Spatial Interrogatives in Europe and Beyond: Where, Whither, Whence 9783110539516, 9783110532753

Citation preview

Thomas Stolz, Nataliya Levkovych, Aina Urdze, Julia Nintemann, Maja Robbers Spatial Interrogatives in Europe and Beyond

Studia Typologica

Beihefte / Supplements STUF – Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung Language Typology and Universals Editors Thomas Stolz, François Jacquesson, Pieter C. Muysken Editorial Board Michael Cysouw (München), Ray Fabri (Malta), Steven Roger Fischer (Auckland), Bernhard Hurch (Graz), Bernd Kortmann (Freiburg), Nicole Nau (Poznán), Ignazio Putzu (Cagliari), Stavros Skopeteas (Bielefeld), Johan van der Auwera (Antwerpen), Elisabeth Verhoeven (Berlin), Ljuba Veselinova (Stockholm)

Volume 20

Thomas Stolz, Nataliya Levkovych, Aina Urdze, Julia Nintemann, Maja Robbers

Spatial Interrogatives in Europe and Beyond: Where, Whither, Whence

ISBN 978-3-11-053275-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-053951-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-053833-5 ISSN 1617-2957 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Alpha-C/iStock/Thinkstock Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Preface and Acknowledgments The five authors of this study have got involved with spatial interrogatives at different points on the time arrow during the five years which preceded the termination of this book. The research first took shape in the talk “Où va-t-elle? Où est-il? D’où venez-vous? Aspects typologiques de l’interrogeabilité des relations spatiales” which Thomas Stolz delivered on occasion of the FrenchGerman workshop on Relations spatiales (25–26 January, 2013) at the Institut Français in Bremen/Germany. A follow-up to this initial step was his talk “Wo gehse? Wo kommse? Wo wohnse? On seemingly uninformative spatial interrogatives” presented at the Linguistische Kolloquium on The Concept of Zero in Linguistics at the University of Bremen (19 March 2014). Shortly afterwards, Thomas Stolz was joined by Nataliya Levkovych and Aina Urdze. The three of them gave talks on spatial interrogatives at three different occasions, namely: a) “Spatial interrogatives: Cross-linguistic aspects of an understudied paradigm” at the conference Diversity linguistics: Retrospect and prospect (Leipzig, May 2015), b) “Spatial interrogatives: Typology and dynamics” at the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics (Naples, July 2015), and c) “Spatial interrogatives: Cross-linguistic aspects of an understudied paradigm” at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (Naples, September 2016), revised and enlarged version of (a). Simultaneously to the preparation of the earliest of the above talks, Thomas Stolz was working jointly with Sander Lestrade and Christel Stolz on a book-length cross-linguistic study of zero-marking of spatial relations. The latter has appeared in print meanwhile as Stolz et al. (2014). For purely practical reasons, spatial interrogatives i.e. the translation equivalents of Early Modern English where, whither, and whence were not included in this monograph. Superficially, the exclusion of these items seemed to be justified because nothing hinted at the possibility that spatial interrogatives behave differently from other components of the grammar of space. However, we soon learned that this assumption – although it is not entirely misconceived – called for being investigated thoroughly. To start with, no comprehensive study of spatial interrogatives has ever come to our attention. Neither have scholars of spatial language looked at this class of interrogatives specifically nor have students of interrogativity inquired deeply enough into the properties of spatial interrogatives. This is remarkable since so-called wh-questions have been in the center of interest of many linguists of diverse schools of thought for several decades. The recent re-discovery

VI | Preface and Acknowledgments of content questions as a topic in functional typology most probably marks the beginning of a new development. Our investigation of spatial interrogatives in cross-linguistic perspective is intended to support this new development. As far as we can see, linguistic papers only seldom focus on the diachrony and/or synchrony of spatial interrogatives of individual languages. Much to our surprise we also noticed that spatial interrogatives are not only widely understudied typologically but they are often barely touched upon in many of the extant descriptive grammars of the languages of the world. In contrast to interrogative pronouns, for instance, the category represented by where, whither, and whence is hardly ever spared more than a few lines. More often than not, spatial interrogatives are summarily mentioned in a section which otherwise is dedicated to spatial adverbs where the question words thus are not prominently featured. Simplifying, it can be stated that the traditional format of descriptive grammars does not provide a systematic chapter in which the morphosyntactic and semantic aspects of spatial interrogatives can be addressed separately and in sufficient detail. Similar problems arise if one chooses to investigate spatial interrogatives by way of evaluating dictionary entries. Much more can be gained from checking pedagogical grammars and practical language courses which must provide means for the foreign language learner to ask for directions, etc. – a task that requires a lesson or two to be mastered. In these lessons, spatial interrogatives are very likely to turn up. However, this genre of language teaching material does not tell the whole story. Since language learners and especially beginners should not be burdened with too much information, language teachers usually avoid introducing alternative constructions, restrictions, etc. To cover more ground, it is thus necessary to work with a text corpus to complement our picture of the grammar of spatial interrogatives. In this book, we try to find an adequate methodological solution for the problem posed by the search for the spatial interrogatives of the languages of the world. One may legitimately ask whether spatial interrogatives are indeed worthwhile being studied in the first place. The answer is yes because spatial interrogatives do not automatically behave like the common garden variety of NPs which function as Ground in a spatial situation. In point of fact, there is evidence that spatial interrogatives form a more or less tightly knit paradigm of their own which may obey rules which are (perhaps only slightly) different from those which govern Ground NPs in other sentence types such as declaratives. What is more, it also seems to be possible to formulate generalizations over systems of spatial interrogatives – generalizations which allow us to derive implicational patterns. We are convinced that spatial interrogatives occupy an important place within the framework of the grammar of space. This place has

