mamiestamo$ 12.6.2015$€¦ · – inari saami, skolt saami, lule saami, south saami, kildin saami,...

Ma# Miestamo 12.6.2015

Typology and descrip:on 1

Language typology and language description: General and Uralic perspectives

Saaren kartano / Kone Foundation, 12 June 2015 Matti Miestamo, University of Helsinki

The world's languages

3

Source: The Ethnologue 16th edn. <hBp://archive.ethnologue.com/16/show_map.asp?name=World&seq=10>

Numbers of languages 4

•  The number of languages in the world estimated between 7000-8000 – Glottolog: 7,929 languages (Hammarström et al. 2015) –  Ethnologue: 7,102 languages (Lewis et al. 2015)

•  Geographical distribution:

Europe

Oceania

Americas

Asia

Africa

Geographical distribution 5

(Lewis et al 2015)

Numbers of languages and speakers

speakers per lg languages speakers total

over 100 million 8 (0.1 %) 2.5 billion (40.2 %)

over 1 million 394 (5.5 %) 5.9 billion (94.2 %)

less than 10.000 3731 (52.5 %) 8.1 million (0.13 %)

few languages

many languages few speakers

many speakers

Data from Lewis et al. (2015).

6



Numbers of languages and speakers 7

(Lewis et al. 2015)

Language vitality and endangered languages

Language endangerment •  "[T]he coming century will see either the death or

the doom of 90% of mankind's languages." (Krauss 1992: 7)

•  “It is estimated that, if nothing is done, half of 6000 plus languages spoken today will disappear by the end of this century.” (UNESCO) <http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/>

•  The situation involves a multitude of historical, political, social factors and problems.

9

Language vitality (UNESCO) 10

<hBp://www.unesco.org/languages-‐atlas/index.php?hl=en&page=atlasmap>

Language vitality 11

•  2471 languages classified as other than safe by UNESCO.

Language vitality (Ethnologue) 12

(Lewis et al. 2015)



Language vitality 13

(Lewis et al. 2015)

Language vitality by continent 14

(Lewis et al. 2015)

Uralic languages

Uralic languages 16

(Miestamo et al. 2015)

Uralic languages 17

[Tables containing speaker data omiBed; can be found via the link below]

(Preliminary es:mates according to Siegl & Grünthal, 2012) <hBp://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ura-‐list/2012-‐October/001269.html>

Uralic languages 18

(Preliminary es:mates according to Siegl & Grünthal, 2012) <hBp://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ura-‐list/2012-‐October/001269.html>

[Tables containing speaker data omiBed; can be found via the link below]



Endangered Uralic languages (UNESCO) 19

•  Vulnerable •  Definitely endangered

–  North Saami –  Karelian (Karelia), Karelian (Tver), Olonetsian, Võro-Seto –  Erzya, Moksha –  Eastern Mari –  Komi, Permyak, Udmurt –  Eastern Khanty, Northern Khanty –  Tundra Nenets

•  Severely endangered –  Ingrian, Karelian (Tikhvin), Lude, Veps –  Inari Saami, Skolt Saami, Lule Saami, South Saami, Kildin Saami, Western

Mari –  Yazva Komi –  Csángó Hungarian –  Northern Mansi –  Nganasan, Forest Nenets, Northern Selkup

Endangered Uralic languages (UNESCO) 20

•  Critically endangered –  Livonian, Vote –  Pite Saami, Ume Saami, Ter Saami –  Eastern Mansi –  Central Selkup, Southern Selkup, Forest Enets, Tundra Enets

•  Extinct –  Karelian (Valday) –  Akkala Saami –  Southern Khanty, Southern Mansi, Western Mansi –  Kamas

⇒ None in the vulnerable category ⇒ Only Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian would be classified as safe.

The world's languages – state of documentation

Why documentation/description? 22

•  Serves the community – revitalization – education –  language planning –  identity and attitudes.

