Lectures on alignment Typology III -...

EALing 2012,Paris, École Normale Supérieure, Sept 11-13, 2012

Lectures on alignment TypologyIII:

Transimpersonal constructions from across-linguistic perspective

Andrej MalchukovUniversity of Mainz & MPI EVA, Leipzig & Institute of Linguistic

Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, St-Petersburg

(largely based on Malchukov 2008)

Introduction: domain of impersonal constructions

� Functional domain of impersonal constructions (Malchukov & Ogawa2011)

� From a functional perspective, impersonalization can be conceived asdecrease in subject properties, or as departures from the canonicalsubject prototype (Keenan 1976)

� 3 main types of impersonal constructions (Malchukov & Ogawa 2011)

� A-impersonals (decrease in agentivity properties: the notionalsubject is non-agentive and/or inanimate)

� T-impersonals (decrease in topicality properties: the notionalsubject is non-topical/new)

� R- impersonals (decrease in referentiality properties: the notionalsubject is non-referential/indefinite)

� These types show selective affinities (share the same coding acrosslanguages), as can be represented on the semantic map

Andrej Malchukov EALing 12, September 11-13 2012 2

Typology of impersonal constructions

Anticausativeconstructions

Differential casemarking

Subject isnon-agentive

5

Agreement loss,anticausative

Differential casemarking

Subject isinanimate

4

passiveWord orderinversion and/orAgreement loss

Subject isnon-topical

3

subjectomission;passive

generic pronoun,dedicatedimpersonal(verbal) forms

Subject isindefinite

2

Dummy verbs,cognateconstructions

Subject omitted/dummy subject

No referentialargument

1

Alternativestrategies

Commonoutcome

Subjectproperties


Examples: subject non-referential or indefinite

� Subject is non-referential: omission, dummies or acognate construction

(1) a. Russ. svetaet ‘it dawns’b. It dawnsc. Russ. dozdj idet [rain goes] ‘It rains’d. Even (Tungusic)

� Udan udnan [rain rains] ‘It rains’

� Subject is indefinite: generic pronouns, subjectomissions, or (impersonal) passives

� (2) a. Germ. Man sagt

� b. Polish (Siewierska 1984: 113):podano kawe [served.IMS.PART coffee.ACC]‚Coffee is served‘


Examples: Subject is non-topical

� Non-topical subject: inversion� (3) a. French

Il vient un enfant‘There comes a child’ (Lazard 1998: postverbal NP ‘actant H’ lackssubject properties)

� Non-topical subject: Agreement loss� Oromo (Clamons et. al 1999: 60): no AGR when the subject is

non-topical (lacks a topic marker)b. Intal-t-ií-n hoolaa bit-t-e

girl-FM-SBJ-TOP sheep buy-FM-Past‘The girl bought a sheep’c. Intala takka-á hoolaa bit-e

girl one.FM-SBJ sheep buy-Past‘A girl bought a sheep’


Examples: Subject is inanimate

� Differential Subject Marking� (4) a. Samoan: ERG in variation with OBL with inanimate As

Samoan (Mosel & Hovdhaugen 1992: 423)Na tapuni e/ i le matagi le faitoto’aPAST close ERG/ LOC ART wind ART door‘The wind closed the door’

� Agreement loss� b. Tlapanec (Wichmann 2007): agreement/cross-referencing

only animate arguments


Subject non-agentive

� Differential Subject Marking� (5) a. Lezgian: ERG changes to Oblique in the involuntary

Agent ConstructionLezgian (Haspelmath 1993: 292)a. Zamiira.di/ Zamiira.di-waj get’e xa-na

Zamiira-ERG/Zamira-AdEl pot(ABS) break-AOR‘Zamira broke the pot (accidentally/involuntarily)’

� b. Russian: similar variation with the ‚Force’ subjectLodku uneslo techenie/techenie-mboat-ACC drove-away current.NOM/current-INSTR‘The boat was driven away by the current’


Semantic map of impersonal constructionsFigure 1. Semantic map of the impersonal domain

- Differential case marking- Agreement loss:- word order inversion:- Impersonal passivization:- Subject omission:

[-vol][-an]

[-top]

[new]

[-ref]

[-def]