Preface and Acknowledgments | VII

to be identified and described in full yet. Our cross-linguistic survey is meant to provide the basis for further research on this subject matter to be conducted in the not too distant future. What we did not expect to find when we set out to write what originally was supposed to be just a short paper was the wealth of highly interesting and often fascinating facts on the micro-level which manifest themselves for instance in a strikingly rich array of variation across closely related languages and the coexistence of largely synonymous constructions in one and the same language. The data we had collected on the side in 2013-2014 proved interesting enough to justify the submission of a project application at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). The preparation of this application coincided with Maja Robbers and Julia Nintemann joining our research team. The financial support for our project was finally granted in August 2016 when our research had already advanced considerably. Nevertheless, this book forms part of the project Wo – Wohin – Woher: Räumliche Interrogativa und ihre lokal-deiktischen Entsprechungen in Europa und weit darüber hinaus/Where – Whither – Whence: Spatial interrogatives and their adverbial demonstrative equivalents in Europe and far beyond (Grant number: STO 186/19-1), in the sense that it covers those aspects of the project which are directly related to spatial interrogatives. The research focusing on the adverbial demonstratives (e.g. English there – thither – thence and here – hither – hence), however, had to wait until the completion of this manuscript in early 2017. Therefore, this book does not enlighten the reader about the properties of adverbial demonstratives. These properties – in comparison to those of the spatial interrogatives – will be addressed in detail in a follow up publication at the end of our research project. Spatial interrogatives (and their adverbial-demonstrative equivalents) are interesting not only synchronically but also diachronically. The scarcity of reliable information about the older stages of many of our sample languages notwithstanding, we attempt to do justice to both perspectives as far as this is feasible, i.e., the diachronic side of the phenomena under scrutiny is looked at only for a small selection of the sample languages. For the usual reasons of time, we had to limit our study to just a segment of the domain of spatial interrogatives. Our focus is on the paradigmatic aspects of the system of spatial interrogatives. In spite of the many gaps that remain, we are confident that the investigation of spatial interrogatives will give new impetus not only to the research program dedicated to language and space but also to the functional-typological study of interrogativity in general.

VIII | Preface and Acknowledgments Acknowledgements: We gladly acknowledge that one way or another many people have lent us their support so that this project could be realized in the first place. We are grateful to Greville G. Corbett (Surrey), Jean-Michel Fortis (Paris), Sander Lestrade (Nijmegen) and Christel Stolz (Bremen) for their thought provoking comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Michael Cysouw (Marburg), Jan Terje Faarlund (Trondheim), Marina Pantcheva (Tromsø and Prague) and Peter Siemund (Hamburg) kindly provided me with much needed reading matter. Werner Drossard (Cologne) not only enlightened us about crucial aspects of the grammar of space of his native Kölsch variety of German but also gave us a number of valuable bibliographical hints. Norbert Boretzky (Bochum), Elin Fredsted (Flensburg) and Dobrinka Genevska-Hanke (Oldenburg) kindly answered my questions on Albanian, Danish, and Bulgarian, respectively. Tilman Berger (Tübingen), Markus Giger (Prague), and Stefan Newerkla (Vienna) informed us about the situation in Czech and Slovak. All members of the Nachwuchsnetzwerk Sprachkontakt und Sprachvergleich / Young scholars network Language Contact and Language Comparison at the University of Bremen have contributed – sometimes without being aware of it – to the successful termination of the project. The members of this network and several only loosely associated colleagues in Bremen and elsewhere on the globe have been instrumental for this investigation. Ute Siewerts patiently answered our questions about the spatial interrogatives in Gothic, Old High German, and Middle High German. Kevin Behrens made us think twice about the Low German data. Deborah Arbes travelled to Berlin, Hamburg, and Leipzig to check the libraries of the local universities and of the Max-Planck-Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology for data of non-European languages. For the correct transcription and grammatical analysis of the data from Arabic, Berber, Hebrew, Japanese, Korean, and Tamil we could rely on the expertise of Ursula Bauer, Jamshid Ibrahim, Boyeong Jang (Seoul), Hitomi Otsuka, Benjamin Saade (who also lent us a hand with the geographical maps), and Christel Stolz, respectively. We also wish to express our gratitude to Beke Seefried, Sonja Kettler and Cornelia Stroh for their technical assistance. Nevertheless, the blame for anything wrong in this book has to be put solely on us. The authors Bremen, January 2017

