26.2785, Review: Lang Doc; Morphology; Syntax; Typology: Nedjalkov, Otaina, Geniušienė, Gruzdeva (2013)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-2785. Fri Jun 05 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.2785, Review: Lang Doc; Morphology; Syntax; Typology: Nedjalkov, Otaina, Geniušienė, Gruzdeva (2013)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
              http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:24:35
From: Anna Alexandrova [aaalexand at gmail.com]
Subject: A Syntax of the Nivkh Language

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=33389117


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-4071.html

AUTHOR: Vladimir P.  Nedjalkov
AUTHOR: Galina A.  Otaina
EDITOR: Emma Š.  Geniušienė
EDITOR: Ekaterina  Gruzdeva
TITLE: A Syntax of the Nivkh Language
SUBTITLE: The Amur dialect
SERIES TITLE: Studies in Language Companion Series 139
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: Anna Alexandrova, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa

Review's Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

This book is a translation of the “Sintaksis nivxskogo jazyka (Amurskij
dialekt)” (“Syntax of the Nivkh language: The Amur dialect”), originally
published in Russian (Nedjalkov and Otaina 2012). This is a posthumous edition
of a draft found in the archives of Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, a major
representative of the Leningrad/St.Petersburg Typological School. The work was
not finalized because of the complicated situation in Russia in the early
1990s and the untimely death of Galina A. Otaina (1995), a native speaker of
Nivkh.

Nivkh is a Paleo-Siberian isolate spoken in the Far East of Russia.
Considering that there is no complete grammatical description of Nivkh in
English yet, the volume under review is supposed to fill a gap in the
literature on this endangered but still largely under-investigated language,
and to make the Nivkh data more accessible to the linguistic community. The
title is deceptive in a good way, in that the book covers a wide range of
topics in morphology and semantics, going far beyond the syntactic level.

The opening chapter provides a sketch of the main typologically relevant
parameters of Nivkh, which is characterized as a pro-drop, SOV, case-marking,
almost exclusively suffixing, “agglutinating synthetic language” (p. 1). At
the same time, it is remarkable for a complex system of consonant
alternations, triggered by morphonological factors. Nivkh lacks adjectives.
Qualities are expressed by verbs. The tense system is two-term (non-future vs.
future). Adnominal possession is zero-marked, with the possessed preposed to
the possessee. There is a huge inventory of converbs, while finite subordinate
clauses and conjunctions do not exist.

In Chapters 2-5 and 7-8, morphonological rules are discussed: the change of
initial plosive and fricative consonants at morpheme junction and in the
syntactic complexes of the form ‘direct object + predicate’ and ‘attribute +
head word’, the morphonological restrictions on the initial consonant (initial
plosives occur in free variants of nouns and intransitive verbs, whereas
initial fricatives are characteristic of free variants of transitives). The
syntactic structures undergoing such morphonological alternations and those
that do not (e.g., ‘subject + predicate’) are labeled ‘bound complexes’ and
‘free complexes,’ respectively. The problem of incorporation in the
aforementioned complexes is discussed in Chapter 9 and a more articulated
account of different types of syntactic complexes is provided in chapters
10-11. It is cautiously claimed that there are arguments against as well as in
favor of incorporation (the overall identity of junction phenomena between
bound morphemes and words and the phonetic wordhood of such complexes). The
answer ultimately depends on the definition of incorporation.

Chapters 14-15 are dedicated to converbs, defined as non-finite verbal forms,
“syntactically dependent on another verbal form without being its syntactic
actant” (p. 39). Nivkh exhibits a huge inventory of converbs (about 20) with
an extremely wide range of functions. The relevant features for a
classification are: ±marking for subject agreement, ±same-subject converbal
and independent action, ±tense marking, ±expression of temporal relations
(taxis), ±occurrence in analytical verbal forms. It is shown how converbs are
used to express temporal (taxis) relations, including sequential actions, and
non-temporal ones, e.g., concession and consequence.