Transimpersonals

Of particular relevance for this talk is a diachronic connection betweentransimpersonal constructions (a variety of R-impersonals) toexperiencer subject constructions (a variety of A-impersonals)

“Transimpersonal” construction with indefinite A argument and experiencerobject:

German: Mich friert

me freezes

Russian Menja znobit

me freezes

� Basic claim: transimpersonal constructions are diachronically unstable

� They tend to be reanalysed

� as patient subject construction in split intransitive languages

� as experiencer subject constructions


Introduction: split intransitives

Split-intransitive languages (aka, active/stative languages, Klimov 1977, Split-S languages; Dixon 1994), differ in coding of agentive vs. patientive (oractive/inactive, unergative/unaccusative) subjects of intransitives.

Dakota (Boas & Deloria 1941: 76): subject proclitics refer to A and S of activeverbs, object proclitics refer to O and S of stative verbs.

wa-ti’ ma-śi’ca

1.S-dwell 1.O-bad

‘I dwell’ ‘I am bad’

Sapir’s proposal: ‘inactive’ (object inflecting) intransitive verbs in Amerindianlanguages should be better analysed as transitives: “Thus, forms like ‘Isleep’ or ‘I think’ could be understood as meaning properly ‘it sleeps me’,‘It seems to me’” (Sapir 1917: 85).

That is an So pattern is analysed as “transimpersonal” (indefinite A)construction with experiencer object


Some problems with the Sapir’s proposal

� Some obvious functional similarities:� Both So (patient subject) constructions and transimpersonal

experiencer O constructions involve experiential predicates

� But also some problems (cf. Merlan 1985)� Structural

� in the former Experiencer is S, in the latter it is an O� former intransitive, the latter transitive

� Functional� ‘it sleeps me’ ???

� Heterogeneity of split-S languages:� agent/patient vs. active/stative (Mithun 1991)� accusative based (So is a minor pattern) vs. ergative based (Sa

is a minor pattern) (Nichols 1992).


Introduction: split intransitives andtransimpersonals

However:� The distinctions between So constructions, on the

one hand, and transimpersonal constructions(TIC) and object experiencer constructions (OEC),on the other hand, are not always clear-cut

� Cf. Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi 2001 (eds.) on obliqueexperiencers as non-canonical subjects.

� In spite of heterogeneity of split S languages� most split-S languages are agent/patient rather than

active/stative (Mithun 1991)� most split-S languages are accusative based in the sense

that So pattern is a minor class as compared to the openSa class (Nichols 1992).


Outline of the talk� Provide evidence that Sapir’s analysis can be

upheld, if� Restricted to Split-S language where the patientive

subject pattern is a minor pattern� A connection between So pattern and transitive

patterns (TIC and EOC) is understood in diachronicterms

� Present evidence from languages� where Split-S pattern arose from reanalysis of transimpersonal

and Object-experiencer constructions� where object experiencers can be analysed as non-

canonical subjects� Discuss other paths of reanalysys of

transimpersonals constructions:� As plain intransitives� As passive constructions


Slave: Transimpersonal construction (TIC)without Split-S

� A construction with unspecified human subjectpronoun in Slave:

Slave (Rice 1989: 1020)ts’e-jI‘someone is singing’k’ínase-ts’e-reyo‘someone chased him/her; s/he is chased’

� NB clearly distinct from split-S (note the overt AGR/A marker

–ts’e- ), but note the quasi-passive interpretation of TIC.


Extension of TIC: Eskimo� In West Greenlandic transimpersonal

construction (TIC) restricted to weather verbs

West Greenlandic (Fortescue 1984: 59-61)Anurliup-patigutstorm-3A->1pO.IND‘When we were caught by storm (lit. it stormed us)’


Extension of TIC: Eskimo� In (Siberian) Yupik TIC is extended to other verb types to

indicate lack of control:Yupik (Emeljanova 1967; cf. Vaxtin 1995)(a)Tagnyҳaq awҳsaҳtaqu-q

child.ABS crawl.start-INDF.3SG.S‘The child starts to crawl’

(b)Tagnyҳaq awҳsaҳtaq-achild.ABS crawl.start-INDF.3SG.A>3SG.P‘The child starts to crawl (unintentionally)’

� NB similar to So pattern functionally (indicates lack ofcontrol), but different structurally (AGR clearlytransitive). Therefore rather extended use of TIC thanSplit-S.


