Irina Nikolaeva
SOAS University of London, Linguistics, Faculty Member
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The purpose of this talk is to investigate the cross-linguistic validity of the category of predicate focus against the background of a moderate version of contextualism, the view according to which much of what we are used to think of as... more
The purpose of this talk is to investigate the cross-linguistic validity of the category of predicate focus against the background of a moderate version of contextualism, the view according to which much of what we are used to think of as linguistic meaning is a product of pragmatic inference. Even if we assume that a certain meaning must be present in a certain context, such as focus in an answer to a question, it still does not follow that a linguistic category of focus must be involved: languages may underspecify the relevant meaning and leave it to the hearers’ inferential abilities to reconstruct it. Alternatively, the meaning in question may happen to coincide, fully or in part, with another meaning. (Matić & Wedgwood 2013). This seems to be relatively frequent with the categories of predicate focus and realis mood.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Exploring the phenomenon of 'mixed categories', this book is the first in-depth study of the way in which languages can use a noun, as opposed to an adjective, to modify another noun. It investigates noun-adjective hybrids -... more
Exploring the phenomenon of 'mixed categories', this book is the first in-depth study of the way in which languages can use a noun, as opposed to an adjective, to modify another noun. It investigates noun-adjective hybrids - adjectives and adjective-like attributive forms which have been derived from nouns and systematically retain certain nominal properties. These rarely-discussed types of mixed category raise a number of important theoretical questions about the nature of lexemic identity, the inflection-derivation divide, and more generally, the relationship between the structure of words and their phrasal syntax. The book proposes a new formal framework that models cross-linguistic and cross-constructional variation in noun modification constructions. The framework it offers enables readers to explicitly map word structure to syntactic structure, providing new insights into, and impacting upon, all current theoretical models of grammar.
Research Interests: Cognitive Science, Computer Science, Syntax, Linguistics, Language, and 3 moreNoun, Adjective, and attributive
This book is about the way that nouns can serve as attributive modifiers to other nouns. Many languages have productive morphology which turns nouns into adjectives, i.e. words whose canonical grammatical function is to act as an... more
This book is about the way that nouns can serve as attributive modifiers to other nouns. Many languages have productive morphology which turns nouns into adjectives, i.e. words whose canonical grammatical function is to act as an attributive modifier to a nominal head. In some cases the denominal adjective retains a number of nominal properties, so that it may even take noun-oriented modifiers and specifiers, while still itself serving as an attributive modifier. →e will call these elements ‘noun–adjective hybrids’. Noun–adjective hybrids constitute a type of ‘mixed category’. In such cases the adjectival affix seems to attach to an already modified noun, thus giving rise to the appearance of an adjective being formed on a whole syntactic phrase. It is rather difficult to determine what the lexical category of such adjectives is, if syntactic distribution is the only diagnostic criterion, and the literature contains rather little discussion of how syntax of these constructions is to...
Research Interests:
This paper provides an overview of non-canonical patterns of switch-reference involving the converb in -(V)p in selected Turkic languages. This converb is usually described as a same-subject converb, but we show that it can conform to... more
This paper provides an overview of non-canonical patterns of switch-reference involving the converb in -(V)p in selected Turkic languages. This converb is usually described as a same-subject converb, but we show that it can conform to McKenzie’s (2012) extended definition of “same-subject” as expressing the identity of topic situations, rather than subject referents. In addition to tracking cross-clausal subject identity, -(V)p can be used when the possessor of the subject of one clause corefers with the subject of another clause and when the events expressed by the two clauses are in a close temporal and/or causal relationship. Based on Stirling (1993) and Bárány & Nikolaeva (2019), we argue that the role of possessors in Turkic switch-reference is captured by lexically specified conditions licensing the use of -(V)p when two subjects are in a possessive relation. Finally, we suggest that both types of non-canonical switch-reference can be seen as ensuring discourse continuity.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Northern Ostyak (Uralic) has optional object agreement. This paper analyzes the grammatical behavior of objects that trigger agreement and objects that do not, and demonstrates that while the former participate in certain syntactic... more
Northern Ostyak (Uralic) has optional object agreement. This paper analyzes the grammatical behavior of objects that trigger agreement and objects that do not, and demonstrates that while the former participate in certain syntactic processes, the latter are syntactically inert. The asymmetry cannot be explained with reference to semantics or argument status, as both objects bear an identical argument relationship to the predicate. Following the functional approach to language, under which the clause has three independent representational levels (syntax, semantics, and information structure), I suggest that the two objects differ in their information structure status. The object that does not trigger agreement bears the focus function, and systematically corresponds to the focus position. It is further argued that virtually all grammatical relations in Ostyak demonstrate reduced syntactic activity when they are in focus. This leads to a search for an information structure-driven moti...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
22 Specific syntactic constructions (cleft, split…) or particles along with the certain syntactic constructions show the highlighted part of information as well. 6th stage: es magidaa, kalma rom gat'exa It is the table that the woman... more
22 Specific syntactic constructions (cleft, split…) or particles along with the certain syntactic constructions show the highlighted part of information as well. 6th stage: es magidaa, kalma rom gat'exa It is the table that the woman broke. magida, gat'exa kalma, xis The table, the woman broke, wooden. sʦ'ored rom magida gat'exa kalma (It is) just the table that woman broke. If we change the active construction into the passive, the sentence magida gat'q'da kalis mier would show the different topic on the 2nd stage: magida which is now the subject. All the possibilities ...