In Chapter 16, the nominal system and nominalization morphology is described,
as well as denominal and deverbal postpositions and numerals. The case system
comprises the zero-marked nominative (encoding subjects and direct objects),
agentive, dative/additive, instrumental, locative, destinative, and
comparative. There are at least two typologically uncommon cases in Nivkh, the
agentive, and the form in ‘-ʁan’, which is almost extinct in the Amur but
well-attested in the East-Sakhalin dialect. The uniqueness of the so-called
agentive (‘dative/accusative’ in Panfilov 1962 and Gruzdeva 1998) consists in
the restrictions imposed on the syntactic level. It is used to mark the causee
with verbs containing causative markers, with reported speech converbs and
some other constructions (cf. Malchukov 2008). The ‘-ʁan’-form is a nominal
evidential, marking the subject of a verb denoting a hearsay action (‘reported
nominative’ in Krejnovich 1979). The destinative case (‘limitative’ in
Gruzdeva 1998) denotes “a limit in space or in time” (p. 54). Two series of
markers encode the comitativity of single and plural items (dual and plural
comitative, respectively). The comitative is not treated as part of the case
system, presumably because it can co-occur with other case markers and is used
as a means of coordination for NPs. In Mattissen (2003), the same gram is
interpreted as the ‘correlative-associative number,’ standing in the number
slot rather than in the case slot (Mattissen 2003: 8). One salient feature
that distinguishes Nivkh from the neighbouring languages is its numeral
classifier system, claimed to yield 27 nominal classes (in the literature,
24-30 classes have been reported; see Mattissen 2003: 15-16).

Chapter 18 is dedicated to adverbs, which can be (1) underived (e.g., pət
‘tomorrow’, naf ‘now’, ara ‘almost’), (2) lexicalized forms with instrumental
or dative/additive case markers (e.g., ork-toχ ‘back; backwards’, məks-kir
‘truthfully’), and (3) derived by means of converbal suffixes (e.g., ‘be
different’ > ena-gu-r, ena-gu-t ‘otherwise, differently’).

In Nivkh, like in Turkic and Manchu-Tungus, ideophones constitute a remarkably
large class, over 100 items (see chapter 19). Nivkh ideophones are simplex,
invariable words. Verbs can be formed from them by suffixing the auxiliary
verb ‘ha-’ (‘be so’). It should be stressed that ideophones are not always
onomatopoeic. They frequently refer to non-audial domains: visual (e.g.,
matχ-matχ ‘being shaggy’, kmə ‘swarming, teeming of insects, fish, etc.’),
bodily sensations (q‘ma q‘ma ‘sensation of an insect crawling on bare body’),
and mental (q‘orx q‘orx ‘being stupid’). 

Tense and aspect are covered in various chapters throughout the book. In
Chapter 17, the future (the suffix -nə-) and desiderative (the suffix
-inə-/-jnə-/-ijnə-) marking are discussed in detail. Within the two-term tense
system (non-future vs. future), the future tense is overtly marked, while the
non-future is zero-marked. The future marking is obligatory under future
reference. Apart from the prototypical futurate meaning, the suffix -nə- has
also modal and relative-tense uses. Two aspectual forms, the continuative and
the usitative, are discussed in Chapter 20 (“Analytical and grammaticalized
verbal constructions”). The Nivkh continuative is a grammaticalized
construction of the form ‘converb in -r, t + auxiliary verb ‘hum-’
(‘be/exist’)’, an aspect which “expresses an action in progress or a state,
often at the moment of utterance or during another action” (p. 93). The
continuative is unacceptable with punctual and qualitative verbs (i.e., verbs
expressing “adjectival” stative and, under certain conditions, a change of
state). The usitative construction, formed with the auxiliary ‘ha-’ (‘be so/be
like that/happen’), denotes a repeated, regularly performed action. In the
same chapter several patterns of negation are accounted for, based on
‘negative’ verbs such as ‘-molo-’ (‘not want’), ‘-iki-/-əki-’ (‘be physically
unable’), ‘-ləγə-’, ‘-qavr-’ (‘not have’), as well as the constructions
denoting motion of the type ‘converb in -r, -t + finite verb’. The latter are
labeled as serial verbs and are meant to “display a particular semantic
cohesion”, since they “describe the same situation” (p. 104). This
understanding of serialization, however, is not conventional at present: the
verb forms that make up a serial verb construction should be combined without
any linking means (see, for instance, Aikhenvald and Dixon 2006, Haspelmath
2015). The Nivkh “serial” construction consists of a converb from a verb
denoting the manner or path and reference point of motion (e.g., pəi- ‘fly’,
j-ur-/-ur- ‘move along some spatially stretched object / follow sth/sb
closely’) and a finite form of a deictic verb of motion (e.g., viḑ ‘go’, p‘rəḑ
‘come’, mərḑ ‘ascend’, p‘uḑ ‘go out’ etc).