TIC reanalysed as split-S: Tunica

� In Tunica (Haas 1941) Patientive subjects of intransitives ininchoative forms are constructed as transimpersonals� it-sickens-me ‘I become sick’

� Haas’ conclusion: ‘involuntary action verbs developedfrom transimpersonals’ (Haas 1941: 59)


Split-S originating from EOC: Koasati

� Koasati is considered split intransitive on the

basis of its agreement system (cf. Mithun 1999: 237-8).

� the case system is accusative thoughAn So verb:(Anó-k) ca-libatli-t(I-NOM) 1sg.obj-burn-past‘I got burned’


Split-S originating from EOC: Koasati

Morphologically, however, So verbs look like plain

transitives (Kimball 1991: 251). Cf.:

(a) ca-libatli-t1sg.obj-burn-past‘I got burned’

(b) Nihahci ikba-k ca-libatli-tgrease hot-NOM 1sg.obj-burn-past‘The hot grease burned me’


Conclusion on Koasati

� Kimball’s conclusion: the So pattern originatedfrom reanalysis of impersonal 3 sg forms

� Note what features facilitated reanalysis:� So is marked by AGRo

� 3pA marker is zero

� But the same pattern attested in many otherSplit-S languages� Other Split-S languages with zero 3rd p. zero Agent

markers: Dakota (Boas & Deloria 1941, 76), Guarani(Gregores & Suárez 1967: 131), Ika (Frank 1985: 11)

� See also Mithun 2008 on Amerindian languages


Other Split-S languages: Ika and Haida

� Ika (Frank 1985: 11)� So pattern

Na-’tikuma-na1sgO-forget-DIST

‘I forgot’

� A transitive patternNa-tsua-na1sgO-see-DIST‘He saw me’� Haida (Enrico 2003, 93)� Split-S in free/clitical pronoun marking

� There are no overt inanimate (‘low potency’) agentivepronouns


Other Split-S languages: Kiowa

� Kiowa: restricted suppression of A agreement withexperiential verbs:

yą-tây (Watkins 1980: 137)(2,3sg.A+)1sg.P+pl.O-awake.pf‘I awoke/smth woke me’

� Watkins considers them as intransitives (thus, Split-S),although clearly modelled on transitives

� (or even di-transitives, with a dummy O marker)


Conclusions on reanalysis in AmericanIndian languages

� Thus reanalysis is facilitated, if� So is marked by AGRo� 3pA marker (one of the markers, often

inanimate if a language has one) is zero.� NB then a transitive pattern is formally

indistinguishable from intransitive (cf. Mithun2008)


From Experiencer Object constructions toSplit-S: Papuan languages

� In Papuan languages objects in EOC tend to bereanalysed as non-canonical subjects

Usan (Reesink 1987: 139)Munon isig toar wA-r-a in-Ab igoman old sickness him-shoot-3s.DS lie-SS be.3sg.pres‘The old man is sick and lying down’

� Not a proper transimpersonal but includes a stimulus argument� But the stimulus has low prominence as the subject of

transimpersonal constructions� Experiential verbs similar to ordinary transitives, but differ in

that Experiencer/Goal unlike other objects always in the firsttopic position


Reanalysis in Papuan languages: Amele

� EOC in Amele similar to Usan:Amele (Roberts 1987, 315).Ija wen ø–te-na1sg hunger (AUX-)1sg-3sg-PRES‘I am hungry’

� But note that V is grammaticalized (reducedphonetically to zero).

� Is different from other cases insofar as the subject (stimulus)is „incorporated“ (fused ) with the verb rather than deleted

� Apart from (topic) position, the experiencer reveals(most) other subject properties:

� intraclausal (reflexivization, etc)� interclausal (control of switch-reference, etc)


Reanalysis in Papuan languages: Galela

� In some West Papuan (such as Galela, Holton 2008) reanalysis oftransimpersonal constructions into patient-subject constructionsproceeds further

� the dummy subject agreement prefix undergoes phoneticerosion, resulting in its optionality and ultimate loss on certainverbs:

� Galela (Holton 2005)(*i-)ni-kiola(3SG.A)-2SG.P-asleep‘You are asleep’

� Such languages, then, straightforwardly qualify as splitintransitive.