Research Interests:
This book describes the morphological system of modern Yukaghir in a historical perspective, and proposes the first ever systematic reconstruction of the main aspects of Proto‑Yukaghir inflectional morphology and the historical changes it... more
This book describes the morphological system of modern Yukaghir in a historical perspective, and proposes the first ever systematic reconstruction of the main aspects of Proto‑Yukaghir inflectional morphology and the historical changes it went through. The reconstruction is put into syntactic context, and based on the evidence for earlier linguistic states and general typological plausibility. Yukaghir is shown to be strongly aligned with the grammatical profile of the Uralic and Altaic languages. In addition, the book discusses potential cognates for a number of Yukaghir grammatical morphemes and constructions, primarily from Uralic, evaluates some previous hypotheses in this respect, and proposes a number of new interpretations, while abstaining from general conclusions regarding genetic relatedness. Morphological borrowings and contact-induced grammaticalization processes are also addressed
Research Interests:
Tundra Nenets (Uralic) exhibits unambiguous relative clauses and sentential complements of nouns, but I show that it also has a previously unstudied but structurally distinct GNMCC. The GNMCC covers a diversity of functions although its... more
Tundra Nenets (Uralic) exhibits unambiguous relative clauses and sentential complements of nouns, but I show that it also has a previously unstudied but structurally distinct GNMCC. The GNMCC covers a diversity of functions although its usage is restricted in various ways. The paper suggests that it has a direct parallel in the non-sentential domain in terms of its syntactic behaviour, the morphosyntactic expression of the constructional ingredients and the basic semantics: it is modelled after the non-clausal compound-like structure employed for the very general purpose of modifying one noun by reference to another noun. Such modification-by-noun constructions served as a historical source of Tundra Nenets GNMCCs, which emerged when the modifying deverbal noun was reanalysed as heading a clausal domain.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Two Siberian languages, Tundra Nenets and Tundra Yukaghir, do not obey strong island constraints in questioning: any sub-constituent of a relative or adverbial clause can be questioned. We argue that this has to do with how focusing works... more
Two Siberian languages, Tundra Nenets and Tundra Yukaghir, do not obey strong island constraints in questioning: any sub-constituent of a relative or adverbial clause can be questioned. We argue that this has to do with how focusing works in these languages. The focused sub-constituent remains in situ, but there is abundant morphosyntactic evidence that the focus feature is passed up to the head of the clause. The result is the formation of a complex focus structure in which both the head and non head daughter are overtly marked as focus, and they are interpreted as a pairwise list such that the focus background is applicable to this list, but not to other alternative lists.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Although possessors internal to an argument DP do not qualify as canonical controllers of verbal agreement, in some languages an internal possessor may be cross‑referenced on an applicative verb. The aim of the paper is to propose a... more
Although possessors internal to an argument DP do not qualify as canonical controllers of verbal agreement, in some languages an internal possessor may be cross‑referenced on an applicative verb. The aim of the paper is to propose a historical scenario for the emergence of this pattern, following the basic insights of the constructional approach to language change. The paper argues that this pattern is a historical innovation. It emerged when the external benefactive argument was reanalysed as internal possessor, a process that has parallels in some languages with dative possessors. The change was motivated by cross‑constructional analogy, namely, formal and semantic assimilation to the class of internal possessive constructions. When constituency was reanalysed, the location of agreement remained intact creating a non‑local configuration.
Research Interests:
This chapter describes possessive constructions in Tundra Nenets (Uralic) with a particular focus on the behavioural and functional properties of lexical possessors. While pronominal possessors always trigger agreement on the possessed... more
This chapter describes possessive constructions in Tundra Nenets (Uralic) with a particular focus on the behavioural and functional properties of lexical possessors. While pronominal possessors always trigger agreement on the possessed noun, lexical possessors only do so in specific circumstances. Agreeing lexical possessors are referred to as prominent internal possessors (PIPs). The distribution of PIPs is restricted by other third person nominals in the clause. This is explained in terms of obviation: PIPs are inherently proximate and therefore are incompatible with other proximate elements. The chapter further shows that—in contrast to other lexical possessors—PIPs can control subjects of converbial clauses, and argues that it is their phrase-peripheral adjunct-like position that makes them accessible to the phrase-external syntax.