Verb morphemes are classified, in Chapter 21, according to the slots they
occupy. Nivkh morphology is predominantly suffixing. An exception is
constituted by the reciprocal and the reflexive, encoded by distinct prefixes.
The reciprocal ‘v-/u-/o-’ can be added only to a limited set of verbs,
covering a wide range of common reciprocal situations (about 30 verb stems
according to the present book, about 45 stems including non-verbal ones
according to Otaina and Nedjalkov 2007). The most productive reciprocal marker
is a free pronoun (p‘-ŋafq-ŋafq [REFL-friend-friend] ‘each other’). Upon the
whole, suffixes can be classified into three groups: (a) finiteness markers
(-ḑ/-ţ and about 20 other suffixes, whose co-occurrence is not allowed); (b)
about 10 particles and auxiliary words post-posed to the finiteness marker,
most of which are transcategorial to a greater or lesser degree; (c) about 20
suffixes and bound verbal stems (e.g., negative verbs) preceding the A-slot
(see below). Chapters 22-24 describe the distribution and functions of the
morphemes pertaining to the three slots to the right of the verbal stem. Group
A includes affirmative, interrogative, imperative, preventive, and optative
markers. The ‘affirmative’ suffixes, i.e. those marking finiteness in
affirmative sentences, encode epistemicity (e.g., certainty, probability,
doubt) and focus. Group B mainly includes markers of modality, epistemicity,
evidentiality, as well as emphasis and emotional attitude (annoyance,
displeasure, irony). It contains also question markers, used in polar (the
particle -la, synonymous to -lo/-l from group A) and, optionally, content
questions (-ŋa). The evidentials include hearsay/imperceptive
(-furu/-p‘uru/-vuru) and mirative (-hari). The former is a striking example of
a transcategorial morpheme, compatible both with finite verb forms and nouns.
When combined with nouns, it implies that the entity is not consistent with a
standard. Unlike Groups A and B, which do not allow the co-occurrence of
several morphemes on the same verb form, Group C does allow it. It includes
valency-changing derivational morphology (causatives, anticausatives,
resultative), tense (the future -nə-), aspect and Aktionsarten
(desiderative/inchoative, distributive/intensive/completive, progressive,
several usitatives, verbal diminutive and augmentative, etc.), and
epistemicity (uncertainty marker -bañəvo-). Nivkh has both simplex and derived
transitives. The valency-increasing causative suffix -ku-/-γu-/-gu-/-xu-
expands the argument structure of the verb with an object in the nominative
case. Valency-decreasing derivations are yielded by the anticausative suffix
-r- (e.g., e-mq-/-moq- ‘break something in two’ ~ moq-r- ‘get broken in two’)
and the resultative suffix -kəta-/-γəta-/-gəta-/-xəta-, introducing a result
state of a prior event (Әmək ŋir+ḑosq-ţ mother cup+break-IND ‘Mother broke the
cup’ ~ Ŋir ţosq-xəta-ḑ cup break-RES-IND ‘The cup is broken’). The
progressive, marked by the suffix -ivu-/-jvu- (‘imperfective’/‘ingressive’ in
Gruzdeva 1998, ‘progressive’/‘inchoative’ in Mattissen 2003), in combination
with qualitative verbs, “expresses inchoativity, formation of a quality”,
i.e., ultimately, a change of state in progress (p. 137; cf. Gruzdeva 1998:
29). The ‘positive usitative’ suffix -řa-/-t‘a- (‘iterative’ in Gruzdeva 1998:
31) denotes “regular resumption of an action or a continuous uninterrupted
action” (p. 138). The suffix -su-/-ksu-/-γsu-/-jsu-/-ijsu is its negative
counterpart (‘negative usitative’; cf. Gruzdeva 1998, 1997, where it is
analyzed rather as the negative counterpart of the suffix -xə-, see below). It
is meant to ‘denote actions that have not been taking place for a long time or
not at all’ (p. 139). The ‘qualitative habitual’ -xə- (‘usitative’ in Gruzdeva
(1998: 31), ‘habitual’ in Gruzdeva (1997: 183) and Mattissen 2003)
characterizes the human subject as disposed to perform a certain action
habitually. The verbal diminutive (-jo-) and augmentative (-kar-) pertain to
Group C. The diminutive suffix denotes incomplete and/or attenuated
manifestation of actions or qualities and, hence, it can be added both to
event and qualitative verbs. The augmentative suffix yields an intensive
meaning on a group of highly frequent qualitative verbs (see also Gruzdeva
1997, showing that both the diminutive and the augmentative suffixes mark
semelfactivity).