Contents Preface and Acknowledgments  | V List of Abbreviations  | XVI List of Diagrams  | XVIII List of Schemes  | XXVII List of Tables  | XXVIII 1 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4

Introduction | 1 Getting to know the research question | 1 Previous research and on-going debate | 6 In the realm of linguistic research on interrogativity | 6 The grammar of space | 10 Scenarios | 17 What else do you need to know? | 19 Narrowing down the research object | 19 Theory, methodology, and empiry | 22 The reference text and the sample sentences | 26 How this book is organized internally | 30

2 The formal relations of spatial interrogatives | 31 2.1 On the canonical paradigm | 31 2.2 Mismatches | 34 2.2.1 Syncretism | 35 2.2.2 Overabundance and the problem of variation | 36 2.2.3 Suppletion and sundry phenomena | 41 2.2.4 (Anti-)Periphrasis | 44 2.2.5 Fused exponence | 46 2.2.6 What we have to watch out for | 47 2.3 Marking asymmetries | 48 2.3.1 Parameters of complexity | 50 2.3.1.1 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions | 51 2.3.1.2 Number of morphs and morphemes | 52 2.3.1.3 Zero-marking | 53 2.3.1.4 Number of syllables | 55

X | Contents 2.3.1.5 2.3.1.6 2.3.2 2.3.2.1 2.3.2.2 2.3.2.2.1 2.3.2.2.2 2.3.2.2.2.1 2.3.2.2.2.2 2.3.2.2.2.3 2.3.2.2.2.4 2.3.2.2.2.5 2.3.2.2.2.6 2.3.3 2.3.4

Number of segments | 57 Intermediate summary | 59 How to quantify mismatches and complexity | 59 An individual language | 60 Across languages | 66 Mismatches | 67 Complexity | 71 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions | 71 Morphs | 75 Morphemes | 78 Zero-marking | 81 Syllables | 82 Segments | 85 Derivational patterns | 90 Expectations | 91

3 WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe | 93 3.1 Micro-level variation in Romance | 94 3.1.1 Romance LPP-varieties | 94 3.1.1.1 Mismatches | 94 3.1.1.1.1 Syncretism | 94 3.1.1.1.2 Overabundance | 98 3.1.1.1.3 Suppletion | 99 3.1.1.1.4 Periphrasis | 101 3.1.1.1.5 Fused exponence | 103 3.1.1.1.6 Results | 104 3.1.1.2 Constructional complexity | 107 3.1.1.2.1 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions | 107 3.1.1.2.2 Morphs | 112 3.1.1.2.3 Morphemes | 117 3.1.1.2.4 Zero-marking | 121 3.1.1.2.5 Syllables | 122 3.1.1.2.6 Segments | 127 3.1.1.2.7 Results in the realm of complexity | 133 3.1.1.2.8 Derivation (synchronic analysis) | 134 3.1.2 About qualities | 136 3.1.2.1 Discussion | 137 3.1.2.2 Romance spatial interrogatives in diachronic perspective | 148 3.2 Micro-level variation in Germanic | 167

Contents | XI

3.2.1 3.2.1.1 3.2.1.1.1 3.2.1.1.2 3.2.1.1.3 3.2.1.1.4 3.2.1.1.5 3.2.1.1.6 3.2.1.2 3.2.1.2.1 3.2.1.2.2 3.2.1.2.3 3.2.1.2.4 3.2.1.2.5 3.2.1.2.6 3.2.1.2.7 3.2.1.3 3.2.2 3.2.2.1 3.2.2.2 3.2.2.3 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.1.1 3.3.1.1.1 3.3.1.1.2 3.3.1.1.3 3.3.1.1.4 3.3.1.1.5 3.3.1.1.6 3.3.1.2 3.3.1.2.1 3.3.1.2.2 3.3.1.2.3 3.3.1.2.4 3.3.1.2.5 3.3.1.2.6 3.3.1.2.7 3.3.1.3