•  Scientific value – knowledge about human language (and more generally

about the human mind) presupposes information on individual languages

–  language typology and descriptive linguistics need each other •  typology => theoretical basis for description •  description => empirical basis for typology

Why documentation/description? 23

•  Given the endangered status of a large number of the world's languages, documentation of endangered languages is an urgent priority in linguistics –  to enable revitalization –  to save the empirical basis of language typology and

general linguistics ... and ultimately our possibilities to properly understand the nature of human language (and the human mind / human behaviour). –  to save the non-linguistic knowledge carried by dying

languages.

Documentation vs. description 24

Documentation of a language is an activity (and, derivatively, its result) that gathers, processes and exhibits a sample of data of the language that is representative of its linguistic structure and gives a fair impression of how and for what purposes the language is used. Its aim is to represent the language for those who do not have access to the language itself. (Lehmann 2001: 83)



Documentation vs. description 25

Description of a language is an activity (and, derivatively, its result) that formulates, in the most general way possible, the patterns underlying the linguistic data. Its aim is to make the user of the description understand the way the language works. (Lehmann 2001: 83)

•  Documentation in a broad sense includes both aspects.

Documentation of a language •  Lectodoc / doculect •  A basic description of a language includes a grammar, a

text collection and a dictionary. •  The world’s languages have been documentend to

different extents (Hammarström 2007): – Wordlist: a wordlist of some length. –  Phonology: a wordlist with a phonological statement,

typically 20 pages. –  Sketch: wordlist, phonology plus major aspects of

morphology and syntax, typically 50 pages. –  Short grammar: Some treatment of all significant aspects of

the language, typically 100 pages. –  (Full-length) grammar: In-depth description of all signicant

aspects of the language, typically 300 pages. – Holy trinity: Full-length grammar, texts and dictionary.

26

Document types (Glottolog) •  Bibliographical

–  bibiographical information (i.e., the language is featured in a bibliography) •  Comparative

–  the language is featured in a comparative study •  Dialectology

–  containing dialectological information, e.g., the intelligibility between different dialects, the distribution of certain isoglosses within a language

•  Dictionary –  ~ 75 pages and beyond

•  Ethnographic –  ethnographic information (whether extensive or brief)

•  Grammar –  an extensive description of most elements of the grammar ~ 150 pages and

beyond •  Grammar Sketch

–  a less extensive description of many elements of the grammar ~ 50 pages •  Minimal

–  some small amount of lexical or grammatical data but not sufficient for a full wordlist or a substantial account of some grammatical feature

<http://glottolog.org>

27

Document types (Glottolog) •  New Testament

–  a new testament translation •  Overview

–  the language is featured in a handbook/overview publication •  Phonology

–  phonological description •  Socling

–  sociolinguistic information (where spoken, by how many etc) •  Specific Feature

–  description of some element of grammar (i.e., noun class system, verb morphology etc)

•  Text –  some amount of unanalyzed text data ~ 10 pages and beyond

•  Wordlist –  wordlist ~ a couple of hundred words

<http://glottolog.org>

28

Documentation of the world’s languages •  Number of languages documented at different

levels (published work): – Wordlist 4,729 – Sketch 3,337 –  (Short or full) grammar 2,215 (Hammarström 2007)

•  Number of languages with bible translations (as of 31.12.2008): – Portions 843 – Testaments 1,185 – Bibles 451 – Total 2,479 (data from UBS)

•  Glottolog / LangDoc <http://glottolog.org/>

29

Least documented families •  According to Hammarström (2012), 27 language families

satisfy the following criteria –  The language family is known through at least a wordlist (i.e., this

excludes languages known to exist, but for which there are no data, such as the languages of ‘isolados’).

–  The language family, at the present state of knowledge, is not demonstrably related to any other known family.

–  There are no viable grounds for concluding that the language is extinct, i.e., that it does not have fluent speakers.