Maithili (Indo-Aryan; India; Nepal) has a complex agreement system in which many terms and non-terms, including subjects, objects, obliques, extra-clausal ‘deictic referents’, and, crucially, possessors within any of these can potentially... more
Maithili (Indo-Aryan; India; Nepal) has a complex agreement system in which many terms and non-terms, including subjects, objects, obliques, extra-clausal ‘deictic referents’, and, crucially, possessors within any of these can potentially control agreement on the verb. Agreement is partly determined by grammatical function and argument structure, but in many instances the functional prominence of the agreement controller—determined by focus and referential features, including respect—overrides syntactic prominence. This is particularly clear when possessors internal to an argument or adjunct can control agreement, even though viable alternatives appear to be available. The functional prominence of the internal possessor also appears to have a syntactic correlate: the possessor that controls agreement may be in a more prominent position within the phrase headed by the possessed nominal, and this is what enables it to participate in clause-level syntactic processes.
Research Interests: History and Linguistics
&WJEFODFÛBOEÛ $ PVOUFS &WJEFODF Û'FTUTDISJGUÛ'SFEFSJLÛ, PSUMBOEU Û7PMVNFÛ 44 (-Û Û" NTUFSEBNÛ Û/FXÛ: PSL Û3PEPQJ Û Û CHUVAN AND OMOK LANGUAGES? IRINA... more
&WJEFODFÛBOEÛ $ PVOUFS &WJEFODF Û'FTUTDISJGUÛ'SFEFSJLÛ, PSUMBOEU Û7PMVNFÛ 44 (-Û Û" NTUFSEBNÛ Û/FXÛ: PSL Û3PEPQJ Û Û CHUVAN AND OMOK LANGUAGES? IRINA NIKOLAEVA 1. Preliminaries Chuvan and Omok are described in many publications as ...
Research Interests:
External and internal possessors differ from each other in several properties. In contrast to internal possessors, external possessors do not form a constituent with the possessed noun and can participate in clause-level processes such as... more
External and internal possessors differ from each other in several properties. In contrast to internal possessors, external possessors do not form a constituent with the possessed noun and can participate in clause-level processes such as verb agreement and switch-reference. In this squib, we discuss “intermediate” possessors with both internal and external properties. In Tundra Nenets (Uralic), such possessors form a syntactic constituent with the possessed noun but show different types of clause-level behavior. They can bind and control out of their host DP and participate in an obviation system, a consequence of the possessor being adjoined to the host DP.
Research Interests:
Many languages have morphological devices to turn a noun into an adjective. Often this morphology is genuinely derivational in that it adds semantic content such as ‘similar-to-N’ (similitudinal), ‘located-on/in’ (locational) and so on.... more
Many languages have morphological devices to turn a noun into an adjective. Often this morphology is genuinely derivational in that it adds semantic content such as ‘similar-to-N’ (similitudinal), ‘located-on/in’ (locational) and so on. In other cases the denominal adjective expresses no more than a pragmatically determined relationship, as in preposition-al phrase (see the synonymous preposition phrase), often called ‘relational adjectives’. In many languages relational adjectives are noun-to-adjective transpositions, that is, adjectival forms (‘representations’) of nominals. In some languages and constructions they retain some of the noun-related properties of the base. For example, the base can be modified by an attribute as though it were still a syntactically represented noun, giving rise to what we will call ‘syntagmatic category mixing’. We also find instances of ‘paradigmatic category mixing’ in which the derived adjectival form retains some of the inflectional morphology (c...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
3. Reciprocals with the suffix -masi3.1. Subject-oriented reciprocals 3.1.1. Canonical diathesis 3.1.1.1. Derived from two-place transitives 3.1.1.2. Derived from two-place intransitives 3.1.2. Dative reciprocals 3.2. Restrictions on... more
3. Reciprocals with the suffix -masi3.1. Subject-oriented reciprocals 3.1.1. Canonical diathesis 3.1.1.1. Derived from two-place transitives 3.1.1.2. Derived from two-place intransitives 3.1.2. Dative reciprocals 3.2. Restrictions on derivation 3.3. Non-reciprocal meanings of the suffix -masi3.3.1. Alternative meaning 3.3.2. Sociative meaning 3.4. Co-occurrence of the suffix -masiwith other verbal affixes 3.5. Expression of reciprocal arguments 3.5.1. Instrumental noun phrase 3.5.2. Postpositional phrase 3.5.3. Plural 3.5.4. Several participants
Research Interests:
This book describes the morphological system of modern Yukaghir in a historical perspective, and proposes the first ever systematic reconstruction of the main aspects of Proto‑Yukaghir inflectional morphology and the historical changes it... more
This book describes the morphological system of modern Yukaghir in a historical perspective, and proposes the first ever systematic reconstruction of the main aspects of Proto‑Yukaghir inflectional morphology and the historical changes it went through. The reconstruction is put into syntactic context, and based on the evidence for earlier linguistic states and general typological plausibility.