Conclusion on Papuan languages� In Papuan languages EOC tend to develop into a

construction with subject experiencers (cf. Roberts2001 on non-canonical experiencer subjects in Amele)

� The Amele pattern where the subject experiencercross-referenced through object AGR is similar to anSo pattern in a typical split-S language

� The Galela pattern where the original (dummy)subject marker is lost is still more similar to splitintransitives


EOC reanalysis: Ket

� A similar development in Ket (Paleosiberian), which is apolysynthetic language with exceptionally complextemplatic verb morphology (Vajda 2003)� In one of the productive verb paradigms includes the subject prefixin the prefixal slot 8, and the object prefix in the prefixal slots 6 or 1.� Ket� saŋaŋ da8-a6-k5-a4-b3-qut0� spark 3N.SBJ8-1M.OBJ6-TH5-NPST4-TH3-rise.up0

� 'A spark hits me.'� With some verbs, however, the notional subject is expressedthrough the object slot, while the subject slot may be filled by thedummy prefix da- identical to the 3rd person inanimate subject marker(see above).


EOC reanalysis: Ket� Vaida, Nefedov& Malchukov (2011) suggest that suchconstructions developed from reanalysis of transimpersonals

(a) ad da8-di1-taŋ0� 1SG 3SG8-up7-1SG.SBJ1-turn0

� 'I spin around.' (literally, 'it spins me')

� Notably, with some verbs the da-prefix becomes optional, andwith some other even excluded.

(b) (da8)-tatiŋ7-ba6-t5-a4-b3-a0

� (3SG8)-straight7-1SG.SBJ6-TH5-NPST4-TH3-change.occurs0

� 'I agree.' (? literally, 'it straightens me')

� Thus, the developement is parallel to one observed for Papuanlanguages such as Galela.


EOC reanalysis: beyond split intransitivity I

� Evidence for diachronic instability of the EOCconstructions

� A-absorption in EOC in Iwadjan. Different degrees ofgrammaticalization/reanalysis (Evans 2004).� Pattern I. ‘Subcategorized nominal subject’

Nga-ni-ma-ny wunyarru1O-3mA-get-P sickness‘I got sick (lit. ‘sickness got me’)

� Here the transitive EOC construction similar to thePapuan pattern


Experiencer O absorption in Iwadjan II

� Pattern II: ‘frozen nominal subject’Nga-ni-mi-ny ngok1O-3mA-get-P ?‘I am full’

� NB the formal subject ngok is not attested outside thisconstruction


Experiencer O incorporation in Iwadjan III

� Pattern III: “dummy subject construction”:

I-ni-marruku-n3mO-3mA-make.wet-NP‘He is sweating’

� This construction is clearly (trans)impersonal� NB a diachronic instability of the EOC. Motivation:

downgrading/omission of non-prominent A.


EOC beyond split intransitivity II

� Reanalysis of EOC/TIC in Himalayan� Tibetan languages: a frequent pattern with

Goal/Object-experiencers (Cf. Bickel 2003)� Transimpersonals in Limbu: default AGR with non-

referential A.

Limbu (van Driem 1987: 75):Khengha? MoyusiThey inebriate.3P.3s->3ns‘they are drunk ‘(lit. it inebriates them)


Reanalysis in Himalayan II: YamphuYamphu (Rutgers 1998: 109)� If experiencer is 3rd p. pattern as EOC (experiencer

cross-referenced by a transitive AGR):Wai?m-æ? si-s-w-e?thirst-ERG attach-3 ->3.FCT‘Is he thirsty?’

� If experiencer is 1st/2nd p. takes an intransitive AGR:Sag-æ? sis-iŋ-mahunger-ERG attach-EXPS-1PL‘We were hungry’

� NB a split-S system, complicated by a person split.� Motivation for reanalysis: upgrading of a prominent

(1,2 person) experiencers.


EOC beyond split intransitivity III: covertreanalysis in European languages

� Covert reanalysis of EOC in Germanic� English please -> like reanalysis (Jesperson 1927;

Lightfoot 1979, Faarlund 1990)� ðam cynge licodon peran -> the king liked pears

� Swedish and German (Seefranz-Montag 1983):� Det lyckades honom -> han lyckades ‘I manage’� Mich hungert -> ich hungere ‘I am hungry’

� Motivation for reanalysis: upgrading of a prominent(animate) O.

