomplete state of grammatical descriptions, with concomitant poor understanding of the protolanguages.

Chirikba (2008) Chirikba also sometimes gets his data wrong:

Putative potential form in Georgian:ar m-e-č’m-eb-a

not 1SG-PRV-EAT-TH-3SG

Chirikba’s translation: ‘I cannot eat’

Chirikba (2008) Chirikba also sometimes gets his data wrong:

Putative potential form in Georgian:ar m-e-č’m-eb-a

not 1SG-PRV-eat-TH-3SG

Chirikba’s translation: ‘I cannot eat’ More accurate rendering: ‘I don’t feel like eating’

Chirikba (2008) Chirikba’s most convincing arguments are examples that hold across the sample set and yet have no obvious genetic or typological explanation:

Chirikba (2008) Chirikba’s most convincing arguments are examples that hold across the sample set and yet have no obvious genetic or typological explanation: Unusual phonological features/constraints: absence of initial /r/, widespread uvular, pharyngeal consonants

Chirikba (2008) Chirikba’s most convincing arguments are examples that hold across the sample set and yet have no obvious genetic or typological explanation: Unusual phonological features/constraints: absence of initial /r/, widespread uvular, pharyngeal consonants

Unusual constructional properties: double coordination, such as Abkhaz:

war-g’ə sar-g’ə ‘you-and I-and’

Chirikba (2008) Also, unusual lexical domains:

Conclusions When we talk about language contact intensive enough to merit the word Sprachbund, we need to be careful about exactly how we pick criteria; similarity alone is not good enough.

Conclusions When we talk about language contact intensive enough to merit the word Sprachbund, we need to be careful about exactly how we pick criteria; similarity alone is not good enough.

While Tuite (1998) might be exaggerating a bit to suggest only a ‘phonological union’ in the Caucasus, it is clear that many of the alleged similarities put forth by Klimov and Chirikba have alternative explanations which themselves are just as revealing about Caucasian languages as they are of language in general.

Conclusions Perhaps most importantly: linguists need to be constantly reevaluating their own assumptions about historical and cultural contexts in which languages are spoken – sometimes our theories are grounded in nonlinguistic understandings of the world.


As professionals not belonging to speech communities, we cannot allow ourselves to exoticize (in this case ‘Orientalize’) languages more than they actually are.


As professionals not belonging to speech communities, we cannot allow ourselves to exoticize (in this case ‘Orientalize’) languages more than they actually are.

It might turn out that our languages are the exotic objects of study!

Thank you! For a full list of references, please contact me at <[email protected]>

do caucasian languages exist? areal features in the languages of the caucasus

Documents