The Nivkh valency classes (Chapter 25) are singled out according to three
features: (1) ±ability of a verb to form an object complex; (2) the number of
arguments; (3) argument marking (case, postposition, coordinating particle).
In Nivkh, transitive verbs are such verbs that form an ‘object+verb’ complex
(i.e., synthesize with) the second participant in the nominative case.
Intransitive verbs range in valency from zero (impersonal verbs denoting
atmospheric phenomena) to four, whereas transitives can have, at least
hypothetically, up to five actants. Some observations concerning the semantics
underlying the valency classes are sketched. For instance, the first
participant (experiencer) of two-place emotion verbs (t‘axta ‘get angry’,
q‘аlа- ‘hate’, k‘inŋu- ‘feel friendly / regard kindly’) is in the nominative
and the second participant, the stimulus, is marked for the dative/additive.
In three-place verbs implying the manipulation of a theme, argument marking
may depend on a distinction such as between a stationary and a movable object.
With the verbs of motion (e.g., vi- ‘go’, laγ- ‘go on a visit to another
village’, ravi- ‘move to a new place’), the case marking on the second
argument disambiguates between the direction of movement and the achievement
of a spatial goal (dative/additive vs. destinative, respectively).

In Chapter 26 (“Semantic classes of verbs”), the lexical aspect system is
sketched. The [±durativity] feature splits the verbs into ‘momentatives’ and
‘non-momentatives’. Momentatives and verbs of emotion such as ‘love’, ‘hate’,
‘despise’ (states in Vendler’s (1967) terms) cannot be used in the
continuative. However, it is grammatical with the resultative forms of the
momentatives and, quite predictably, with their iterative derivations. The
verbs of motion, such as ‘p‘rə-’ (‘come’), can occur with the
inchoative/progressive suffix -ivu-/-jvu-.  The completive aspect (the suffix
-kət-/-γət-/-gət-/-xət-) yields the meaning of completion of an action with
homogeneous/multiplicative events. For it to be compatible with momentative
verbs that do not presuppose any perceptible completion (e.g., ‘enter’,
‘come’) the subject has to be plural, yielding therefore a distributive
meaning (‘each’, ‘all’). With stative and change-of-state verbs, the
completive receives an intensifying reading. The ‘neutral’ verbs denote “both
an action and the result of an action” (p. 156). It concerns mainly the
state/change-of-state alternation (e.g., i-ndə-/-ñřə- ‘see’ vs. ‘find, get
sight of’; kəpr- ‘stand’ vs. ‘stop’). One more class is constituted by the
so-called ‘resultative-terminative’ verbs, “denoting actions which result in a
visually observable state” (p. 157), yielding a result-state meaning with the
resultative suffix -kəta-/-γəta-/-gəta-/-xəta-.

Chapter 27, “Sentence word order”,) mainly revolves around the position of the
direct object, the subject, and the predicate. Word order is largely not
involved in the expression of emphasis or focus, which are expressed
morphologically and prosodically. A constituent with the focus particle
-ra/-ta/-da can be optionally moved to the initial position in the sentence.
What is more, a direct object can be stressed by using a free form of the verb
instead of the bound one, i.e. without synthesizing with it. An intransitive
verb can precede the subject if strong emphasis is put on it.

In Chapters 28-29, the main strategies of introducing direct and indirect
speech are tackled. Most frequently verbs of speech, such as it- ‘say’,
k‘əmlə- ‘think’, k‘esp‘ur- ‘tell, narrate, talk’, precede the direct speech,
but it may also follow or be framed by two sentences containing introductory
verbs. One more construction is presented by an auxiliary word (ha-r, ha-t <
converb in -r, -t from ha- ‘be so’), placed between the direct speech and the
verb of speech in the final position. For indirect speech, Nivkh has a
reportative converb (-vu-r, -vu-t), occurring only with the verb -it ‘say’.