Yukaghir is shown to be strongly aligned with the grammatical profile of the Uralic and Altaic languages. In addition, the book discusses potential cognates for a number of Yukaghir grammatical morphemes and constructions, primarily from Uralic, evaluates some previous hypotheses in this respect, and proposes a number of new interpretations, while abstaining from general conclusions regarding genetic relatedness. Morphological borrowings and contact-induced grammaticalization processes are also addressed.
Yukaghir is shown to be strongly aligned with the grammatical profile of the Uralic and Altaic languages. In addition, the book discusses potential cognates for a number of Yukaghir grammatical morphemes and constructions, primarily from Uralic, evaluates some previous hypotheses in this respect, and proposes a number of new interpretations, while abstaining from general conclusions regarding genetic relatedness. Morphological borrowings and contact-induced grammaticalization processes are also addressed.
Exploring the phenomenon of 'mixed categories', this book is the first in-depth study of the way in which languages can use a noun, as opposed to an adjective, to modify another noun. It investigates noun-adjective hybrids-adjectives and... more
Exploring the phenomenon of 'mixed categories', this book is the first in-depth study of the way in which languages can use a noun, as opposed to an adjective, to modify another noun. It investigates noun-adjective hybrids-adjectives and adjective-like attributive forms which have been derived from nouns and systematically retain certain nominal properties. These rarely-discussed types of mixed category raise a number of important theoretical questions about the nature of lexemic identity, the inflection-derivation divide, and more generally, the relationship between the structure of words and their phrasal syntax. The book proposes a new formal framework that models cross-linguistic and cross-constructional variation in noun modification constructions. The framework it offers enables readers to explicitly map word structure to syntactic structure, providing new insights into, and impacting upon, all current theoretical models of grammar.
Descriptive typololgy and linguistic theory: a study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses
This book describes the morphological system of modern Yukaghir in a historical perspective, and proposes the first ever systematic reconstruction of the main aspects of Proto-Yukaghir inflectional morphology and the historical changes it... more
This book describes the morphological system of modern Yukaghir in a historical perspective, and proposes the first ever systematic reconstruction of the main aspects of Proto-Yukaghir inflectional morphology and the historical changes it went through. The reconstruction is put into syntactic context, and based on the evidence for earlier linguistic states and general typological plausibility. Yukaghir is shown to be strongly aligned with the grammatical profile of the Uralic and Altaic languages. In addition, the book discusses potential cognates for a number of Yukaghir grammatical morphemes and constructions, primarily from Uralic, evaluates some previous hypotheses in this respect, and proposes a number of new interpretations, while abstaining from general conclusions regarding genetic relatedness. Morphological borrowings and contact-induced grammaticalization processes are also addressed.
Research Interests:
. Definition and challenges Syntacticians generally assume that the properties of the phrasal head are the most important ones for controlling clause-level syntactic processes (Bresnan a; Gazdar et al. ; Pollard and Sag ;... more
. Definition and challenges Syntacticians generally assume that the properties of the phrasal head are the most important ones for controlling clause-level syntactic processes (Bresnan a; Gazdar et al. ; Pollard and Sag ; Chomsky ; Sag et al. ; Bresnan et al. ; see also Corver ; Fukui and Narita ). Since the primacy of the head is a central tenet of nearly all syntactic theories, data that challenge this assumption may have profound consequences for understanding the nature of structural constraints on human language. In this volume, we show that possession constructions pose one such challenge for an adequate theoretical account of possible linguistic systems. Several languages exist in which the properties of a possessor, standardly assumed to act as a non-head daughter within a possessive phrase, figure more prominently in phrase-external syntax than expected. In such cases, an internal possessor behaves, fully or partially, as if it were a clause-level element and the head of its own phrase, even though there is no independent evidence that it is external to the nominal phrase to which the possessed item belongs. Such possessors can be said to exhibit a higher level of syntactic (and possibly functional) prominence than their regular counterparts. Without claiming to encompass the whole range of internal possessor prominence phenomena, we will focus on two syntactic effects: the indexing of the internal possessor on the clausal predicate and its role in the switch-reference system. We will refer to adnominal possessors that exhibit these properties as prominent internal possessors (PIPs). A prominent internal possessor (PIP) is a linguistic expression of a discourse referent that: a. is in a 'possessive' relation with a 'possessed' entity (however the possessive relation is interpreted in a given language), and OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF-REVISES, 29/1/2019, SPi Prominent Internal Possessors. First edition.