Meyer, Robin: The Relevance of Typology for Pattern Replication. Journal of Language Contact, 12 (3), pp. 569–608, 2020. (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX)@article{MeyerJLC,
title = {The Relevance of Typology for Pattern Replication},
author = {Robin Meyer},
url = {https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/jlc/12/3/article-p569_569.xml},
doi = {10.1163/19552629-01203002},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-14},
journal = {Journal of Language Contact},
volume = {12},
number = {3},
pages = {569–608},
abstract = {Structuralists and generativists have insisted for a long time that the elements and structures one language could borrow from another are constrained by typological compatibility, naturalness, and other factors (cf. Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 13–34). Such constraints are still thought to apply to structural interference, or pattern replication in the terms of Matras and Sakel (2007), and the often concomitant contact-induced grammaticalisation of non-native structures.
This paper suggests that a priori there are no typological constraints against pattern replication in general. It is proposed that typological differences between model and replica pattern are only of relevance during the grammaticalisation and maintenance of such patterns in the replica language; in other words, typological constraints do not apply at the stage of pattern replication. It will be argued that typology, in the form of system pressure, interacts with pattern frequency and socio-historical factors, which together determine retention, adaptation, or loss of a replicated pattern.
This argument is illustrated on the basis of three short studies of partial alignment change in Old Aramaic, Classical Armenian, and North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic, all of which have been in contact with Iranian languages for extended periods. In each case, Iranian ergative alignment patterns have been replicated, adapted, grammaticalised to varying degrees, and finally ousted in favour of nominative-accusative alignment. The loss of the replica pattern in each case is shown to be dependent on both typology, extent of bilingualism, and pattern frequency.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Structuralists and generativists have insisted for a long time that the elements and structures one language could borrow from another are constrained by typological compatibility, naturalness, and other factors (cf. Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 13–34). Such constraints are still thought to apply to structural interference, or pattern replication in the terms of Matras and Sakel (2007), and the often concomitant contact-induced grammaticalisation of non-native structures.
This paper suggests that a priori there are no typological constraints against pattern replication in general. It is proposed that typological differences between model and replica pattern are only of relevance during the grammaticalisation and maintenance of such patterns in the replica language; in other words, typological constraints do not apply at the stage of pattern replication. It will be argued that typology, in the form of system pressure, interacts with pattern frequency and socio-historical factors, which together determine retention, adaptation, or loss of a replicated pattern.
This argument is illustrated on the basis of three short studies of partial alignment change in Old Aramaic, Classical Armenian, and North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic, all of which have been in contact with Iranian languages for extended periods. In each case, Iranian ergative alignment patterns have been replicated, adapted, grammaticalised to varying degrees, and finally ousted in favour of nominative-accusative alignment. The loss of the replica pattern in each case is shown to be dependent on both typology, extent of bilingualism, and pattern frequency. |
Meyer, Robin: Syntactical Peculiarities of Relative Clauses in the Armenian New Testament. Revue des Études Arméniennes, 38 , pp. 35–83, 2018. (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX)@article{meyerforth_REArm,
title = {Syntactical Peculiarities of Relative Clauses in the Armenian New Testament},
author = {Robin Meyer},
doi = {10.2143/REA.38.0.3285778},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-09-03},
journal = {Revue des Études Arméniennes},
volume = {38},
pages = {35–83},
abstract = {This paper endeavours to show that, at least as far as the syntax of relative clauses is concerned, the form of the Armenian language employed in the Bible translation does not fully correspond to that found in non-translated Armenian literature.
It will be shown that, as argued by Lafontaine and Coulie (1983), next to Classical and Hellenising Armenian, we must construe a pre-Hellenising layer of the language. This layer, it is argued, is not to be separated from the Yunaban Dproc‘; instead, both form part of a continuum of Greek influence on Armenian. This is evident in the applicability of different case matching restrictions in Biblical texts compared to the works of Agat‘angełos, Eznik, and Ełišē, specifically in free and light-headed relative clauses. The case of the relative pronoun in Greek relative clauses can be determined by the matrix clause in Biblical Armenian, whereas in non-translated literature such structures do generally not occur.