Germanic LPP-varieties | 167 Mismatches | 167 Syncretism | 167 Overabundance | 170 Suppletion | 172 Periphrasis | 173 Fused exponence | 177 Results | 179 Constructional complexity | 182 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions | 182 Morphs | 187 Morphemes | 193 Zero-marking | 196 Syllables | 198 Segments | 203 Results in the realm of complexity | 209 Derivation (synchronic analysis) | 210 About qualities | 211 An unexpected pattern of syncretism | 211 Overabundance and sundry phenomena | 222 Germanic spatial interrogatives in diachronic perspective | 239 Micro-level variation in Slavic | 247 Slavic LPP-varieties | 247 Mismatches | 247 Syncretism | 247 Overabundance | 249 Suppletion | 250 Periphrasis | 252 Fused exponence | 253 Results | 255 Constructional complexity | 257 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions | 257 Morphs | 258 Morphemes | 263 Zero-marking | 268 Syllables | 269 Segments | 273 Results in the realm of complexity | 278 Derivation (synchronic analysis) | 279

XII | Contents 3.3.2 3.3.2.1 3.3.2.2 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.1.1 3.4.1.1.1 3.4.1.1.2 3.4.1.1.3 3.4.1.1.4 3.4.1.1.5 3.4.1.1.6 3.4.1.2 3.4.1.2.1 3.4.1.2.2 3.4.1.2.3 3.4.1.2.4 3.4.1.2.5 3.4.1.2.6 3.4.1.2.7 3.4.1.3 3.4.2 3.4.2.1 3.4.2.2 3.4.2.3 3.4.2.4 3.4.2.4.1 3.4.2.5 3.4.2.6 3.4.2.6.1 3.4.2.6.2 3.4.2.7 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.1.1 3.5.1.1.1 3.5.1.1.2

About qualities | 280 Old Church Slavonic | 280 The contemporary facts | 282 Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 303 Sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties | 303 Mismatches | 303 Syncretism | 303 Overabundance | 305 Suppletion | 307 Periphrasis | 308 Fused exponence | 310 Results | 310 Constructional complexity | 312 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions | 312 Morphs | 316 Morphemes | 321 Zero-marking | 321 Syllables | 323 Segments | 327 Results in the realm of complexity | 332 Derivation (synchronic analysis) | 333 About qualities | 334 Greek | 335 Armenian | 339 Albanian | 342 Indo-Aryan | 351 Romani | 351 Indo-Iranian | 353 Celtic | 361 Brythonic | 361 Goidelic | 371 Baltic | 377 Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 384 Non-Indo-European LPP-varieties | 384 Mismatches | 384 Syncretism | 384 Overabundance | 386

Contents | XIII

3.5.1.1.3 3.5.1.1.4 3.5.1.1.5 3.5.1.1.6 3.5.1.2 3.5.1.2.1 3.5.1.2.2 3.5.1.2.3 3.5.1.2.4 3.5.1.2.5 3.5.1.2.6 3.5.1.2.7 3.5.1.3 3.5.2 3.5.2.1 3.5.2.2 3.5.2.3 3.5.2.3.1 3.5.2.3.2 3.5.2.3.3 3.5.2.4 3.5.2.5 3.6 3.6.1 3.6.1.1 3.6.1.2 3.6.2 3.6.2.1 3.6.2.2 3.6.3

Suppletion | 388 Periphrasis | 389 Fused exponence | 391 Results | 391 Constructional complexity | 394 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions | 394 Morphs | 394 Morphemes | 400 Zero-marking | 400 Syllables | 402 Segments | 406 Results in the realm of complexity | 412 Derivation (synchronic analysis) | 413 About qualities | 414 Uralic | 414 Turkic | 423 The three Caucasian language families | 430 Northwest Caucasian | 430 Northeast Caucasian | 432 South Caucasian | 434 Afroasiatic | 437 Basque | 441 Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 442 Mismatches | 443 Comparative statistics | 443 Adjustments | 445 Constructional complexity | 448 The individual properties | 448 The scores | 457 Finishing line | 459

4 The big world | 463 4.1 Mismatches | 465 4.1.1 Syncretism | 465 4.1.1.1 Pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE | 466 4.1.1.1.1 Africa | 466 4.1.1.1.2 The Americas | 470 4.1.1.1.3 Asia | 472

XIV | Contents 4.1.1.1.4 4.1.1.2 4.1.1.2.1 4.1.1.2.2 4.1.1.2.3 4.1.1.2.4 4.1.1.3 4.1.1.4 4.1.1.5 4.1.1.5.1 4.1.1.5.2 4.1.1.5.3 4.1.1.5.4 4.1.1.6 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.1.6 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.3 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.2.1 4.4.2.2

