Morphological interference - Revision history

Admin at 12:07, 25 August 2021

2021-08-25T12:07:59Z

Admin at 12:06, 25 August 2021

2021-08-25T12:06:23Z

Admin at 12:03, 25 August 2021

2021-08-25T12:03:24Z

Admin at 10:49, 9 July 2021

2021-07-09T10:49:42Z

Admin at 13:26, 19 January 2021

2021-01-19T13:26:16Z

Admin at 18:29, 18 January 2021

2021-01-18T18:29:52Z

Admin at 09:44, 14 December 2020

2020-12-14T09:44:18Z

Admin at 09:42, 14 December 2020

2020-12-14T09:42:31Z

Admin: Created page with "==Translations== interferenza morfologica | interférence morphologique | morphologische Interferenz ==Article== Phenomenon induced by language contact, in which the morpholo..."

2020-12-14T09:42:09Z

Created page with "==Translations== interferenza morfologica | interférence morphologique | morphologische Interferenz ==Article== Phenomenon induced by language contact, in which the morpholo..."

New page

==Translations==
interferenza morfologica | interférence morphologique | morphologische Interferenz

==Article==
Phenomenon induced by language contact, in which the morphological features of the model language are transferred to the target language. Morphological features may include:
# acquisition features of the inflectional series of nominal or verbal elements;
# loss of features of the inflectional management of nominal or verbal elements
# use, retention or loss of specific morphemes or morphs in given morphological or syntactic constructions;
# change of the value of a morpheme as a sort of semantic [[calque]] basing of a similar one in the model language;
# morpheme induction.
Morphological interference may act in different ways and directions (Thomason 2015).
# From native language to a second language by L2 speakers;
# From superstrate or prestige language to native language by L1 speakers.
This distinction is hard to apply for the study of contact in the ancient world, as we generally do not know for sure the linguistic identity of the scribe or author of ancient mixed-lingual or [[multilingual document|multilingual texts]] (inferring it may occasionally be one of the goals of the research, but usually not a starting point). It is, however, reflected by the issue of the systematicity of the change in the language, which carries to the distinction between true change in the target language and non-systematic [[document-level phenomena]].

Example
Examples of morphological interference in the ancient Syro-Anatolian and Ancient Near Eastern area(s) are generally connected to local multilingual regions rather than to large linguistic areas. They include the creation of agglutinative-like genitival adjectives in Kizzuwatna Luwian, with double marking of the possessor and possessed, on the model of the Hurrian Suffixaufnahme (Yakubovich 2010, but cf. criticism in Simon 2016).

{| class="wikitable"
|Type||Phenomenon||cause||example
|-
|acquisition of m. features||marking of number for possessor in the Luwian genitival adjectivation||influence of Hurrian Suffixaufnahme (in the Cilician area)||massan-anz-assa-ti god-PL-of-ABL “of the gods”
|}

An Iron Age example was proposed by Giusfredi and Pisaniello (in press), and consists in the retention or use of inflectional morphemes in Sam’alian by influence of the Luwian language.
{| class="wikitable"
|Type||Phenomenon||cause||example
|-
|use, retention or loss of morphemes||retention of inflection of the noun in Sam’al Aramaic resisting loss in all surrounding varieties||influence of Luwian, also testified by other interference phenomena as well as by historical data||

’lh-w
god-NOM.PL
’lh-y
god-OBL.pl

vs. Old Aram.(both cases):
’lh-n

|}
References
Giusfredi, F. and Pisaniello, V. in press. The population, the language and the history of Yadiya/Sam’al. Proceedings of the conference Beyond All Boundaries. Anatolia in the 1st Millennium B.C., Ascona, 17-22 May 2018.
Simon, Zs. 2016. Ist die Possessivkonstruktion im Kizzuwatna-Luwischen kontaktbedingt zustande gekommen? Aula Orientalis 34, 325-333.
Thomason, S. 2015. When is the diffusion of inflectional morphology not dispreferred? F. Gardani et al., eds., Borrowed Morphology, Berlin/Boston/Munich, De Gruyter, 27-45.
Yakubovich, I. 2010. Sociolignuistics of the Luvian Language, Leiden, Brill.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 # loss of features of the inflectional management of nominal or verbal elements
 # use, [[retention of a feature | retention]] or loss of a specific [[morpheme]] or morph in given morphological or syntactic constructions;
-# change of the value of a morpheme as a sort of semantic [[calque]] basing of a similar one in the model language;
+# change of the value of a morpheme as a sort of semantic [[calques | calque]] basing of a similar one in the model language;
 # morpheme induction.</br>
 Morphological interference may act in different ways and directions (Thomason 2015).