� Last stages are clearly different from split intransitivity asthey feature plain intrasitives, but maybe transimpersonalscan be analysed as oblique subjects?


Covert reanalysis in European languages� Similarly, transimpersonal reanalysis in Icelandic, with

„impersonal detransitives“ at intermediate stages:� Icelandic (Barðdal & Eythórsson 2003)� a. Þeir brutu skip sitt

they.NOM broke ship.ACC their‘they broke their ship/they were shipwrecked’

� b. skipin brautships-the.ACC broke‘The ships were shipwrecked’

� In the transimpersonal construction (b) the accusativeNP shows all subject properties (Zaenen, Maling &Thráinsson 1985, Barðdal 2008)

� Some of the transimpersonal verbs have been furtherassimilated to simple intransitives through a process ofNominative Substitution (Barðdal & Eythórsson 2003)


Transimpersonals in European languages: acase of a Split-S?

� Creissels (forthcoming) (as discussed in Malchukov &Ogawa 2011) suggests to analyse transimpersonalconstructions in Russian and other European languages,as oblique subjects in a kind of a split-S system:

� Russian� a. Men’a tr’asët lixoradka.� 1SG.ACC shake.PRS.A3SG fever.SG� ‘Fever shakes me.’� b. Men’a tr’asët ot lixoradki.� 1SG.ACC shake.PRS.A3SG from fever.SG.GEN� ‘I am shaking with fever’, lit. ‘It shakes me from fever’� NB Creissels regards the construction (b) as reanalysys of experiencer

object construction (a), via transimpersonal stage� He further suggests that (b) features a non-canonical (accusative)

subject


Transimpersonals in European languages: acase of a Split-S?

� Creissels, forthcoming: “It seems reasonable to assumethat the impersonal construction developed from thereanalysis of a null-subject construction with an arbitraryreading: ‘[An unspecified cause] shakes me’. But thefact that the cause is encoded as an oblique introducedby the ablative preposition ot proves that, in the presentstate of Russian, this construction is no longer anelliptical variant of the transitive construction..”

� While regarding experiencers as (oblique) subjects inRussian (or German) can be questioned on syntacticgrounds, a possibility of expressing an A as an oblique isindeed a first step in reanalysis

� This is also an important step in other scenarios ofreanalysys of transimpersonal constructions


EOC beyond split-S IV: from indefinite A to(impersonal) passive

� From indefinite A to (impersonal) passive(Greenberg 1959; Shibatani 1985 ):� Ainu (Tamura 2000: 71; cf. Shibatani 1985)

(a) Itak-anspeak-1pl‘One speaks’

(b) a-e-kóyki naIMPS-2sg.O-scold MOD‘You will be scolded/one will scold you’� NB construction impersonal: O is still cross-

referenced by AGRo.


From indefinite A to impersonal passive:Ainu

� If an agentive phrase is used, it is clear that theindefinite A construction is reanalysed as a passive:

� Cf. Creissels’ remarks on the Russian constructionAinu (Tamura 2000: 72):Unuhu oro wa an-kóykimother place from Ind/S-scold‘He was scolded by (his) mother’ (lit. ?? One will scold you by your

mother)

� NB looks like a personal passive, but O has few subject

properties apart from positional (Shibatani 1985: 824)


Further reanalysis to personal passive: Kimbundu

� In some languages, reanalysis has proceeded even further, and

an impersonal passive construction was further reanalysed as a

personal passive.

� According to Givón’s (1979) analysis, Kimbundu (a Bantu

language) is such a language:

� Kimbundu (Givón 1979: 211)

Nzua a-mu-muno (kwa mame)

John they-him-saw (by me)

‘John was seen by me’


From indefinite A to impersonal passive:other languages

Indefinite (impersonal) passives� Greenberg (1959): on Maasai,� Givon (1979): Kimbundu� Shibatani (1985): on indefinite passives: Ainu,

Trukic, Indonesian� Siewierska 2008 for a recent survey

�Motivation for reanalysis: downgrading of indefiniteA (cf. Shibatani on A-defocussing), promotesreanalysis to an impersonal structure; (under Otopicalization can develop further to personal)