Chapter 30 is dedicated to the hearsay/imperceptive marker -furu/-p‘uru/-vuru.
It seems that it has grammaticalized from the verb fur-/-p‘ur- ‘tell about
(sth/sb)’. The form ha-ḑ-furu [be.so-IND-IMPERC] ‘that’s how it was’, common
in folklore, indicates that the event was not witnessed by the narrator.

Chapter 31, “Two-predicate constructions”, contains an account of
constructions ‘deverbal noun in -ḑ + finite verb’, involving such meanings as
‘be late doing sth’, ‘not let sb do sth’, ‘like doing sth’, ‘be able to do
sth’, ‘venture to do sth’, ‘want to do sth’. The nominalizing suffix -ḑ is
homonymous with the marker of finiteness. Most of the dependent elements
require a nominalization in the future tense. However, the choice of the tense
form depends on the lexical class of the main verb. Three subclasses can be
therefore singled out: (1) finite verbs taking a dependent ‘-ḑ’-suffixed form
in the future tense only (j-ān-/-ān- ‘want’, j-azra-/-azra- ‘fear; apprehend’,
t‘xərp-/-řxərp- ‘forget’, əskəsk- ‘be shy; be timid’, metra- ‘doubt’ etc.);
(2) finite verbs accepting dependent forms in both tenses (e-zmu-/-smo-/-ţ‘mo-
‘rejoice; love’, j-ali-/-ali- ‘be unable to finish’, vār ‘be shy’, əγi- ‘not
want’ etc.); (3) those requiring a dependent form exclusively in the
non-future tense (j-im-/-him- ‘be able’; tvi- ‘finish’, muli- ‘often do sth’).
The finite verb typically has some modal or phasal meaning or conveys the
subject’s attitudes towards the action, expressed by the deverbal noun. The
two forms can be same-subject or have non-corefential subjects. Another
construction analyzed here is a different-subject construction ‘converb in
-gu-r/-gu-t + finite verb’. The main verbs belong to several semantic domains:
(1) sensory perception (mə- ‘hear; listen to’, i-ndə-/-ñřə- ‘see; find’,
j-ama-/-ama- ‘look’); (2) emotional reaction and attitude (e.g., j-aŋr-/-aŋr-
‘be surprised; wonder’, j-itru-/-hitru- ‘ridicule; make fun of’;
e-γəjiv-/-qrev-/-rev- ‘laugh at sb’, j-īz-/-hīz- ‘imitate’); (3) hindering and
help (j-aγaγ-/-aγaγ- ‘disturb’, ro-/-to-/-do- ‘help’); (4) the speech verb it-
‘say’. The dependent converbal form presents an action as a process in its
development, giving place to such sentences as ‘X heard Y saying sth’, ‘X saw
Y doing sth’, etc. In an analogous construction the converb marked for the
resultative (-γəta-gu-r, -γəta-gu-t) denotes a result state: If hu-in hə+ʁan
e-sp-r i-x-kəta-gu-r i-də-ḑ [s/he there-LOC that+dog 3SG-stick-CONV:NAR:3SG
3SG-kill-RES-CAUS-CONV:NAR:3SG 3SG-see-IND] ‘There he found a dog stabbed to
death’ (p. 227).

In Chapter 32, titled “Causative constructions formed by verbs with the suffix
-ku-/-γu-/-gu-/-xu-”, the authors, in line with Xolodovič 1969, distinguish
between factitive vs. permissive causation, concerned, respectively, with the
modal meanings of necessity (causing events or result states) and possibility
(e.g., ‘let X do sth’, ‘prevent X from doing sth’). In the former case, the
Causer is the trigger or the only source of the events. In the latter case,
the Causer only permits or prevents thems. Next, contact and distant causation
are distinguished. Distant causation implies “a mediated connection between
the causer subject and the state caused, when the causee is to a greater or
lesser degree independent in accepting or rejecting the new state” (p. 233).
Hence, permissive causation is always distant. Two-place transitive verbs,
derived from one-place intransitives with the suffix -u-, are
contact-factitive causatives, whereas the causative suffix -ku-/-γu-/-gu-/-xu-
normally yields the distant-factitive or permissive meaning.

