27.65, Review: Historical Ling; Morphology; Syntax: Bauer (2014)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-27-65. Mon Jan 04 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.65, Review: Historical Ling; Morphology; Syntax: Bauer (2014)

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    *****************
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
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: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:20:44
From: Florian Reveilhac [florian.reveilhac at gmail.com]
Subject: Morphosyntax of the Noun Phrase in Hieroglyphic Luwian

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36064657


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/25/25-3467.html

AUTHOR: Anna H. Bauer
TITLE: Morphosyntax of the Noun Phrase in Hieroglyphic Luwian
SERIES TITLE: Brill's Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Brill
YEAR: 2014

REVIEWER: Florian Reveilhac, Université Paris Sorbonne - Paris IV

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

INTRODUCTION

The book ‘Morphosyntax of the Noun Phrase in Hieroglyphic Luwian’ by Anna H.
Bauer is the twelfth volume of the Brill collection ‘Brill’s Studies in
Indo-European Languages & Linguistics’ edited by Craig Melchert and Olav
Hackstein. The present work, which is the revised version of the author’s PhD
thesis, represents the first detailed study of the Hieroglyphic Luwian
(HLuwian) noun phrase (NP). 

SUMMARY

Chapter 1: Introduction

The introduction first presents the aims and the scope of the book. Several
issues are addressed in great detail: inter-dependencies of morphology and
syntax within the NP, word-order within the NP, linguistic distributions of
morphological markers, temporal and geographical distributions of forms and
constructions, combinability of elements, and agreement. The elements regarded
as part of the NP in this study are the following adnominal constituents:
determiners, quantifiers, modifiers, and appositions. Relative clauses are
therefore not integrated since they do not constitute subordinates but are, as
in Hittite and Sanskrit, “correlative diptychs” (p. 2). Anna H. Bauer (AB)
then introduces the theoretical approach her work is based on, namely Dixon’s
‘Basic Linguistic Theory’ (2010-2012): this typological and pattern-based
theory is very useful for studying low-attested languages. The NP is
understood here as “a core or peripheral argument slot in clause structure […
that] can consist of just a noun, or have a noun as head, accompanied by a
number of modifiers” (Dixon 2010a: 106). Such a configuration is quite common
compared to the majority of syntactic theories. The book is organised in six
chapters: the present chapter is the introduction, and then each chapter
provides an investigation about each part of the NP, namely determination,
quantification, modification and apposition; the final chapter concludes and
summarises the whole study.

The second section outlines the Anatolian history, and especially Anatolian
languages history, focusing on Luwian dialects. From the fall of the Hittite
Empire (around 1180 BC) and during the emergence of the Neo-Hittite states,
Hieroglyphic Luwian (HLuwian) is used at least as an administrative language;
it stops being written in the seventh century because of the Neo-Assyrian
expansion. For the sake of straightforwardness, the Iron Age variety of Luwian
is called HLuwian, and Bronze Age varieties Cuneiform Luwian (CLuwian), even
though two types of Luwian were written in cuneiforms (Kizzuwatna Luwian and
Empire Luwian) and Iron Age Luwian continues the Empire Luwian variety
(Yakubovitch 2010: 22).

The third section focuses on the corpus the study is based on: around 270
texts classified here in several genres, based on their typical linguistic
structure. In HLuwian, most of the texts belong to the category of memorial
texts (representational heroic, commemorative and dedicatory), but the corpus
also includes some contracts, letters and lists. As the author rightly
specifies, if this small corpus presents the advantages of allowing us to
study it exhaustively, it prevents however a reliable statistical analysis of
HLuwian.

After a presentation of the two different systems used to write Luwian, namely
cuneiform and, from the fourteenth century BC onwards, hieroglyphs, the
introduction provides a brief, although useful, grammatical overview, focused
on nominal and pronominal inflection, clitics, agreement and basic word order.

Chapter 2: Determination

Like many other languages, HLuwian does not have any article, definite or
indefinite. This makes it difficult for non-native speakers to assess
definiteness. Providing clear examples, AB shows that sometimes
(in)definiteness can be deduced from the context, but sometimes even the
context does not help the modern reader. In the absence of dedicated
morphological material, definiteness remains difficult to assess.
Nevertheless, definiteness may be coded by other elements in the NP:
demonstratives and possessives.

HLuwian has only two demonstratives: za- ‘this’ (proximal deixis) and apa-
‘that’ (distal deixis). Other Indo-European (IE) languages, like Ancient
Greek, Latin or even Hittite – the most well-attested Anatolian language –
show more demonstratives, but a language with two demonstratives only is not
unusual (cf. Old English or other Anatolian languages like Palaic, Lydian,
Lycian and Carian). AB, with carefully chosen examples, succeeds in showing
that both the proximal demonstrative za- and the distal one apa- are above all
deictic when used adnominally. As demonstrative pronouns, za- and particularly
apa- are used as phoric linkers. Only apa- has probably lost its deictic
component when used as a possessive pronoun, since it is the only pronoun
available to indicate third person possessors.