–  All languages of the family are poorly documented, in the sense that there is less documentation than a rudimentary grammar sketch, and there is no ongoing documentation effort for any of them.

•  Mostly New Guinea, South America. •  These are entire families (mostly isolates though);

underdocumented languages abound in other families as well.

30



Reasons for the poor state of documentation •  Interest in dominant languages. •  Prestige of theoretical work, low esteem of data

collection. •  Lack of funds, high cost of fieldwork. •  Difficulty of fieldwork.

•  Is the bad state of description a myth? – Nordhoff & Hammarström 2012: "grey literature"

31

Recent developments 32

•  During the last 20 years, the state of documentation of the world's languages has improved significantly. – Dobes, Rausing, Kone Foundation. – Glottolog/Langdoc. –  Still, only a small portion of the world's linguistic diversity

has been documented. •  The availability of sources has improved –  electronic archiving and dissemination –  communication between experts is easier than before.

•  New types of documentation materials/methods – Digital resources –  Software – Data collection techniques – Mobile applications etc.

33

(SSDC2014)

34

Uralic languages – state of documentation

Documentation of Uralic languages 36

•  Long tradition in Finno-Ugric studies starting from the work of Sjögren and Castrén in the first half of the 19th century.

•  One of the best studied families in the world. •  During Soviet times, fieldwork was not possible for

outsiders. •  Historical-comparative focus •  Descriptive/documentary materials typically: –  text collections –  dictionaries –  chrestomathies –  also grammars

•  But modern grammars, written in a typological-functional perspective, are largely lacking.

•  "Grey literature"



Uralic languages in Glottolog 37

•  44 Uralic languages •  1540 entries in the database •  122 grammars •  140 grammar sketches

•  Note: Most of the entries are not classified to any category and some of them are classified automatically (=> errors).

Uralic languages with no grammar listed in Glottolog

38

•  Grammar sketch exists –  Ingrian, Livvi, Ludian, Kven –  Ume Saami –  Surgut Khanty, Southern Khanty –  Forest Enets [sic!], Forest Nenets, Kamas, Mator

•  No grammar sketch –  Inari Saami, Kemi Saami –  Tundra Enets, Samoyed Koibal

Uralic languages with (a) grammar(s) listed in Glottolog

39

•  Estonian, Karelian, Liv, Finnish, Tornedalen Finnish, Veps, Votic

•  Skolt Saami, Akkala Saami, Kildin Saami, Ter Saami, Lule Saami, Northern Saami, Pite Saami, South Saami

•  Erzya, Moksha •  Eastern Mari, Western Mari •  Komi-Permyak, Komi Zyrian, Udmurt •  Far Eastern Khanty, Khanty, Mansi, Hungarian •  Tundra Nenets, Selkup, Nganasan

[NB: Forest Enets missing here]

Some examples of resources in the category "grammars" in Glottolog

40

•  Livonian –  Sjögren, Joh. Andreas. 1861. Livische Grammatik nebst Sprachproben Joh. Andreas

Sjögren's Livische Grammatik nebst Sprachproben. (Joh. Andreas Sjögren's Gesammelte Schriften, 2.1.) St. Petersburg: Comm. der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wiss. 480pp

–  de Sivers, Fanny. 2001. Parlons Live. Paris: L'Harmattan. •  Erzya

–  Mosin, Michail Vasilevič and Bajuškin, N. S. 1983. Ersämordvan oppikirja. (Apuneuvoja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten opintoja varten, 8.) Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. ix+188pp. (Audio-Cassette has been transcoded into Audio-CD - please ask library staff).

–  Feoktistov, A.K. 1966. Èrzjanskij jazyk. In Lytkin, V.I. and Majtinskaja, K.E. (eds.), Jazyki narodov SSSR, vol. 3, Finno-ugorskie i samodijskie jazyki, 177-189. Moskva: Nauka.

