Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Introduction
„ Overview

Negation: 1. Typological aspects of negation

„ Overview of existing typological studies (cf. Miestamo 2007)
‰ Standard negation

Typology and Uralic languages ‰ Negation in imperatives

‰ Negation in existential clauses

‰ Negative indefinite pronouns

Matti Miestamo, Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies „ Towards a typological questionnaire on negation
<matti.miestamo@helsinki.fi> 2. Uralic languages
Beáta Wagner-Nagy, Universität Wien 3. Conclusions
<beata.wagner-nagy@univie.ac.at>
UTDB Kick-off Conference „ Issues of explanation not addressed, focus is on taxonomies and
Vienna, September 26-27, 2008 structural features observed in typological literature.

Standard negation Type of negative marker: affix

„ The negation of declarative verbal main

clauses
„ Parameters in typological studies:
‰ Type of negative marker (Dahl 1979; Payne 1985,
Dryer 2005)
‰ Position of negative marker (Dahl 1979; Dryer
1988, 1992)
‰ Symmetric vs. asymmetric negation, subtypes of
asymmetric negation (Miestamo 2005).

1. Typological aspects 3 1. Typological aspects 4

Type of negative marker: particle Type of negative marker: verb

1. Typological aspects 5 1. Typological aspects 6

Negation 1
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Negative markers (Dryer 2005) Position of negative marker

„ Jespersen (1917): Neg-First

„ Dahl (1979): Tendency to occur close to finite
element
„ Dryer (1992): negative particles tend to be pre-
posed, negative auxiliaries show correlation with
basic word order
„ Preposed: Latvian, Indonesian, Evenki, Tongan
„ Postposed: Lezgian, Sawu, Selknam
„ Circumposed: Chukchi, French

1. Typological aspects 7 1. Typological aspects 8

Position of negative marker: Clause- Symmetric and asymmetric negation

peripheral examples (Miestamo 2005)
„ These are not frequent.
„ In symmetric negation, negatives do not differ
structurally from affirmatives except for the presence
of the negative marker(s).
„ In asymmetric negation, there are structural
differences, i.e. asymmetry, between affirmatives
and negatives in addition to the presence of the
negative marker(s).
„ Symmetry and asymmetry can be observed in
constructions and paradigms.
„ Asymmetric negation can be further divided into
subtypes.

1. Typological aspects 9 1. Typological aspects 10

Symmetric constructions Symmetric paradigms

The correspondences between the members of the paradigms
Negatives differ from their corresponding affirmative by the used in affirmatives and negatives are one-to-one.
mere presence of negative markers.

1. Typological aspects 11 1. Typological aspects 12

Negation 2
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Asymmetric constructions Asymmetric paradigms

The correspondences between the members of the paradigms
used in affirmatives and negatives are not one-to-one.

Negatives differ from

their corresponding
affirmatives by
something else than
the mere presence
of negative
marker(s).

1. Typological aspects 13 1. Typological aspects 14

Symmetric and asymmetric negation Subtype A/Fin

Negatives differ from affirmatives in that the lexical verb (LV) loses its finiteness,
NB! The maps concerning standard negation are based on an areally in one or more of the following ways: i) it becomes syntactically dependent on a
and genealogically balanced subsample (179/297 languages). finite element (FE) added in the negative, ii) it is in a form primarily used as a
syntactically dependent verb in the language, iii) it has nominal characteristics.

1. Typological aspects 15 1. Typological aspects 16

Subtype A/Fin/Neg-LV Subtype A/Fin/Neg-LV

The lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker The lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker
attaches to the lexical verb. attaches to the lexical verb.

1. Typological aspects 17 1. Typological aspects 18

Negation 3
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Subtype A/Fin/Neg-FE Subtype A/Fin/Neg-FE

The lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker
The lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker attaches to the added finite element.
attaches to the added finite element.

1. Typological aspects 19 1. Typological aspects 20

Subtype A/Fin/NegVerb Comrie’s hierarchy (1981)

The lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker is
the finite element of the negative clause. imperative
> {tense / person / number}
> mood
> aspect
> voice
„ Revisited in Miestamo (2004)
‰ Valid for non-Uralic languages as well.
‰ With the exception of the imperative, this hierarchy
conforms to what is marked on finite auxiliaries and
dependent (lexical) verbs more generally in the world’s
languages.