It will further be argued that cases of Armenian ‘relative attraction’ present almost exclusively in free relative clauses; taking as its basis patterns put forward by Grosu (1994) and Keenan and Comrie (1977), these cases of attraction, together with evidence from Greek, will be taken as indication for the existence of what may be called Discourse Accessibility Hierarchy.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This paper endeavours to show that, at least as far as the syntax of relative clauses is concerned, the form of the Armenian language employed in the Bible translation does not fully correspond to that found in non-translated Armenian literature.
It will be shown that, as argued by Lafontaine and Coulie (1983), next to Classical and Hellenising Armenian, we must construe a pre-Hellenising layer of the language. This layer, it is argued, is not to be separated from the Yunaban Dproc‘; instead, both form part of a continuum of Greek influence on Armenian. This is evident in the applicability of different case matching restrictions in Biblical texts compared to the works of Agat‘angełos, Eznik, and Ełišē, specifically in free and light-headed relative clauses. The case of the relative pronoun in Greek relative clauses can be determined by the matrix clause in Biblical Armenian, whereas in non-translated literature such structures do generally not occur.
It will further be argued that cases of Armenian ‘relative attraction’ present almost exclusively in free relative clauses; taking as its basis patterns put forward by Grosu (1994) and Keenan and Comrie (1977), these cases of attraction, together with evidence from Greek, will be taken as indication for the existence of what may be called Discourse Accessibility Hierarchy. |
Meyer, Robin: Morphosyntactic Alignment and the Classical Armenian Periphrastic Perfect. Jamison, Stephanie W; Melchert, Craig H; Vine, Brent (Ed.): Proceedings of the 26th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference : Los Angeles, October 24th and 25th, 2014, pp. 117–133, Hempen, Bremen, 2016. (Type: Incollection | Links | BibTeX)@incollection{Meyer2016,
title = {Morphosyntactic Alignment and the Classical Armenian Periphrastic Perfect},
author = {Robin Meyer},
editor = {Stephanie W Jamison and Craig H Melchert and Brent Vine},
url = {https://secureservercdn.net/160.153.137.40/m85.d3a.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Meyer_2015_online.pdf},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-01-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference : Los Angeles, October 24th and 25th, 2014},
pages = {117--133},
publisher = {Hempen},
address = {Bremen},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
|
Meyer, Robin: Remodelling the Historical Morphology of the Classical Armenian -eal participle. Banber Matenadarani, 21 , pp. 385–398, 2014. (Type: Journal Article | Links | BibTeX)@article{meyer2014a,
title = {Remodelling the Historical Morphology of the Classical Armenian -eal participle},
author = {Robin Meyer},
url = {https://secureservercdn.net/160.153.137.40/m85.d3a.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Meyer-2014-Remodelling-the-Historical-Morphology-of-the-Classical-Armenian-eal-Participle-publ.pdf},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-01},
journal = {Banber Matenadarani},
volume = {21},
pages = {385--398},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
Meyer, Robin: Armeno-Iranian Structural Interaction: The Case of Parthian wxd, Armenian ink`n. Iran and the Caucasus, 17 (4), pp. 401-425, 2013. (Type: Journal Article | Links | BibTeX)@article{meyer13b,
title = {Armeno-Iranian Structural Interaction: The Case of Parthian wxd, Armenian ink`n},
author = {Robin Meyer},
url = {https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:bd656166-a435-48fc-b2df-069f68aacb18/datastreams/ATTACHMENT01},
doi = {10.1163/1573384X-20130406},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-01-01},
journal = {Iran and the Caucasus},
volume = {17},
number = {4},
pages = {401-425},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
Meyer, Robin: Languages in Contact: Armenian and Iranian. Orengo, Alessandro; Tinti, Irene (Ed.): Armenian Linguistics, 23 (2), Brill, Leiden, Forthcoming. (Type: Incollection | BibTeX)@incollection{meyerfortha,
title = {Languages in Contact: Armenian and Iranian},
