Polysynthetic language structure

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In polysynthetic languages , a sentence or part of a sentence is formed by combining a central lexical morpheme (usually the verb ) with a large number of linked morphemes ( affixes ). Several lexical and grammatical elements are thereby combined into one complex word , which in extreme cases can correspond to a whole sentence in European languages.

The polysynthetic language structure was formerly inkorporierender or einverleibender called linguistic structure. It is the central feature of polysynthetic languages ​​in the sense of the language typology of Wilhelm von Humboldt and August Wilhelm Schlegel . Polysynthesis is found mainly in North and South American languages .

Grammatical Features

Typically, polysynthetic languages ​​have a large number of linked morphemes. In particular, they have a very high number of morphemes per word (high degree of synthesis ).

Many polysynthetic languages ​​have to mark the central actants on the verb ( polypersonality ). Many, but not all, polysynthetic languages ​​also allow incorporation .

An example from the Athapaskan language Koyukon : 

 kk'o- aɬts'eeyh- y-          ee-        'oyh
 umher Wind       es (OBJEKT) IMPERFEKTIV einen kompakten Gegenstand bewegen
 „Der Wind weht es herum.“

Polysynthetic aspects are: the prefix kk'o- "around", the incorporation of the prefix y- "es" ( object ) and the incorporation of the nominal form aɬts'eeyh "wind".

Origin of the term

The term 'polysynthetic' was coined in 1819 by Peter Stephen Du Ponceau (1760–1844) to describe American languages ​​that combine a multitude of "ideas" in a few words. It was introduced into the broader linguistic discussion in 1836 in a posthumously published work by Wilhelm von Humboldt . The terms synthetic and polysynthetic were first used as a pair of opposites by Edward Sapir in 1920 .

Polysynthesis and incorporation

The terms polysynthesis and incorporation are nowadays used incorrectly synonymously . The confusion goes back to the fact that Humboldt used the term incorporating for the phenomenon that is now called polysynthesis , which was often translated into English as incorporating . Today, however, incorporation describes another linguistic phenomenon that is often to be found in polysynthetic languages, but can in no way be identified with polysynthesis itself. There are also polysynthetic languages ​​without the possibility of incorporation.

Which languages ​​are polysynthetic?

Polysynthesis is found primarily in North America . Except for the Penuti languages ​​of California , all indigenous North American languages ​​are polysynthetic. Polysynthesis also occurs in other areas, e.g. B. in Siberia in the case of the Chukchi and Niwan languages . Another area with polysynthetic languages ​​is the northwestern Caucasus , represented e.g. B. through the Abkhazian language .

Polysynthetic Traits in Other Languages

French

The French shows polysynthetic tendencies due to the strong phonetic merger of individual words. A phrase like je ne le sais pas (“I don't know”) is spoken almost as fluently as a single word. Likewise, the sentence ça lui fera plaisir (“this will give him pleasure”) becomes more or less a “one-word sentence” in pronunciation: [salɥifʁapleziʁ]. The spelling together in phonetic transcription shows the similarity with polysynthetic languages.

In particular, particles are fused often phonetically in other languages and then act like dependent Wortbildungsmorpheme . In French, however, the tendency towards unifying pronunciation is generally more pronounced than, for example, in German (see Liaison ).

Egyptian Arabic

The Egyptian Arabic has partially polysynthetic tendencies compared to the Standard Arabic developed:

matgībulhahumš "Don't bring it to her!"

  • ma ... š - "not" (together miš as nominal negation), from high Arabic mā "what, not, no" and šayʾ "something, a thing"
  • t (i) ... u - marker for 2nd person plural imperfect (unmarked → jussive)
  • l (ī) ha - "her" 3rd person singular feminine Dat.
  • hum - "she" 3rd person plural accusative
  • gīb - bring past tense stem of gāb (originated from a fusion of ga "come", "come to someone" and bi "with")

Literally:

“None-you should give-you-them-thing” (whereby š no longer exists in Egyptian as an independent word: “something, one thing” = ḥāga ).

The synthesis index

Polysynthetic languages ​​are characterized by particularly long words. For example, word length can be defined as the average number of morphs or morphemes per word. This criterion can be used to compare languages ​​with one another. Greenberg chose the number of morphemes (M) divided by the number of words (W) in a text or text excerpt as the criterion for his synthesis index ( degree of synthesis or gross complexity of the word ). The degree of synthesis is then S = M / W.

The following table shows the values ​​of this index for 31 languages, as published by Silnitzky. The languages ​​were sorted according to decreasing M / W values. The more polysynthetic languages ​​are at the beginning of the table and the more analytical languages ​​at the end.

language Degree of synthesis language Degree of synthesis
Arabic 3.14 Urdu 1.68
Japanese 2.71 Tajik 1.67
Telugu 2.61 Persian 1.67
Sanskrit 2.60 German 1.57
Swahili 2.51 Chinese 1.56
Chukchi 2.33 French 1.54
Korean 2.31 Indonesian 1.50
Turkish 2.15 Khmer 1.50
Russian 2.11 Thai 1.46
Mongolian 2.10 Vietnamese 1.46
Mari 2.02 Tagalog 1.42
Yiddish 2.00 Tangu table 1.32
Manchurian 1.85 English 1.30
Tibetan 1.75 Old Chinese 1.26
Burmese 1.73 Maninka 1.16
Hindi 1.70

In this table, Arabic comes closest to the polysynthetic structure of language; Greenberg mentions an even higher value for Eskimo with S = 3.72. Maninka, an African language, stands on the other end as a particularly analytical language ; English is also very analytical.

German does not show a particularly high value in this table, which would indicate a complex word structure. The selection of the examined texts plays a major role here: Horne gives S = 1.58 for poetry for New High German and S = 1.71 for prose. For three scientific texts Greenberg gives the synthesis index values ​​1.90, 1.92 and 2.11, the latter value for a philosophical text. Depending on the style / type of text, the synthesis value is very different, at least for German.

swell

  1. ↑ from Fortescue (1994: 2602), see literature
  2. ↑ The difference between morph and morpheme is neglected here.
  3. ^ Joseph H. Greenberg: A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. In: International Journal of American Linguistics. XXVI, 1960, pp. 178-194, Synthetic Index, pp. 185, 187f.
  4. ^ George Silnitzky: Typological Indices and Language Classes: A Quantitative Study. In: Gabriel Altmann (Ed.): Glottometrika 14. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, Trier 1993, ISBN 3-88476-081-5 , pp. 139–160, table on page 141.
  5. ^ Joseph H. Greenberg: A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. In: International Journal of American Linguistics. XXVI, 1960, pp. 178-194, Synthetic Index, p. 193.
  6. ↑ Kibbey Minton Horne: A Critical Evaluation of Morphological Typology with Particular Emphasis on Greenberg's Quantitative Approach as Applied to the Three Historic Stages of German. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (= Georgetown University, Ph. D., 1966), p. 117ff, overview p. 162.
  7. ^ Joseph H. Greenberg: A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. In: International Journal of American Linguistics. XXVI, 1960, pp. 178-194, Synthesis Index, p. 194.

literature