1. Typological aspects 21 1. Typological aspects 22

Subtype A/Fin/NegVerb Subtype A/NonReal

The lexical verb loses its finiteness and the negative marker is
the finite element of the negative clause. The negative differs from the corresponding affirmative in that it is
marked for a category that denotes non-realized states of affairs.

1. Typological aspects 23 1. Typological aspects 24

Negation 4
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Subtype A/NonReal Subtype A/Emph

The negative differs from the corresponding affirmative in that it is
marked for a category that denotes non-realized states of affairs. The negative differs from the corresponding affirmative in that it is
marked for a category that expresses emphasis in non-negatives.

1. Typological aspects 25 1. Typological aspects 26

Subtype A/Emph Subtype A/Cat

Negatives differ from affirmatives in how grammatical categories are marked,
The negative differs from the corresponding affirmative in that it is but no generalizations can be made about how the categories are affected (as
marked for a category that expresses emphasis in non-negatives. is done in the other three subtypes). Grammatical distinctions made in the
affirmative are often lost in the negative.

1. Typological aspects 27 1. Typological aspects 28

Subtype A/Cat/TAM Subtype A/Cat/TAM

A/Cat asymmetry affecting the marking of tense-aspect-mood.
A/Cat asymmetry affecting the marking of tense-aspect-mood.

1. Typological aspects 29 1. Typological aspects 30

Negation 5
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Subtype A/Cat/PNG A/Cat asymmetry affecting Subtype A/Cat/PNG

the marking of person-
number-gender.
A/Cat asymmetry affecting the marking of person-number-gender.

1. Typological aspects 31 1. Typological aspects 32

Variation in the marking of negation Negative imperatives: Type I (van der

Auwera & Lejeune 2005)
„ Certain grammatical environments are more likely than others to
have negative constructions different from standard negation. The prohibitive uses the verbal construction of the second singular
imperative and a sentential negative strategy found in (indicative)
„ In Kahrel’s (1996: 70–71) 40-language sample, imperatives,
declaratives
existentials and nonverbal clauses were the most common
environments for nonstandard negative constructions:
‰ imperatives showed nonstandard negatives in 17 languages,
‰ existentials in nine languages
‰ nonverbal clauses in eight languages.
‰ In addition to these three clause types, different environments,
e.g. different TAM categories, may show different negative
constructions, even within SN, but no typological generalizations
can be made over these environments.

1. Typological aspects 33 1. Typological aspects 34

Negative imperatives: Type II (van der Negative imperatives: Type III (van der
Auwera & Lejeune 2005) Auwera & Lejeune 2005)
The prohibitive uses the verbal construction of the second singular
The prohibitive uses a verbal construction other than the
imperative and a sentential negative strategy not found in
second singular positive imperative and a sentential negative
(indicative) declaratives
strategy found in (indicative) declaratives

1. Typological aspects 35 1. Typological aspects 36

Negation 6
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Negative imperatives: Type IV (van der Negative imperatives (van der Auwera &
Auwera & Lejeune 2005) Lejeune 2005)
The prohibitive uses a verbal construction other than the second
singular positive imperative and a sentential negative strategy not
found in (indicative) declaratives

„ Asymmetry between negative and positive imperatives addressed by

Miestamo & van der Auwera (2007).

1. Typological aspects 37 1. Typological aspects 38

Negative existentials: Type A (Croft 1991) Negative existentials: Type B (Croft 1991)
The ordinary existential predicate is negated by the verbal negator

There is a negative
existential predicate
different from the
verbal negator

1. Typological aspects 39 1. Typological aspects 40

Negative existentials: Type C (Croft 1991) Negative indefinites: Type I (Kahrel 1996)
The negative existential is identical to the verbal negator
Standard negation is found with ordinary (positive)
indefinites

„ Nonverbal and existential negation also studied by Eriksen (2005)

and Veselinova (2006).