This section then addresses the question of whether possessives are used as
determiners or not in HLuwian. Based on the corpus, it seems very likely that
HLuwian belongs to the adjectival-genitive type (like Ancient Greek), rather
than determiner-genitive type (like English). The demonstrative za- can be
combined with possessors in the form of genitival adjectives in the same NP,
leading to a structure of DEM-POSSESSOR-NOUN. Combinations of demonstratives
and genitives in the same NP are exceptional, and those of demonstratives and
pronominal possessors are infrequent. It is thus possible for a possessive
construction to contain za- as a determiner: the possessives do not lead to
any definiteness effect and the genitival adjectives do not occupy a
determiner position in the NP.

Demonstratives are usually placed before their head noun and generally at the
very beginning of the NP. There are few postnominal demonstratives: for za-,
especially in the bilingual inscription from Karatepe, it can be explained by
the influence of the Phoenician version, whereas postnominal apa- examples
occur when the head noun is the most salient part in the NP. According to AB,
although postnominal demonstratives are scarce, they must not be regarded as
grammatical mistakes.

Chapter 3: Quantification

Among the quantifiers, three or four non-numerical are attested in the HLuwian
data, but only two occur often enough to allow a morphosyntactic analysis. The
universal quantifier called *430 (logographically written, maybe equal to
CLuwian pūnata/i-) appears only in mainly logographic texts, so it is
impossible to say what type of universal quantifier it represents exactly. The
second, tanima/i-, means either ‘all, entire’ or ‘every’ regardless of the
grammatical number in the head noun, but rather in accordance to the semantics
of the head noun or the context. Even though it cannot be ascertained,
tanima/i- seems to constitute an adjective-like quantifier, since it inflects
like an adjective rather than a pronoun. AB suggests a convincing temporal
distribution of *430 and tanima/i-, the first being the main universal
quantifier during an earlier stage, replaced then by tanima/i-.

A very interesting section is dedicated to the numeral system of HLuwian. It
has not been much examined so far, and the conclusions about it were not very
satisfactory. Thanks to a detailed analysis of the data, AB convincingly shows
that HLuwian uses a two-tiered system of number marking: the numerals ‘two’ to
‘four’ mostly effect plural-marking in the quantified nouns, whereas the
numerals from ‘five’ onwards do not. Indeed, singular marking is attested
consistently after numerals with an arithmetic value higher than 4.
Consequently, the numeral affects number marking, without modifying case
marking. Since HLuwian inflects the numerals ‘two’, ‘three’ and ‘four’ that
show plural endings, while those greater than ‘five’ probably do not inflect,
number marking of quantified nouns seems to be ruled by the morphological
shape of the numeral itself. This system is not exceptional from an Anatolian
point of view, and it may have been influenced by the Hurrian substrate. In
some recent HLuwian inscriptions, singular-marking is even attested after the
numerals ‘two’ to ‘four’, whereas plural-marking would be expected in such
NPs: the author assumes that the two-tiered system is moving toward a unified
one with an automatic singular marking for nouns quantified by numerals.

The topic of the word order of quantifiers is then considered. Among the
non-numeral quantifiers, *430 always comes after the noun it quantifies, just
like its probable equivalent in CLuwian, namely pūnata/i-. tanima/i-, on the
other hand, has a variable syntactic behaviour depending on the complexity of
the NP it is found in: it is mainly placed in a prenominal position, but when
it is combined with other attributives in the same NP, it is relocated to a
postnominal position. It should be noted that the other Anatolian languages
also place their universal quantifiers after the noun they quantify: this
feature could have been inherited for tanima/i-.

Chapter 4: Modification

This is the longest chapter, since modifiers are, after the head nouns, the
most well-attested elements of the NP. The first section analyses the
non-possessive modifiers, namely adjectives and participles, which are not
extremely well attested. The distribution between non-genitival adjectives and
participles is chronological: modification by participles is common in older
texts (until the mid-eighth century), whereas adjectives as modifiers become
usual from the eighth century onwards. It is possible in HLuwian to combine
several modifiers, even though examples are scarce. Participial modifiers
often involve an ‘agent’ of the verb, which is marked as an
ablative-instrumental, except for individual human agents. Indeed, there is no
certain evidence for an individual animate referent showing
ablative-instrumental marking, even in other contexts. These nouns in
participial constructions show a genitive ending, which also indicates
possession.