In Chapters 33–34, relativization strategies are assessed. Both subjects and
objects can become heads of an embedded subordinate relative clause. The RC
precedes the noun. However, the subject of the direct-object RC does not
synthesize with the adjacent verb of the main clause. When the bound form of
the noun in the ‘direct object + verb’ complex formally coincides with the
respective free form (i.e., no contact morphonological changes occur),
ambiguity may arise, for instance: Әtək za+umgu ţ‘oχt-ţ [father strike+woman
be.drunk-IND] ‘The woman beaten by father is drunk’ vs. Әtək+za+umgu ţ‘oχt-ţ
[father+strike+woman be.drunk-IND] ‘The woman who beat father is drunk’ (p.
262). To disambiguate an object RC from the other interpretation the object
can be doubled by a 3rd person pronoun (the 3SG reduced form i- ‘s/he’ and the
3PL pronoun imŋ ‘they’). World knowledge is also important, because one of the
syntactically possible readings may be blocked for pragmatic reasons.
Coreferentiality between the subjects of the RC and the main clause is marked
by the reflexive (p‘i ‘self’). In order to relativize an instrumental NP
(e.g., ‘by boat’), a construction with a converb of the verb i-γr-/-kir-/-xir-
‘use’ is required.

In Chapter 35, “The structure of a narrative text”, a detailed account of the
parameters of the Nivkh discourse is provided. It is shown how different types
of converbs promote narration, denoting sequences of events. A succession of
completed actions can be marked by finite forms in -ḑ/-ţ, but in this case
each of them is perceived as a completed statement and is stressed by the
speaker “thus building up tension for some culminating event” (p. 295). Nivkh
offers different strategies of text cohesion, among them lexical repetition of
the last verb of the preceding sentence in the form of a converb; conjunctive
adverbs (‘taxis localizers’), placed as a rule in the initial position and
expressing temporal (sequential) and causal relations. The latter are derived
from demonstrative verbs ha- ‘be so’ and hoʁo- ‘be like that / do so’ with
converbal suffixes and include meanings such as ‘then’, ‘therefore’, ‘after
that’, ‘at this time’ etc. The authors provide plenty of quantitative data,
for instance, the frequencies of conjunctive adverbs in dialogue and
narration. Constructional variation in the use of converbs is illustrated by
tasks where the informants restored the converbs in a text. In dialogue, as
compared with narration, there is a significantly higher rate of the finite
forms in -ḑ/-ţ and modal converbs.

In Chapter 36, titled “Aspectual and taxis characteristics of converbs”,
special focus is made on the interaction of viewpoint and lexical aspect. The
viewpoint aspect is intertwined with taxis (=relative tense): imperfectivity
correlates with simultaneity, perfectivity is associated with anteriority. For
instance, the durative converb in -ke cannot be formed for verbs denoting
terminative non-durative actions, i.e. verbs such as oz- ‘get up’, p‘u- ‘go
out’, i-γ-/-k‘u-/-xu- ‘kill’ etc. If the marker occurs on an inherently
non-durative verb, the meaning of the latter is shifted to iterative. The
progressive-inchoative converbs in -ivo/-jvo/-vo, whose only temporal meaning
is simultaneity, descend from aspectual forms in -ivi-/-jvi-/-ivu-/-jvu-
(subdialectal variants), also used as finite predicates, but compatible solely
with verbs of motion and qualitative verbs. The continuative-stative converbs
in -data-r, -data-t and -durŋu-r, -durŋu-t denote “a continuing action or
state during which at one moment another action takes place” (p. 331); as a
consequence, the only taxis meaning they can express is simultaneity. There
are four perfective converbs, e.g. those in -ror, -tot, denoting a completed
action and anteriority. However, if the head verb denotes an imperfective
event, the event of the perfective converb partly overlaps with the latter.
The so-called instantaneous converb in -ba/-pa refers to a completed action
immediately followed by another. The completive converb in -fke expresses a
completed event preceding the action of the main verb, which takes place
regularly, continuously or after a certain time span. The authors also single
out a group of perfective-imperfective converbs, whose aspectual
interpretation (perfective vs. imperfective) relies on the lexical aspect of
the verb (terminative vs. non-terminative). For instance, the converb in -ŋan
marks contact anteriority or simultaneity, respectively. Neutral converbs are
underspecified for aspect. A substantial portion of the chapter is dedicated
to the assessment of the interaction between the aspectual meaning of specific
converbs and aspectual grams (resultative, continuative, etc).