author = {Robin Meyer},
editor = {Alessandro Orengo and Irene Tinti},
booktitle = {Armenian Linguistics},
volume = {23},
number = {2},
publisher = {Brill},
address = {Leiden},
series = {Handbuch der Orientalistik},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
|
Meyer, Robin: The Armenian Version of the τέχνη γραμματική: a Linguistically Uncomfortable Compromise. Bonfiglio, Emilio; Rapp, Claudia (Ed.): Armenia & Byzantium without Borders, Brill, Leiden, Forthcoming. (Type: Incollection | BibTeX)@incollection{MeyerDT,
title = {The Armenian Version of the τέχνη γραμματική: a Linguistically Uncomfortable Compromise},
author = {Robin Meyer},
editor = {Emilio Bonfiglio and Claudia Rapp},
booktitle = {Armenia & Byzantium without Borders},
publisher = {Brill},
address = {Leiden},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
|
Meyer, Robin: Alignment change and changing alignments: Armenian syntax and the first ‘death’ of Parthian. Bianconi, M; Capano, M; Romagno, D; Rovai, F (Ed.): Contact, Variation, and Reconstruction in the Ancient Indo-European Languages: between Linguistics and Philology, Brill, Leiden, Forthcoming. (Type: Incollection | Abstract | BibTeX)@incollection{MeyerBianconi,
title = {Alignment change and changing alignments: Armenian syntax and the first ‘death’ of Parthian},
author = {Robin Meyer},
editor = {M. Bianconi and M. Capano and D. Romagno and F. Rovai},
booktitle = {Contact, Variation, and Reconstruction in the Ancient Indo-European Languages: between Linguistics and Philology},
publisher = {Brill},
address = {Leiden},
abstract = {This paper seeks to combine the insights gathered in a corpus study of the periphrastic perfect in Classical Armenian texts from the 5th century CE and research into the socio-historical and political interactions of the Armenians and their Iranian neighbours in the same time period.
It is argued that the construction of the Classical Armenian perfect, which consists of a participle in -eal (< PIE *-lo-) and an optional form of the copula, is most accurately described as tripartite morphosyntactic alignment:
• intransitive and transitive passive verbs construe with a NOM subject under subject agreement of the copula;
• transitive active verbs take GEN agents, ACC objects, and the copula is an invariant 3.SG.
This pattern shows some diachronic variation and by the 8th century CE has given way to NOM–ACC alignment under pressure from the rest of the verbal system. Based on observations in the corpus and typological data, this alignment pattern can be explained as a case of pattern replication and pivot matching of a Middle Iranian, specifically Parthian, ERG–ABS model in pre-literary times and subsequent adaptation to Armenian requirements cf. Meyer (2016; 2017).
This explanation is lent further credence by the existence of both a great wealth of Iranian loanwords in Armenian, as well as a small number of other syntactic patterns that have clear Iranian parallels. Furthermore, the prevalence of political quarrels between the Parthian rulers of Armenia and other Iranians, their adoption of Christianity in c. 301 CE, frequent intermarriage with Armenians, and the lack of any Parthian language documents in the area suggest that the existence of Iranian syntactic patterns in Armenian is due not only to language contact, but indeed to language shift of the Parthian ruling class to Armenian. This, in turn, may provide a partial explanation of the first ‘death’ of Parthian, a significant attestation gap between Arsacid inscriptions and later religious documents.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
This paper seeks to combine the insights gathered in a corpus study of the periphrastic perfect in Classical Armenian texts from the 5th century CE and research into the socio-historical and political interactions of the Armenians and their Iranian neighbours in the same time period.
It is argued that the construction of the Classical Armenian perfect, which consists of a participle in -eal (< PIE *-lo-) and an optional form of the copula, is most accurately described as tripartite morphosyntactic alignment:
• intransitive and transitive passive verbs construe with a NOM subject under subject agreement of the copula;
• transitive active verbs take GEN agents, ACC objects, and the copula is an invariant 3.SG.