1. Typological aspects 41 1. Typological aspects 42

Negation 7
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Negative indefinites: Type II (Kahrel Negative indefinites: Type III (Kahrel

1996) 1996)
Standard negation appears with a special indefinite There is an inherently negative indefinite
different from the one used in corresponding positives pronoun without standard negation

1. Typological aspects 43 1. Typological aspects 44

Negative indefinites: Type IV (Kahrel Negative indefinites: Type V (Kahrel

1996) 1996)
There is no indefinite pronoun at all, and the
An inherently negative indefinite pronoun is
equivalent function is expressed with an
accompanied by standard negation
existential construction

1. Typological aspects 45 1. Typological aspects 46

Negative indefinites: Haspelmath’s (1997) Negative indefinites: Type NV-NI

semantic map (Haspelmath 1997, 2005)
direct
negation
indirect (7)
question negation
(4) (6)

(1) (2) (3)

specific specific irrealis
known unknown non-specific
(5) (8)
conditional comparative (9)
free
choice

1. Typological aspects 47 1. Typological aspects 48

Negation 8
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Negative indefinites: Type V-NI Negative indefinites: Type (N)V-NI

(Haspelmath 1997, 2005) (Haspelmath 1997, 2005)

1. Typological aspects 49 1. Typological aspects 50

Negative indefinite pronouns and Towards a typological questionnaire of negation

predicate negation (Haspelmath 2005)
„ Clausal negation
‰ Describe the different constructions used to express negation.
„ Negative marker(s): type, position, number (single, double?)
„ Structural differences between affirmatives vs. negatives?
‰ constructional asymmetry? any paradigmatic asymmetry involved?
‰ note the details specific to the subtypes found.
‰ Which environments are they used in (e.g., different TAM categories,
different clause types, main vs. dependent clauses, etc.)? Note specifically
which categories/environments use the same construction.
„ Non-clausal negation
‰ Negative indefinites: negativity of the indefinite (cf. semantic map),
cooccurrence with clausal negation
‰ Constituent negation (e.g., Foc Neg-Verb vs. Neg-Foc Verb) (and scope-
related questions more generally)
‰ Negative derivation
‰ Negative polarity
‰ Negative transport

1. Typological aspects 51 1. Typological aspects 52

Uralic languages Standard Negation

Type Subtype Further Languages
Subtypes
„ Sources symmetric Khanty, Hungarian,
‰ Grammars negation S Kamass, Komi, Mansi,
Mordvin, Selkup, Udmurt
‰ Native speakers
asymmetric A/Fin A/Fin/Neg-FE Mari
‰ Textbooks negation Enets, Estonian, Finnish,
Ingrian, Kamass,
A/Fin/NegVerb Karelian, Khanty,
)the data from several languages are Komi, Livonian, Mansi,
Mari, Mordvin, Nenets,
incomplete or inexact, thus the Nganasan, Selkup, Saami,
classification is not totally final Udmurt, Veps, Votic
A/Cat A/Cat/TAM Komi, Mari, Udmurt

2. Uralic languages 53 2. Uralic languages 54

Negation 9
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Standard Negation Symmetric negation

„ Symmetric vs. asymmetric negation
„ There are languages where differences are
found in structure or in negative markers
in different tenses.
‰ different negative marker:
Komi
„
‰ structural differences:
„ Kamass, Selkup, Mari, Mordvin, Udmurt,
„ Ugric languages: in all tenses
„ Samoyed: Selkup and Kamass
‰ Kamass: in past tense, participial and gerundial
structures (secondary process)
‰ Selkup
„ Volgaic and Permic languages:
‰ Mordvin: in present, future and in past tense 2
‰ Permic languages: only in past tense

2. Uralic languages 55 2. Uralic languages 56

2. Uralic languages 57 2. Uralic languages 58

Asymmetric negation Subtype: A/Fin/NegVerb

„ Uralic languages most often use the
structure A/Fin
‰ A/Fin/Neg-FE: only in Mari
‰ A/Fin/NegVerb: most frequently
„ There are languages, where this structure's
appearance depends on the tense
‰ Kamass, Mordvin, Permic languages
„ No occurrence in:
‰ Hungarian
„ The negative verb can be an auxiliary or an other
negative verb
„ Most of the Uralic languages use an auxiliary
„ Paradigm of negative auxiliary
‰ Nganasan: full paradigms
‰ Finnish: number is marked on the auxiliary,
but tense on the lexical verb
‰ Estonian: the negative auxiliary has lost all
verbal inflections and looks like a particle; but
the lexical verb does not carry any inflections