Possession, on the other hand, is abundantly attested. It should first be
noticed that possession marking in HLuwian is not mandatory: it can be
suggested without any marking, or marked externally by possessor raising (cf.
German Ich habe mir den Arm gebrochen ‘I broke my arm’). The focus shifts to
genitive, which appears with two different endings: < -sa >, the more common,
and < -si(-i) > (sometimes with plene writing). Genitival (or relational)
adjectives are also very frequent, and several suffixes are used to form such
adjectives, namely -assa/i-, -iya/i-, -alla/i-, -izza/i- and -wann(i)-. After
an accurate presentation of each of them, this subsection analyses their
productivity and shows that the probable earlier semantic distribution between
them does not exist any more during the Iron Age. AB then explores  the
distribution of genitives and genitival adjectives in the HLuwian corpus,
bringing out the various factors explaining it, especially the increasing use
of genitival adjectives instead of the expected genitives. Pronominal
possessors may also express possession. Following Rieken (2005: 72), AB
convincingly argues that the stem allomorphy ama- vs. ami- for the first
singular possessive pronoun comes from the conflation of two former pronominal
stems. The syntactic behaviour of the possessive pronouns is investigated as
well. When multiple possessors modify one possessum, the latter is usually
marked as a singular. On the other hand, when one possessor has multiple
possessa, the possessor is either mentioned once or repeated for every
possessum. Lastly, free-standing (i.e. without an accompanying noun) genitives
and adjectives are examined. The examples are scarce: they can occur in
linking verb sentences, or when an adjective is nominalised or a freestanding
genitive is lexicalised.

The last section of this chapter turns to word order of modifiers.  It appears
that both restrictive and nonrestrictive can occur either before or after
their head nouns, so restrictiveness does not determine the position of the
modifiers within the NP. The word order of both non-possessive and possessive
modifiers is accurately analysed.

Chapter 5: Apposition

A brief introduction shows the issues raised by the word apposition and its
meaning. In this study, the nouns that accompany another noun (generally a
personal name or a deity name) in a non-genitival fashion are regarded as
appositional. The first section deals with titles and relational terms
attested in the HLuwian corpus, especially with regard to their geographical
and temporal distributions. The combinability of each appositional noun is
then analysed in detail, since stacked appositions with multiple titles and
relational terms often occur in HLuwian: usually in such sequences the
relational terms follow the titles. The chapter turns to extended appositions,
i.e. appositions that take modifiers. It clearly appears that administrative
titles are rarely modified, whereas relational terms roughly always take
modifiers. The ordering of appositions within stacked sequences depends on
their length: simple appositions directly follow their noun, while for
extended appositions the more complex the modifiers, the more to the end they
appear in the sequences. The very last section of the chapter investigates the
word order of appositions, and shows that both administrative titles and
relational terms usually occur after their personal name or their deity name.
Only the title DOMINUS ‘lord’ is found before the personal name or the deity
name it belongs to, and the few attestations of postposed DOMINUS are found in
earlier inscriptions.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

With a typological perspective, the conclusion summarises all the previous
chapters.

The bibliography and a basic index conclude the book.

EVALUATION

This book provides a complete study of the NP in HLuwian. Little had been said
before on the topic, especially the systematic variations had not been
measured. The main difficulty of such a work, as told by the author, lies in
the small size of the corpus (only 270 different texts, that being about 7,000
words). Nevertheless, the book is always very cautious when drawing
conclusions with only little evidence. Moreover, when it is necessary, the
author does not hesitate to invoke typological parallels from other Anatolian
languages or from other languages, be they Indo-European or not. 

This study succeeds in clarifying issues that were not understood so far
thanks to an accurate study of the HLuwian data. For instance, the section
dedicated to the numeral system in HLuwian (Chapter 3) is quite representative
of the typological method used in this work: after an exhaustive examination
of the relevant data, the author compares it to numeral systems from other
languages, like Old Church Slavonic, in order to understand it better.
Finally, AB not only proposes a convincing presentation of the numeral system
in HLuwian, but manages to explain that what could be considered as
irregularities actually reflect a tendency in recent inscriptions to unify the
system. The author often invokes reference works, but refers also to recent
studies, so the bibliography is complete. 

The book is well written and perfectly organised, with one chapter dedicated
to each adnominal constituent. Only one typo problem has been noticed
(“Goedebuure” instead of “Goedegebuure”, on p. 32). All chapters are divided
into sections and subsections that all include both an introduction and a
summary, so that the reader can easily follow the argument. The author does
not hesitate to repeat or to rephrase the conclusions she draws at the end of
each section and subsection. Numerous examples are given with  gloss and
translation, so even non-specialists of the Anatolian languages can understand
them. Additionally, very useful tables make the analysis even clearer. The
only regret one can have is the lack of a final list of the inscriptions used
as examples in the study. Such an index may have been useful for people
wanting to compare their translation to AB’s. Nevertheless, it is a very
slight reproach compared to the numerous qualities noted in this work.

As a result, it is a highly useful work not only for scholars of Anatolian
languages and Indo-European studies, but also for linguists who are interested
in typology.

REFERENCES

Dixon, R.M.W. (2010–2012). Basic Linguistic Theory. 3 vols. Oxford: OUP.

– (2010a). Basic Linguistic Theory. Vol. 1: Methodology. Oxford: OUP.

Rieken, E. (2005). “Neues zum Ursprung der anatolischen i-Mutation”.
Historische Sprachforschung 118, 48–74. 

Yakubovitch, Ilya (2010). Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Leiden:
Brill.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Florian Réveilhac is pursuing a PhD in Ancient Greek Linguistics at the Université Paris-Sorbonne, where he is also a Lecturer (Department of Greek). He works especially on language contacts between Greek and Lycian. His research interests lie in Anatolian linguistics, phonology, morphology, and onomastics.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-65	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/