EVALUATION 

Undoubtedly, the audience of the book is primarily composed of typologists and
specialists in Paleo-Siberian languages. In particular, the readers will find
a wealth of data on verbal categories (TAM features, pluractionality,
converbs), argument structure, valency classes and valency changing
operations, numeral classifiers, reflexives and reciprocals, polysynthesis and
the typology of word, and discourse structure. The range of topics covered in
more detail goes in line with the major interests of the
Leningrad/St.Petersburg Typological School. Sometimes full-length and more
up-to-date accounts of certain phenomena can be found in later papers of the
same authors, e.g. Otaina and Nedjalkov 2007 for the reciprocal constructions.
This edition will be found handy even by those who can read the original
Russian text, because only in the English version all the examples are
glossed. A major advantage of this description of Nivkh morphosyntax is the
abundance of extensively commented examples of each phenomenon discussed.

As far as the translation is concerned, the reader might have difficulty
interpreting some linguistic terms pertaining to the Russian grammatical
tradition, for instance, ‘homogeneous’, a literal translation of the Russian
‘odnorodlyj’, in such expressions as ‘coordination of homogeneous predicates’
(p. 47; Rus. ‘Sočinenie odnorodnyx skazuemyx’) or ‘conjoining of homogeneous
nouns’ (p. 56; Rus. ‘soedinenie odnorodnyx suščestvitel’nyx’), which could be
probably rendered better, for the sake of clarity, as ‘coordination’.

Needless to say, the publication of an unfinished draft of a grammatical
description is a particularly challenging task for the editors who did an
enormous work to make it accessible for the international linguistic
community.

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald and Dixon 2006 – Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon. Serial
Verb Constructions: a cross-linguistic typology. (Explorations in Linguistic
Typology, 2.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Gruzdeva 1998 – Ekaterina Gruzdeva. Nivkh. München; Newcastle: LINCOM Europa,
1998.

Gruzdeva 1997 – Ekaterina Gruzdeva. Plurality of situations in Nivkh. In
Viktor S. Xrakovskij (ed.), Typology of Iterative Constructions, 164–185.
München; Newcastle: LINCOM Europa, 1997.

Haspelmath 2015 – Martin Haspelmath. The serial verb construction: Comparative
concept and cross-linguistic generalizations (draft). 2015.

Krejnovich 1979 – Eruxim A. Krejnovich. Nivxskij jazyk. Jazyki Azii i Afriki,
Vol. III, G.D. Sanzheev et al. (eds.). Moskva: Nauka, 1979. 

Malchukov 2008 – Andrej Malchukov. Rare and ‘exotic’ cases. The Oxford
Handbook of Case. / A. Malchukov and A. Spencer (eds.). Oxford University
Press, 2008.

Mattissen 2003 – Johanna Mattissen. Dependent-Head Synthesis in Nivkh: A
contribution to a typology of polysynthesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2003.

Nedjalkov and Otaina 2012 – Vladimir P. Nedjalkov and Galina A. Otaina. Očerki
po sintaksisu nivxskogo jazyka. Edited by E. Geniušienė. Moskva: Znak, 2012.

Otaina and Nedjalkov 2007 – Galina A. Otaina and Vladimir P. Nedjalkov.
Reciprocal constructions in Nivkh (Gilyak). In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (with the
assistance of Emma Geniusiene and Zlatka Guentchéva) (eds.), Typology of
reciprocal constructions, 1715-1750. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2007.

Panfilov 1962 – Vladimir Zinovjevich Panfilov. Grammatika nivxskogo jazyka.
Moskva: Nauka, 1962.

Smith 1991 – Carlota S. Smith. The Parameter of Aspect. Kluwer Academic Press,
1991.

Vendler 1967 – Zeno Vendler. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1967.

Xolodovič 1969 – Aleksandr Alekseevič Xolodovič (ed.). Tipologija kauzativnyx
konstrukcij: Morfologičeskij kauzativ. Leningrad: Nauka, 1969.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Anna Alexandrova holds a degree in Russian and English philology. She is now a
PhD student in linguistics at the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa (Italy).
Her research interests include linguistic typology, Aktionsart, aspectual
systems and verbal morphology, both in synchrony and diachrony.





----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-2785	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/