2. Uralic languages 59 2. Uralic languages 60

Negation 10
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Paradigm of negative Auxiliaries

Cf. Comrie‘s hierarchy (1981)

2. Uralic languages 61 2. Uralic languages 62

Change of the negative marker

„ The negative verb is not an auxiliary, but an
„ Depending on tense, the verb form can also change: existential verb
‰ Selkup, Khanty, Mansi
‰ Komi: present o-, past e-

63 2. Uralic languages 64

Subtype: A/Fin/Neg-FE Subtype: A/Cat/TAM

A/Fin/Neg-FE: the finite element is non-negative, the negative marker is A/Cat asymmetry affecting the marking of tense-aspect-mood, cf. slide 29
placed in relation to the finite element , cf. slide 19

„ Not at all typical for Uralic languages, occurs in

„ Not at all typical for Uralic languages, occurs only in Udmurt (Past 2: etymologically a PtcpPast and
Mari (Past 2) (Past2: etymologycally a gerund) PtcpPastNeg) and in Komi

notice the word order: V Aux

2. Uralic languages 65 2. Uralic languages 66

Negation 11
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

Position of negative marker in Uralic Non-standard Negation

languages „ Semantically not empty negative auxiliaries
„ Negative particles tend to be pre-posed (Mansi, ‰ In all North-Samoyedic languages
Khanty, Hungarian, Selkup, Mordvin)

„ Word order of structures with auxiliaries:

Word order Languages
OV & VAux Eastern Mari
OV & AuxV Kamass, Komi, Enets, Mari, Mordvin
Nenets, Nganasan, Udmurt,
VO & VAux -----
VO & AuxV Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Veps,
Votic, Ingrian, Saami
cf: different word order, different form of lexical verb

2. Uralic languages 67 2. Uralic languages 68

„ Negative lexical verbs Negative imperative

‰ In all North-Samoyedic languages
„ Van der Auwera & Lejeune (2005) only deal with the
imperative of the 2nd person singular, while several Uralic
languages have a full paradigm (e.g. Northern Samoyedic
languages, Hungarian)
„ In many Uralic languages the imperative is treated
differently,
„ The Neg of the imperative can also be used in other moods
(e.g. Enets: debitive)
„ Aux is often not able to take up mood markers (e.g. Finnish,
Veps)

‘I would give’

2. Uralic languages 69 2. Uralic languages 70

Type I: Normal imperative – normal negative Type II: Normal imperative – special negative
„ only in Nganasan (in contrast to WALS (spec.-spec.)) „ Ugric and Samoyedic languages (except
Nganasan); Mordvin, Finnish, Estonian, Mari

2. Uralic languages 71 2. Uralic languages 72

Negation 12
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy
Type IV: Special imperative – special negative
Type A: normal–normal (L Neg cop T)
„ Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian (Past and Future)
Estonian
a. Ma ei näe raamatut.
b. Laual on raamat.
c. Laual ei ole raamatut.
Hungarian (Past and Future)
a. Nem látok almát.
b. Az asztalon van alma.
c. Az asztalon nem volt alma.
d. Az asztalon nem lesz alma.
Negation
September 27, 2008
Negative existentials
„ In the Uralic languages Type B (special
existential negation) is the most frequent
„ There can be divergencies between the marking of
the different tenses, cf. Hungarian, Selkup.
Type A: Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian (Past and
Future)
Type B: Enets, Hungarian (Present), Kamass,
Khanty, Mansi Mordvin, Nenets, Nganasan
(proform existential), Selkup
Type C: Mansi, Khanty, Selkup (Past)
2. Uralic languages 73 2. Uralic languages 74
Type B: special existential negation
(L NegExst T)
„ Enets, Hungarian (Present), Kamass, Khanty, Mansi
Mordvin, Nenets, Nganasan (proform existential), Selkup
‘I don’t see a book.’
‘There is a book on the table.’ Hungarian
‘There is no book on the table.’ Az asztalon nincs alma.
‘There are no apples on the table.’ (L NegExst T)
Mordvin
‘I don’t see any apples.’
a. A sodasa ťe avańť. ‘I don't know this woman.’
‘There is an apple on the table.’
b. Tuvor langso umaŕ. ‘There are apples on the table.’
‘There were no apples on the table.’
c. Tuvor langso umaŕ araś. ‘There are no apples on the table.’
‘There will be no apples on the table.’
2. Uralic languages 75 2. Uralic languages 76
Distinction between SN, EN and Nonverbal
Negation
SN EN NN
Standard Negation Existential Negation Nonverbal Negation
Estonian, Finnish
Nganasan
Hung., Mordvin,
Nenets, Enets,
Selkup
Komi, Khanty,
Mansi
2. Uralic languages 77 2. Uralic languages 78
13
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy September 27, 2008