–  Zavodova, R. A. and Koljadenkov, M. N. 1964. Grammatika Mordovskix (Mokshanskogo i Erzjanskogo) jazykov. In Zavodova, R.A. and Koljadenkov, M.N. (eds.) Saransk.

•  Tundra Nenets –  Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. (Mouton Grammar Library, 65.)

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. xv+511pp. –  Almazova, A. V. 1961. Samoučitel' nenetskogo jazyka. Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe

Učebno-Pedagogičeskoe Izdatel'stvo. 240pp. –  Tereshchenko, N. M. 1966. Neneckij jazyk. In Lytkin, V. I. and Majtinskaja, K. E. (eds.),

Jazyki narodov SSSR. Volume 3: Finno-ugorskie i samodijskie jazyki, 376–395. In: V.V. Vinogradov, ed.

–  Prokof'ev, Georgij N. 1936. Samučitel' Nenetskogo yazyka. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe Učebno-Pedagogičeskoe Izdatel'stvo.

What to make of this? 41

•  A proper literature research would be needed, but the data drawn from Glottolog is an approximation of the situation, and it gives an idea of which languages are most in need of documentation. And it also shows what the situation looks like to a non-Uralicist linguist.

•  Apart from Estonian, Finnish and Hungarian, few Uralic languages possess a basic description according to modern standards.

•  Interesting in view of the long research history of the Uralic family.

Language documentation and language typology



Typology and description 43

•  Symbiotic relationship –  typology feeds description with theory and ideas –  descriptive linguistics provides the empirical foundations for

typology. •  This is threatened by the extinction of undescribed languages!

In other words: –  Language typology, and thus also general linguistics, is

dependent on data provided by researchers focusing on particular languages,

– who then, in turn, benefit from typological knowledge when trying to understand the phenomena they encounter in their own languages of study.

•  They share the common goal of unraveling, describing and understanding the world's linguistic diversity => Diversity Linguistics

Typology & Uralic: Examples of topics 44

•  Negation – Typology: Miestamo (2005), van der Auwera & Lejeune

(2005), Haspelmath (2005), Veselinova (2013) – Uralic: Hamari (2007), Wagner-Nagy (2011), Miestamo &

al. (2015)

•  Evidentiality – Typology: Chafe & Nichols (1986), De Haan (1997),

Aikhenvald & Dixon (2003), Aikhenvald (2004); Kittilä's project at UH

– Uralic: ongoing work, e.g., in Kittilä's project.

45

⇒  To appear June 2015. ⇒  17 Uralic languages

described with the help of a typological questionnaire

⇒  5 further chapters looking at selected aspects of negation in Uralic in a typological perspective.

Topics in the questionnaire •  Clausal negation –  standard negation –  negation in non-declaratives –  negation of stative predications –  negation in dependent clauses.

•  Non-clausal negation –  negative replies –  negation of indefinite pronouns –  negative case, derivation and adpositions

•  Further aspects of negation –  scope of negation –  negative polarity –  negation and case marking –  reinforcing negation –  negation and complex sentences.

46

What is a "good", "modern" description? 47

•  Typologically informed – background for understanding language-particular

phenomena, in particular: •  typology helps to ask relevant questions: fill gaps, see

connections •  provides a metalanguage for description. •  Payne (1997), Shopen (2007) etc.

– Cf. Bond (2010), Epps (2011), Zúñiga (2012), Sandman (2013).

•  Functionally oriented – organized according to function rather than form •  who is the grammar written for? •  cf the contents of Epps: Grammar of Hup (2008)

What is a "good", "modern" description? 48

•  Accessible –  Basic Linguistic Theory (Dixon 1997; Dryer 2006)

(vs. generative, tagmemic...)

•  Framework-free (cf. Haspelmath 2010a) – Categorial particularism (cf. Dryer 1997; Haspelmath 2010b;

Miestamo 2013) •  Descriptive categores are language specific

–  focus on properties rather than terminology!