Conclusion: EOC and TIC in a broadercontext

� Universal functional pressure for reanalysis ofEOC and TIC, due to

� syntactic downgrading of non-prominent(indefinite, inanimate, cognate) A of TIC

� syntactic upgrading of a prominent (animate)O of EOC


Functional factours and structural outcome:Split-S

� But these universal functional factors will yielda split-S system only under particular structuralconditions:� AGRo marking

� if AGRo unmarked, more likely covert reanalysis� Cf. please-> like

� AGRs is zero marked� if AGRs over then rather as extended transimpersonal

constructions (cf. Eskimo), or else reanalysed as a Passive(cf. Ainu)


Role of the structural factors: an illustration

� A consistently ergative language cannotdevelop a split-S structure:� rather experiencer O upgrading will lead to

formation of (S/O) labile verbs(NP/erg) NP/abs V-agr/abs

� Note that this grammatically ambiguous structure, allowsfor covert reanalysis of the ABS-marked object-experiencers as subject-experiencers


General conclusions� Alignment types, in general, and split-intransitivity, in

particular, arise through a conspiracy of� universal functional tendencies� language particular structural properties

� Basic claim: transimpersonal constructions are diachronicallyunstable and tend to be reanalysed

� as patient subject construction in split intransitive languages

� as experiencer subject constructions (plain intransitives)

� as passive constructions� Malchukov & Siewierska (2011, Introduction):

� “From a diachronic perspective, impersonal constructionsoften represent intermediate stages of the shift between morebasic structures (such as transitive and intransitive clauses, oractive and passive constructions, etc)”


Theoretical outlook on non-canonical subjects andtransimpersonals: Relational Grammar

� Treatment of variation in subject selection in RelationalGrammar (Perlmutter & Postal 1984).� Universal Alignment Hypothesis predicts that experiencer

is originally the subject (in the first stratum)� Corollary: stimulus subject constructions are derived

� The reason escapes me2 12 31 31 2

� Actually, diachronically, rather development goes in theopposite direction: constructions with experiencer objects geteventually reanalysed to restore prominence/GF matching


Theoretical outlook: Role and Reference Grammar

� In RRG (Van Valin 2005 et passim) selection of ACTorand UNDergoer precedes the stage of argumentrealization (production perspective)

� This fits a diachronic scenario insofar as readjustmentof M-transitivity (determining how many macro-rolesare involved) to match S-transitivity (number ofarguments) precedes (eventual) realignment inmorphosyntactic expression

� It is less clear how to capture the fact that aggregation ofpivot properties on an NP can lead to realignment (since inRRG pivot selection is independent of case assignment, inview of languages with case-insensitive PSA like Icelandic)

� On the other hand, RRG is well equipped for modellinggradual acquisition of pivot properties across constructions,as pivots/PSAs are conceived as construction-specific


Theoretical outlook: Generative Grammar

� Burzio‘s (1986) generalization in GB:� A verb lacking an external theta role, can’t assign

accusative case� It is a theoretical stipulation, which has

counterexamples synchronically� And there is no consensus how it can be derived from

more general principle (see Reuland (ed.) 2000)� However, diachronically, this makes sense insofar as

transimpersonal constructions lacking a referential Atend to be reanalysed into intransitive structures


(Selected) References� Creissels, Denis. forthcoming. Impersonal and anti-impersonal

constructions: a typological approach. Ms., University of Lyon2.� http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/Creissels/Creissels_2007b.pdf� Donohue, Mark. 2008. Semantic alignment systems: What’s what,

and what’s not. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 24–75.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

� Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Split intransitives, experiencer objectsand ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (re-) establishing theconnection. In. M. Donohue & S. Wichmann (eds). Typology oflanguages with semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 76-101

� Malchukov, Andrej L. & Akio Ogawa. 2011. Towards a typology ofimpersonal constructions: a semantic map approach. In A.Malchukov & A. Siewierska (eds.) Impersonal constructions: across-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 19-56.

� Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The emergence of agentive systems incore argument marking. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann(eds), 297-333.

� Vajda, Edward, Andrey Nefedov & Andrej Malchukov. 2011.Impersonal constructions in Ket. In A. Malchukov & A. Siewierska(eds.), 439-459.


Lectures on alignment Typology III -...

Documents

Transcript of Lectures on alignment Typology III -...