This pattern shows some diachronic variation and by the 8th century CE has given way to NOM–ACC alignment under pressure from the rest of the verbal system. Based on observations in the corpus and typological data, this alignment pattern can be explained as a case of pattern replication and pivot matching of a Middle Iranian, specifically Parthian, ERG–ABS model in pre-literary times and subsequent adaptation to Armenian requirements cf. Meyer (2016; 2017).
This explanation is lent further credence by the existence of both a great wealth of Iranian loanwords in Armenian, as well as a small number of other syntactic patterns that have clear Iranian parallels. Furthermore, the prevalence of political quarrels between the Parthian rulers of Armenia and other Iranians, their adoption of Christianity in c. 301 CE, frequent intermarriage with Armenians, and the lack of any Parthian language documents in the area suggest that the existence of Iranian syntactic patterns in Armenian is due not only to language contact, but indeed to language shift of the Parthian ruling class to Armenian. This, in turn, may provide a partial explanation of the first ‘death’ of Parthian, a significant attestation gap between Arsacid inscriptions and later religious documents.
|
Meyer, Robin: Multilingualism in Poetry: How to Translate Sayat‘-Nova. Alpi, Federico; Meyer, Robin; Tinti, Irene; Zakarian, David (Ed.): Armenia in Context, Brill, Leiden, Forthcoming. (Type: Incollection | BibTeX)@incollection{MeyerFSvL,
title = {Multilingualism in Poetry: How to Translate Sayat‘-Nova},
author = {Robin Meyer},
editor = {Federico Alpi and Robin Meyer and Irene Tinti and David Zakarian},
booktitle = {Armenia in Context},
publisher = {Brill},
address = {Leiden},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
|
Meyer, Robin: Armenian Morphosyntactic Alignment in Diachrony. Dahl, Eystein (Ed.): Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European family, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Forthcoming. (Type: Incollection | Abstract | BibTeX)@incollection{MeyerDahl,
title = {Armenian Morphosyntactic Alignment in Diachrony},
author = {Robin Meyer},
editor = {Dahl, Eystein},
booktitle = {Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European family},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
address = {Oxford},
abstract = {This article outlines the development of morphosyntactic alignment in Armenian from its pre-attested stage to modern forms of the language. On the basis of numerous examples, it is shown that, for the most part, Armenian follows a nominative–accusative alignment pattern; the only exception occurs in the periphrastic perfect in Classical Armenian. This tense, composed of a historically passive-intransitive participle and a fossilized third-person singular form of the copula, shows tripartite alignment: subjects are marked as nominative, agents as genitive, and objects as accusative. This tense-sensitive alignment split prevails until the end of the Classical Armenian period.
After a discussion of previous explanatory approaches, it is suggested that the origin of this alignment pattern lies in the contact with the West Middle Iranian language Parthian from which Armenian has borrowed heavily in almost all linguistic domains. The Armenian perfect and its alignment are the grammaticalised result of pattern replication, a process by which the Parthian ergative–absolutive past tense is borrowed into Armenian and there realized by means of the participle. The change from ergative–absolutive to tripartite alignment is based on morphosyntactic re-analysis of the object case.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
This article outlines the development of morphosyntactic alignment in Armenian from its pre-attested stage to modern forms of the language. On the basis of numerous examples, it is shown that, for the most part, Armenian follows a nominative–accusative alignment pattern; the only exception occurs in the periphrastic perfect in Classical Armenian. This tense, composed of a historically passive-intransitive participle and a fossilized third-person singular form of the copula, shows tripartite alignment: subjects are marked as nominative, agents as genitive, and objects as accusative. This tense-sensitive alignment split prevails until the end of the Classical Armenian period.
After a discussion of previous explanatory approaches, it is suggested that the origin of this alignment pattern lies in the contact with the West Middle Iranian language Parthian from which Armenian has borrowed heavily in almost all linguistic domains. The Armenian perfect and its alignment are the grammaticalised result of pattern replication, a process by which the Parthian ergative–absolutive past tense is borrowed into Armenian and there realized by means of the participle. The change from ergative–absolutive to tripartite alignment is based on morphosyntactic re-analysis of the object case.
|