Oceania | 475 Pattern (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE | 478 Africa | 479 The Americas | 481 Asia | 482 Oceania | 485 Pattern WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) | 487 Pattern (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER | 491 Pattern WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE | 496 Africa | 496 The Americas | 499 Asia | 501 Oceania | 502 Synopsis of syncretic patterns | 504 Overabundance | 506 Suppletion | 513 Periphrasis | 521 Fused exponence | 526 Provisional summary | 530 Constructional complexity | 536 Mono-word vs. multi-word | 537 Morphs (and morphemes) | 546 Zero-marking | 557 Syllables | 564 Segments | 575 The scores | 583 Derivation patterns | 585 Comparison: European vs. non-European languages | 587 Mismatches | 588 Constructional complexity | 590 The individual phenomena | 590 The scores | 595

5 Spatial relations across sentence-types | 597 5.1 Identity across sentence-types | 600 5.1.1 Type D – no syncretism | 600 5.1.2 Identity-cum-syncretism | 604 5.1.2.1 All the same | 604 5.1.2.2 Identical patterns of partial syncretism | 606

Contents | XV

5.1.2.2.1 5.1.2.2.2 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.1.1 5.2.1.1.1 5.2.1.1.2 5.2.1.1.3 5.2.1.1.4 5.2.1.2 5.2.1.2.1 5.2.1.2.2 5.2.2 5.3 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.6.1 6.6.2 6.6.3

Types A1 and A6 – Albanian | 606 Type A11 – Saami | 609 Different patterns | 611 Full neutralization on one side only | 611 Indistinct spatial interrogatives | 611 Zapotec (Isthmus) – A13 and C4 | 611 Khwe – A13, A14, and A16 | 614 Shona – A14 | 617 A problematic case: Kanuri – A15 and/or B3? | 619 Neutralized spatial categories with declaratives | 622 Munukutuba and Otomí – two doubtful cases of A12 | 622 Tamasheq – A8 or B4 | 625 Different patterns of syncretism: Persian – Type C1 | 628 Gaps | 631

Conclusions | 635 One or two grammars of space? | 635 A hierarchically organized paradigm | 642 Interrogativity | 644 Mismatches | 645 Cross-linguistics – genus vs. type vs. area | 647 Loose ends, open questions, paradoxes, and sundry reasons to complain | 648 Methodological issues | 648 Gaps and similar issues | 653 Looking beyond | 659

References | 663 Sources | 684 Appendix: Language sample | 695 Index of Authors | 717 Index of Languages | 724 Index of Subjects | 731

List of Abbreviations 1, 2, 3 A ABL ACC ADESS ADV AG AL ALL ANAPH ANIM ANT AOR AP ASP ATTR AUX BEN CIT CL CLASS CNTR COM COMP COMPL COND CONN CONT CONV COP CPL D

D2 DAT DEF DEM DEP DET

DGB

DIM DIR DIS

1st, 2nd, 3rd person A-set ablative accusative adessive adverb agent alienable allative anaphor animate antecessive aorist active participle aspect attributive auxiliary benefactive citation particle class classifier contrast commitative comparative complement conditional connector continuative converb copula completive aspect deixis far deixis dative definite demonstrative dependent determiner descriptive grammar-based diminutive directional distal

DU EMPH EXCL EXI EXTRO EZ F FACT FOC FUT

G?

GEN GER HAB HON HORT

HP I II IE ILL

IMM IMP IMPERF IMPF INANIM INCH INDEF INESS INF INS INTENT INTERJ INTERR INTRO IO ITV LIG LIM LINK LOC

LPP

dual emphatic exclusive existential extroversive ezafe feminine factive focus future interrogative of Goal genitive gerund habitual honorific hortative Harry Potter active for nonpast active for past Indo-European illative imminent aspect imperative imperfect imperfective inanimate inchoative indefinite inessive infinitive instrumental intentional interjection interrogative introversive indirect object intransitive ligature limitative linker locative Le Petit Prince

List of Abbreviations | xvii

M MED MOM

N

NEG NMZ NOM

NOM 1 NON_PL

NON_HUM

NP

NPAST NRRC NS NT OBJ OBL OBLIG OPT

P P?

PAST

PAST5

p.c.

PCL PERF PFCTV PL POL POR POSS

Post POT PP PPD

PRED

Prep PREPV PRES PRET PREV

masculine medial momentary noun negative nominalization nominative nominalized verb stem 1 non-plural non-human noun phrase non-past non-restrictive relative clause non-singular neuter object oblique obligation optative suppletive stem interrogative of Place past tense far remote past personal communication paucal perfect perfective plural polite possessor possessive postposition potential prepositional phrase postpositive determinant predicate preposition prepositive present tense preterite preverb

PRO PROG PROX PTCL PTCPL PURP

Q

REAL RED REFL REL REMOTE RESULT RHT RMS RP

S? SAE SBJV

SC

SEMIACT

SG SPEC SRC SUBFUT SUBJ SUBORD SUPER TAM TOP TR UNM UNSPEC UT V VOC VOL

pronoun progressive proximative particle participle purposive interrogative stem realized reduplication reflexive relative remote past resultative rhetorical question subject relative clause marker received pronunciation interrogative of Source Standard Average European subjunctive subject concord semiactivated demonstrative pronoun singular specific source subordinate future subject subordinator superlative tense-aspect-mood topic transitive unmarked unspecified utrum vowel vocative volitive