No distinction between standard, Three way distinction

existential and nonverbal negation „ only in Nganasan
„ Estonian, Finnish

Mikko ei laula. ‘Mikko doesn't sing.’

Mikko ei ole lääkäri. ‘Mikko is not a doctor.’
Pöydällä ei ole omenoita. ‘There are no apples on the table. ’

2. Uralic languages 79 2. Uralic languages 80

SN and NN versus EN SN versus EN NN

„ Hungarian, Mordvin, Nenets, Enets, Selkup „ Komi, Khanty, Mansi

2. Uralic languages 81 2. Uralic languages 82

Negative indefinites: sources Negative Indefinite and Verbal Negation

„ Uralic languages: the negative indefinite always co-
occurs with SN: verbal negation + negative indefinite
„ negative indefinite from non-negative scalar focus (Type NV-NI)
particles
‰ Selkup: ‘nobody’, Nganasan, Nenets,
Enets
„ negative indefinite from negative scalar focus
particles
‰ Hun. sem-mi ‘nothing’, Selkup ‘nobody’,
Mansi ‘nothing’, Finnish, Estonian etc.

2. Uralic languages 83 2. Uralic languages 84

Negation 14
Miestamo & Wagner-Nagy
Conclusions
„ Proposed typological parameters do not
cover all relevant distinctions in the
domain.
„ To have full coverage of the domain of
negation in Uralic languages, we have to go
beyond what has been proposed in the
typological literature so far.
„ But this naturally applies to every
functional domain to be included in the
database.
3. Conclusions 85
References [cont.]
„ Dryer, Matthew. 2005. Negative morphemes. World atlas of language structures, ed. by Martin Haspelmath,
Matthew Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie, 454-457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
„ Eriksen, Pål Kristian. 2005. On the typology and the semantics of non-verbal predication. Oslo: University of Oslo
dissertation.
„ Everett, Dan, and Barbara Kern. 1997. Wari', The Pacaas Novos Language of Western Brazil. Descriptive
Grammars. London: Routledge.
„ Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existential and other Locatives, Language 68: 553-595.
„ Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Mouton Grammar Library 9. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
„ Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
„ Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation. World atlas of language
structures, ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie, 466-469. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
„ Honti, László 1997: Die Negation im Uralischen I–III., LU XXXIII, 81–96, 161–176, 241–252.
„ Itkonen, Erkki 1960: Lappische Chretomathie mit grammatikalischem Abriss und Wörterverzeichnis, Suomalais-
ugrilainen Seura, Helsinki
„ Jacobsen, William. 1964. A Grammar of the Washo Language. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California,
Berkeley.
Jacobson, Steven A. 1990. A Practical Grammar of the St. Lawrence Island / Siberian Yupik Eskimo Language.
„
Preliminary edition. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, College of Liberal Arts, University of Alaska.
„ Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Konelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.
Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser I,5. Copenhagen: Høst.
„ Joki, Aulis 1944: Kai Donners Kamassisches Wörterbuch nebst Sprachproben und Hauptzügen der Grammatik.
Lexika Societatis Fenno-Ugricae VIII, Helsinki
„ Kahrel, Peter. 1996. Aspects of Negation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
„ Kálmán, Béla 1965: Vogul Chrestomathy, Bloomington, Indiana University
Kämpfe, Hans-Rainer, and Alexander P. Volodin. 1995. Abriss der Tschuktschischen Grammatik auf der Basis der
„
Schriftsprache. Tunguso-Sibirica 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kel'makov, Valentin – Sara Hännikäinen 1999: Udmurtin kielioppia ja harjoituksia, SUS, Helsinki
„
87
References [cont.]
„ Ramstedt, G. J. 1997. A Korean Grammar. Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia LXXXII. Helsinki: Suomalais-
ugrilainen seura. [Reimpression, originally published in 1939].
„ Rédei, Károly 1978: Syrjänische Chrestomathie, Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs,