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 # acquisition features of the inflectional series of nominal or verbal elements;
 # loss of features of the inflectional management of nominal or verbal elements
-# use, [[retention]] or loss of a specific [[morpheme]] or morph in given morphological or syntactic constructions;
+# use, [[retention of a feature | retention]] or loss of a specific [[morpheme]] or morph in given morphological or syntactic constructions;
 # change of the value of a morpheme as a sort of semantic [[calque]] basing of a similar one in the model language;
 # morpheme induction.</br>

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 # acquisition features of the inflectional series of nominal or verbal elements;
 # loss of features of the inflectional management of nominal or verbal elements
-# use, retention or loss of a specific [[morpheme]] or morph in given morphological or syntactic constructions;
+# use, [[retention]] or loss of a specific [[morpheme]] or morph in given morphological or syntactic constructions;
 # change of the value of a morpheme as a sort of semantic [[calque]] basing of a similar one in the model language;
 # morpheme induction.</br>

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 ==Example==
-Examples of morphological interference in the ancient Syro-Anatolian and Ancient Near Eastern area(s) are generally connected to local multilingual regions rather than to large linguistic areas. They include the creation of agglutinative-like genitival adjectives in Kizzuwatna Luwian, with double marking of the possessor and possessed, on the model of the Hurrian <i>Suffixaufnahme</i> (Yakubovich 2010, but cf. criticism in Simon 2016).
+Examples of morphological interference in the ancient Syro-Anatolian and Ancient Near Eastern area(s) are generally connected to local multilingual regions rather than to large linguistic areas. They include the creation of [[typological classification|agglutinative]]-like genitival adjectives in Kizzuwatna Luwian, with double marking of the possessor and possessed, on the model of the Hurrian <i>Suffixaufnahme</i> (Yakubovich 2010, but cf. criticism in Simon 2016).
 {| class="wikitable"

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 This distinction is hard to apply for the study of contact in the ancient world, as we generally do not know for sure the linguistic identity of the scribe or author of ancient mixed-lingual or [[multilingual document|multilingual texts]] (inferring it may occasionally be one of the goals of the research, but usually not a starting point). It is, however, reflected by the issue of the systematicity of the change in the language, which carries to the distinction between true change in the target language and non-systematic [[document-level phenomena]].
-Example
+==Example==
 Examples of morphological interference in the ancient Syro-Anatolian and Ancient Near Eastern area(s) are generally connected to local multilingual regions rather than to large linguistic areas. They include the creation of agglutinative-like genitival adjectives in Kizzuwatna Luwian, with double marking of the possessor and possessed, on the model of the Hurrian <i>Suffixaufnahme</i> (Yakubovich 2010, but cf. criticism in Simon 2016).

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 An Iron Age example was proposed by Giusfredi and Pisaniello (in press), and consists in the retention or use of inflectional morphemes in Sam’alian by influence of the Luwian language.
 {| class="wikitable"
-|<b>Type</b>||<b>Phenomenon</b>||<b>cause</b>||<b>example</b>
+|<b>Type</b>||<b>Phenomenon</b>||<b>cause</b>||style="width: 20%"|<b>example</b>
 |-
 |use, retention or loss of morphemes||retention of inflection of the noun in Sam’al Aramaic resisting loss in all surrounding varieties||influence of Luwian,</i> also testified by other interference phenomena as well as by historical data||

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 |}
 References
 Giusfredi, F. and Pisaniello, V. in press. The population, the language and the history of Yadiya/Sam’al. Proceedings of the conference Beyond All Boundaries. Anatolia in the 1st Millennium B.C., Ascona, 17-22 May 2018.
 Simon, Zs. 2016. Ist die Possessivkonstruktion im Kizzuwatna-Luwischen kontaktbedingt zustande gekommen? Aula Orientalis 34, 325-333.
 Thomason, S. 2015. When is the diffusion of inflectional morphology not dispreferred? F. Gardani et al., eds., Borrowed Morphology, Berlin/Boston/Munich, De Gruyter, 27-45.
 Yakubovich, I. 2010. Sociolignuistics of the Luvian Language, Leiden, Brill.