List of Diagrams Diagram 1 Diagram 2 Diagram 3 Diagram 4 Diagram 5 Diagram 6 Diagram 7 Diagram 8 Diagram 9 Diagram 10 Diagram 11 Diagram 12 Diagram 13 Diagram 14 Diagram 15 Diagram 16 Diagram 17 Diagram 18 Diagram 19 Diagram 20

Total of complexity scores (Esperanto) Average of and deviations from complexity values (Esperanto) Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in twenty-six languages Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in twenty-six languages Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in twenty-six languages Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in twenty-six languages Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphemes in twenty-six languages Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphemes in twenty-six languages Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in twenty-six languages Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in twenty-six languages Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in twenty-six languages Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in twenty-six languages Scores of complexity Shares of spatial interrogatives of overabundance in Romance LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives of strong suppletion in Romance LPP-varieties Shares of (anti-)periphrastic spatial interrogatives in Romance LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives of fused exponence in Romance LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in Romance LPP-varieties Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in Romance LPP-varieties Skewed distribution of multi-word constructions in Romance LPP-varieties

List of Diagrams | XIX

Diagram 21 Diagram 22 Diagram 23 Diagram 24 Diagram 25 Diagram 26 Diagram 27 Diagram 28 Diagram 29 Diagram 30 Diagram 31 Diagram 32 Diagram 33 Diagram 34 Diagram 35 Diagram 36 Diagram 37 Diagram 38 Diagram 39 Diagram 40

Share of multi-word constructions across all constructions per spatial interrogative in Romance LPP-varieties Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphs in Romance LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Romance LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Romance LPP-varieties Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphemes in Romance LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphemes in Romance LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphemes in Romance LPP-varieties Distribution of zero-marking across spatial interrogatives in Romance LPP-varieties Shares the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Romance LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in Romance LPP-varieties Scores of complexity of Romance LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives of overabundance in Germanic LPP-varieties Shares of periphrastic spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties Shares of (anti-)periphrastic spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties Share of periphrastic constructions across all constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives of fused exponence in Germanic LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in Germanic LPP-varieties

XX | List of Diagrams Diagram 41 Diagram 42 Diagram 43 Diagram 44 Diagram 45 Diagram 46 Diagram 47 Diagram 48 Diagram 49 Diagram 50 Diagram 51 Diagram 52 Diagram 53 Diagram 54 Diagram 55 Diagram 56 Diagram 57 Diagram 58 Diagram 59 Diagram 60

Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in Germanic LPP-varieties Skewed distribution of multi-word constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties Share of multi-word constructions across all constructions per spatial interrogative in Germanic LPP-varieties Shares the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of polymorphic constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties Share of polymorphic constructions across all constructions per spatial interrogative in Germanic LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Germanic LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Germanic LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphemes in Germanic LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphemes in Germanic LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives across zero-marking and overt marking in Germanic LPP varieties Distribution of zero-marking and overt marking across spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Germanic LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Germanic LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Germanic LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in Germanic LPP-varieties Scores of complexity of Germanic LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives of overabundance in Slavic LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives of strong suppletion in Slavic LPP-varieties Shares of (anti-)periphrastic spatial interrogatives in Slavic LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives of fused exponence in Slavic LPP-varieties

List of Diagrams | XXI

Diagram 61 Diagram 62 Diagram 63 Diagram 64 Diagram 65 Diagram 66 Diagram 67 Diagram 68 Diagram 69 Diagram 70 Diagram 71 Diagram 72 Diagram 73 Diagram 74 Diagram 75 Diagram 76 Diagram 77 Diagram 78 Diagram 79 Diagram 80

Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in Slavic LPPvarieties Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in Slavic LPPvarieties Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphs in Slavic LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Slavic LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Slavic LPP-varieties Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphemes in Slavic LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphemes in Slavic LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphemes in Slavic LPP-varieties Distribution of zero-marking and overt marking across spatial interrogatives in Slavic LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Slavic LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Slavic LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Slavic LPP-varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in Slavic LPP-varieties Scores of complexity of Slavic LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives of overabundance in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives of strong suppletion in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Shares of periphrastic spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphs in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties

XXII | List of Diagrams Diagram 81

Diagram 82

Diagram 83 Diagram 84 Diagram 85

Diagram 86

Diagram 87

Diagram 88

Diagram 89 Diagram 90 Diagram 91 Diagram 92 Diagram 93 Diagram 94 Diagram 95

Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in sundry Indo-European LPPvarieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in sundry Indo-European LPPvarieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives across zero-marking and overt marking in sundry Indo-European LPP varieties Distribution of zero-marking and overt marking across spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in sundry Indo-European LPPvarieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in sundry Indo-European LPPvarieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in sundry Indo-European LPPvarieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in sundry Indo-European LPPvarieties Scores of complexity of sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Shares of spatial interrogatives of overabundance in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Shares of spatial interrogatives of strong suppletion in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphs in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in non-Indo-European LPPvarieties of Europe

List of Diagrams | XXIII

Diagram 96

Diagram 97 Diagram 98 Diagram 99

Diagram 100

Diagram 101

Diagram 102

Diagram 103 Diagram 104 Diagram 105 Diagram 106 Diagram 107 Diagram 108 Diagram 109 Diagram 110 Diagram 111 Diagram 112 Diagram 113 Diagram 114 Diagram 115 Diagram 116 Diagram 117 Diagram 118

Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in non-Indo-European LPPvarieties of Europe Distribution of spatial interrogatives across zero-marking and overt marking in non-Indo-European LPP varieties of Europe Distribution of zero-marking and overt marking across spatial interrogatives in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Scores of complexity of non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Shares of mismatches compared Share of zero-marking in genetic groups Share of zero-marking across categories Words per construction Morphs per construction Morphemes per construction Syllables per construction Segments per construction Complexity scores Shares of syncretic patterns per continent Shares of continents per syncretic pattern Shares of overabundance of each spatial category per continent Shares of overabundance of all constructions per category and area Shares of suppletive word-forms per continent Shares of suppletion of all constructions per category and area

XXIV | List of Diagrams Diagram 119 Diagram 120 Diagram 121 Diagram 122 Diagram 123 Diagram 124 Diagram 125 Diagram 126 Diagram 127 Diagram 128 Diagram 129 Diagram 130 Diagram 131 Diagram 132 Diagram 133 Diagram 134 Diagram 135 Diagram 136 Diagram 137 Diagram 138 Diagram 139 Diagram 140 Diagram 141 Diagram 142

Shares of (anti-)periphrasis of all constructions per category and area Shares of fused exponence of each spatial category per continent Share of fused exponence of all constructions per category and area Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in non-European varieties Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in non-European varieties Shares of mismatches outside Europe Shares the continents have of each mismatch Shares of mismatches per continent Shares of susceptibility to mismatch of each category per area Shares of susceptibility to mismatch of each area per category Areal distribution of mismatches outside Europe Number of cells with multi-word constructions per category and area Share of cells with multi-word constructions per category and area Share of multi-word constructions outside Europe Spatial categories across constructions types outside Europe Average number of words per construction outside Europe Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in non-European varieties Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in non-European varieties Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Africa Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Africa Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in the Americas Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in the Americas Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Asia Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Asia

List of Diagrams | XXV

Diagram 143 Diagram 144 Diagram 145 Diagram 146 Diagram 147 Diagram 148 Diagram 149 Diagram 150 Diagram 151 Diagram 152 Diagram 153 Diagram 154 Diagram 155 Diagram 156 Diagram 157 Diagram 158 Diagram 159 Diagram 160 Diagram 161 Diagram 162 Diagram 163 Diagram 164 Diagram 165

Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Oceania Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Oceania Average number of morphs per construction outside Europe Shares of zero-marking of each spatial category per continent Shares of zero-marking of all constructions per category and area Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Africa Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Africa Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in the Americas Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in the Americas Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Asia Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Asia Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Oceania Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Oceania Average number of syllables per construction and continent Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Africa Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in the Americas Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Asia Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Oceania Average number of segments per construction outside Europe Scores of complexity of non-European varieties Shares of basic patterns of relation Shares of derivation patterns Average frequency of mismatches inside and outside Europe

XXVI | List of Diagrams Diagram 166 Diagram 167 Diagram 168 Diagram 169 Diagram 170 Diagram 171 Diagram 172

Comparison of the average frequency of syncretic patterns inside and outside Europe Share of zero-marking per construction (comparison) Average number of words per construction (comparison) Average number of morphs per construction (comparison) Average number of syllables per construction (comparison) Average number of segments per construction (comparison) Complexity scores (comparison)

List of Schemes Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 3 Scheme 4 Scheme 5 Scheme 6 Scheme 7 Scheme 8 Scheme 9 Scheme 10 Scheme 11 Scheme 12 Scheme 13 Scheme 14 Scheme 15 Scheme 16 Scheme 17 Scheme 18 Scheme 19 Scheme 20 Scheme 21 Scheme 22 Scheme 23 Scheme 24 Scheme 25 Scheme 26 Scheme 27