Wien
„ Riese, Timothy 2001: Vogul. Languages of the World/Materials 158, Lincom Europa, München
Rombandeeva, Evdokija 1995: Sygvinskij dialekt mansijskogo (voguľskogo) jazyka. Mitteilungen der Societas
„
Uralo-Altaica 14, Hamburg
„ Sapir, J. David. 1965. A Grammar of Diola-Fogny. West African Language Monographs 3. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
„ Savijärvi, Ilkka 1977: Itämerensuomalasten kielten kieltoverbi, I. Suomi, SKS, Helsinki
„ Schaaik, Gerjan van. 1994. Turkish. Typological studies in negation, ed. by Peter Kahrel, and René van den Berg,
35-50. Typological Studies in Language 29. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
„ Sneddon, James Neil. 1996. Indonesian, A Comprehensive Grammar. Comprehensive Grammars. London:
Routledge.
Sorokina, I. P. – Bolina, D. S. 2001: Slovar' enecko-russkij i russko-eneckij, St. Petersburg
„
„ Sorokina, I. P. – Bolina, D. S. 2005: Eneckie teksty, Nauka, Sankt-Petersbur
„ Stevenson, R. C. 1969. Bagirmi Grammar. Linguistic Monograph Series 3. Khartoum: Sudan Research Unit,
University of Khartoum.
„ Tereshchenko, N. M. 1966: Nenecko-russkij slovar', Moscow
„ Veselinova, Ljuba 2006. Towards a typology of negation in non-verbal and existential sentences. Paper given at
The 80th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, January 5-8, 2006, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque. [www.ling.su.se/staff/ljuba/Non-verbalNegation01.pdf ]
Walker, Alan T. 1982. A Grammar of Sawu. NUSA Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Languages in Indonesia
„
13. Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya.
„ Wagner-Nagy, Beáta (ed.) 2002: Chrestomathia nganasanica = SUA Sup. 10, Szeged
Weir, Helen. 1994. Nadëb. In Peter Kahrel and René‚ van den Berg, ed., Typological Studies in Negation.
„
Typological Studies in Language 29. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 291-323.
89
Negation
September 27, 2008
References
„ Alhoniemi, Alho 1985: Marin kielioppi, Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, Helsinki
„ Ariste, Paul 1968: A Grammar of the Votic Language, Mouton & Co. – Indiana University, The Hague –
„
Bloomington.
Auwera, Johan van der , and Ludo Lejeune. 2005. The prohibitive. World atlas of language structures, ed. by
Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie, 290-293. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
„
„
Bartens, Raija 2000: Permilästen kielten rakenne ja kehitys = MSFOu 238, Helsinki
Bereczki, Gábor 1990: Chrestomathia Ceremissica, Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest
„ Bowden, John. 1997. Taba (Makian Dalam): Description of an Austronesian Language from Eastern Indonesia.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Melbourne.
„ Bright, William. 1957. The Karok Language. University of California Publications in Linguistics 13. Berkeley:
„
University of California Press.
Capell, A., and H. E. Hinch. 1970. Maung Grammar. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 98. The Hague: Mouton.
„ Chamoreau, Claudine. 2000. Grammaire du purépecha. Lincom Studies in Native American Linguistics 34.
München: Lincom Europa.
Chelliah, Shobhana L. 1997. A Grammar of Meithei. Mouton Grammar Library 17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
„
„ Churchward, C. Maxwell. 1953. Tongan Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.
„ Comrie, Bernard 1981. Negation and Other Verb Categories in the Uralic Languages, CIFU VI, Turku, 350–355.
„
„
Cornyn, William. 1944. Outline of Burmese Grammar. Language Dissertation 38. Supplement to Language vol. 20,
no. 4. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.
Croft, William 1991: The evolution of negation, Linguistics 27, 1-27
„
„
Csepregi, Márta 1998: Szurguti osztják chrestomathia = SUA Supplementum 6, Szeged
Dahl, Östen 1979: Typology of sentence negation, Linguistics 17, 79–106.
„ Dayley, Jon P. 1985. Tzutujil grammar. University of California Publications in Linguistics 107. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Donaldson, Tasmin. 1980. Ngiyambaa: The Language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