(vs. categorial universalism; cf. generative vs. tagmemic) –  Fieldwork as unlearning (Gil 2001)

=> Training is needed! A summer school?



Back to the Uralic perspective 49

•  What is the relation to existing tradition? •  Cf. 4-year documentary projects by individuals in

previously unexplored territories. •  Is this feasible in Uralic studies? •  Or do we need more extensive projects?

•  Unanalysed archive materials into use!

References •  Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. •  Aikhenvald, Alexandra & R.M.W. Dixon (eds). 2003. Studies in Evidentiality

(Typological Studies in Language 54). Amsterdam: Benjamins. •  van der Auwera, Johan & Lejeune, Ludo (with Valentin Goussev). 2005. The

prohibitive. In The Word Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 290–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/71]

•  Bond, Oliver. 2010. Language documentation and language typology. Language Documentation and Description 7. 238-261.

•  Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols (eds) 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood: Ablex.

•  De Haan, Ferdinand. 1997. The interaction of modality and negation: a typological study. New York: Garland.

•  Dixon, R.M.W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: CUP. •  Dryer, Matthew S. 2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and

basic linguistic theory. In Catching Language: Issues in Grammar Writing, edited by Felix Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans, pp. 207-234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

50

References •  Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Joan Bybee,

John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givon, 115-143. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

•  Epps, Patience. 2008. A Grammar of Hup (Mouton Grammar Library 43). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

•  Epps, Patience. 2011. Linguistic Typology and Language Documentation. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.

•  Gil, David. 2001. Escaping Eurocentrism: Fieldwork as a Process of Unlearning. In P. Newman & M. Ratliff (eds), Linguistic Fieldwork, 102-132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

•  Hammarström, Harald & Forkel, Robert & Haspelmath, Martin & Bank, Sebastian. 2015. Glottolog 2.4. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <http://www.glottolog.org>

•  Hamari, Arja. 2007. The Negation of Stative Relation Clauses in the Mordvin Languages [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 254]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

•  Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation. In The Word Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 466–469. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/115]

51

References •  Haspelmath, Martin. 2010a. Framework-free grammatical theory. In Heine,

Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds), The Oxford handbook of grammatical analysis, 341-365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

•  Haspelmath, Martin. 2010b. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86. 663-687.

•  Krauss, Michael. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68(1): 4-10. •  Lehmann, Christian. 2001. Language documentation. A program. In Walter

Bisang (ed.), Aspects of typology and universals (Studia Typologica 1), 83-97. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

•  Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Eighteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. <http://www.ethnologue.com.>

•  Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

•  Miestamo, Matti. 2013. Kielten vertailu kielitypologisessa tutkimuksessa. In Leena Kolehmainen, Matti Miestamo & Taru Nordlund (eds.), Kielten vertailun metodiikka (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 1387), 27-55. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

52

References •  Miestamo, Matti, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy. 2015. Negation in Uralic

Languages (Typological Studies in Language 108). Amsterdam: Benjamins. •  Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists.

Cambridge: CUP. •  Sandman, Erika. 2013. Vertailu työvälineenä vähän tutkitun kielen

kuvauksessa. In Leena Kolehmainen, Matti Miestamo & Taru Nordlund (eds.), Kielten vertailun metodiikka (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 1387), 56-95. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

•  Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 2007. Language typology and syntactic description (Vols 1-3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

•  Veselinova, Ljuba. 2013. Negative existentials: A cross-linguistic study. Rivista di linguistica 25(1): 107-145.

•  Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2011. On the Typology of Negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic Languages [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 262]. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.

•  Zúñiga, Fernando. 2012. Language description and linguistic typlology. In A. Ender, A. Leemann & B. Wälchli (eds), Methods in Contemporary Linguistics, 171-194. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

53

Thank you!

mamiestamo$ 12.6.2015$€¦ · – inari saami, skolt saami, lule saami, south saami, kildin saami,...

Documents