„
29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
„ Dryer, Matthew. 1988. Universals of negative position. Studies in syntactic typology, ed. by Michael Hammond,
Edith Moravcsik, and Jessica Wirth, 93-124. Typological Studies in Language 17. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
„ Dryer, Matthew. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68.81-138.
86
References [cont.]
„ Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1991. Koasati Grammar. Studies in the Anthropology of North American Indians. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
„ Koehn, Edward, and Sally Koehn. 1986. Apalai. In Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum, ed., Handbook
of Amazonian Languages, vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 33-127.
„ Kozmács, István 1998: Udmurt nyelvkönyv, Szeged-Kecskemét
„ Kettunen, Lauri 1938: Livisches Wörterbuch, SUS, Helsinki.
„ Klumpp, Gerson 2001: Alte Negation und neue Tempora im Kamassischen, in Eichner, Heiner – Peter-Arnold
Mumm – Oswald Panagl – Eberhard Winkler: Fremd und Eigen, Edition Preasens, Wien, 117–128.
„ Laanest, Arvo 1982: Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen, Buske, Hamburg
„ Lazdiņa, Terẽza B. 1966. Latvian. (Teach Yourself Books.) London: The English Universities Press.
Mészáros, Edit 1998: Erza-mordvin nyelvkönyv kezdőknek és középhaladóknak, JATEPress, Szeged
„
„ Miestamo,Matti. 2004 Suomen kieltoverbikonstruktio typologisessa valossa. Virittäjä 108: 364–388.
„ 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. 2007. Negation – An Overview of Typological Research. Language and Linguistics Compass 1 (5):
552-570.
„ Miestamo, Matti, and Johan van der Auwera. 2007. Negative declaratives and negative imperatives: similarities and
differences. Linguistics Festival, May 2006 Bremen, ed. by Andreas Ammann, 59-77. Diversitas Linguarum 14.
Bochum: Brockmeyer.
„ Najlis, Elena Lidia. 1973. Lengua Selknam. Filolog¡a y Ling¡stica 3. Buenos Aires: Universidad del Salvador.
„ Nedjalkov, Igor. 1994. Evenki. In Peter Kahrel and Ren‚ van den Berg, ed., Typological Studies in Negation.
Typological Studies in Language 29. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1 34.
„ Newman, Paul. 1970. A Grammar of Tera. University of California Publications in Linguistics 57. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
„ Nikolaeva, Irina 1999: Ostyak, Lincom Europa, München
„ Owens, Jonathan. 1985. A Grammar of Harar Oromo (Northeastern Ethiopia). Kuschitische Sprachstudien 4.
Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
„ Payne, John. R. 1985. Negation. Language typology and syntactic description, volume I, Clause structure, ed. by
Timothy Shopen, 197-242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
„ Penchoen, Thomas G. 1973. Tamazight of the Ayt Ndhir. Afroasiatic Dialects 1. Los Angeles: Udena Publications.
88
Abbreviations
1 first person, 2 second person, 3 third person, ABS absolutive,
ACC accusative, ACT actual, ADEL adelative, ADJ adjective, AFF
affirmative, ALL allative, ART article, ASS assertive, AUX auxiliary,
CAR caritive, CERT certitive, CLT clitic, CMPL completive, CN
connegative, CONT continuative, COP copula, CVB converb, DAT
dative, DECL declarative, DEF definite, DUR durative, EL elative,
ERG ergative, EX existential, EXCL exclusive, F feminine, FOC
focus, FUT future, GER gerund, GND gender, HAB habitual, HYP
hypothetical, IMP imperative, IMPF imperfective, IMPST
immediate past, INCL inclusive, IND indicative, INDEF indefinite,
INF infinitive, IRR irrealis, LOC locative, M masculine, N neuter,
N~ non~ (e.g. NPST = nonpast), NEG negation/negative,
NOMACT nomen actionis, O objective conjugation, PART partitive,
PERF perfect, PFV perfective, PL plural, POT potential, PRES
present, PROF proform, PST past, PTCL particle, PTCP participle,
R realis, RS relativized subject, SBJN subjunctive, SG singular,
SUBJ subject, SURP surprise mood, T theme, V verb.
90
15