Place-Goal syncretism Markedness hierarchy according to Scenario I Diffusion of constructions in Mongolian Markedness hierarchy (revised) Implicational relation of fused exponence and strong suppletion Implication of multi-word constructions Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in Catalan Correspondences of French and Liègeois constructions Correspondences of French and Picardian constructions Circular processes in Romance paradigms Implicational relation of periphrastic constructions Implication of multi-word constructions Synchronic derivational patterns Change of encoding strategy Implication of mono-wordhood Implication of multi-wordhood Implication of monomorphism Implication of polymorphism Allomorphy of Cornish spatial interrogatives Pan-European markedness hierarchy Tense-based allomorphy of WHERE in Seselwa Allomorphy in Awtuw Zero-marked WHENCE implies syncretism Markedness hierarchy (confirmed) Parallel markedness hierarchies Idealized frequency of syncretic patterns across sentence-types Idealized hierarchy of spatial categories across sentence-types

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33

Spatial interrogatives in assorted European languages according to Wąsik (1982) Logically possible patterns of formal distinctions Distribution of syncretic patterns over previous samples Possible and impossible combinations of syncretic pairs I Possible and impossible combinations of syncretic pairs II Admissible patterns of formal distinctions according to Scenario I Finnish interrogatives (Karlsson 1984: 155) Canonical paradigm of spatial interrogatives (Early Modern) English spatial interrogatives and sundry items Lezgian paradigm of spatial interrogatives Mongolian paradigm of spatial interrogatives (Version I) Mongolian paradigm of spatial interrogatives (Version II) Archaic elements in the Italian system of spatial interrogatives Contemporary Italian system of spatial interrogatives Tamasheq paradigm of spatial interrogatives (Version I) Repartition of WHERE-constructions over Tamasheq varieties Paradigm of spatial interrogatives of most varieties of Tamasheq Paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Elfdalian (Version I) Paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Elfdalian (Version II) Paradigm of spatial interrogatives of North-Russian Romani Modern Standard Arabic paradigm of spatial interrogatives Coptic (Sahidic) paradigm of spatial interrogatives Middle Welsh paradigm of spatial interrogatives Lealao Chinantec paradigm of spatial interrogatives Cogui paradigm of spatial interrogatives Yurak paradigm of spatial interrogatives Paiwan paradigm of spatial interrogatives Galibi Carib paradigm of spatial interrogatives Number of morphemes and morphs of Galibi Carib spatial interrogatives Aymara paradigm of spatial interrogatives Kalmyk paradigm of spatial interrogatives Number of syllables of Kalmyk spatial interrogatives Ubykh paradigm of spatial interrogatives

List of Tables | XXIX

Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44

Table 45

Table 46

Table 47

Table 48

Table 49

Table 50

Table 51

Table 52

Table 53

Segmental chains of Ubykh spatial interrogatives Esperanto paradigm of spatial interrogatives Check-list for mismatches (Esperanto) Mismatch score of Esperanto spatial interrogatives Complexity values of Esperanto spatial interrogatives Scores for the complexity levels of Esperanto spatial interrogatives Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in twenty-six languages Expected vs. attested number of word-forms Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm Languages which attest to multi-word constructions Number of co-occurrences of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in the paradigms of languages which allow for periphrastic spatial interrogatives Number of co-occurrences of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in the paradigms of languages which allow for periphrastic spatial interrogatives Number of co-occurrences of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in the paradigms of languages which allow for periphrastic spatial interrogatives Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages Statistics of zero-marking in twenty-six languages

XXX | List of Tables Table 54

Table 55

Table 56

Table 57

Table 58

Table 59

Table 60 Table 61 Table 62 Table 63 Table 64 Table 65 Table 66 Table 67 Table 68 Table 69 Table 70

Combinations of monosyllabic and polysyllabic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages Combinations of monosyllabic and polysyllabic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages Combinations of monosyllabic and polysyllabic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages Combinations of constructions of WHERE and WHITHER of different segmental size in one and the same paradigm (twenty-six languages) Combinations of constructions of WHERE and WHENCE of different segmental size in one and the same paradigm (twenty-six languages) Combinations of constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE of different segmental size in one and the same paradigm (twenty-six languages) Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in twenty-six languages Derivational patterns in twenty-six languages Spatial interrogatives with WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism in Romance versions of LPP Triplets of distinct spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP Romance LPP-varieties with evidence of two syncretic patterns in their versions of LPP Attested constructions in Romance LPP-varieties Spatial interrogatives with overabundance in Romance versions of LPP Strong suppletion in paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP Spatial interrogatives which attest to anti-periphrasis in Romance versions of LPP Spatial interrogatives which attest to periphrasis in Romance versions of LPP Fused exponence with spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP

List of Tables | XXXI

Table 71 Table 72 Table 73 Table 74 Table 75 Table 76 Table 77 Table 78 Table 79 Table 80 Table 81 Table 82 Table 83 Table 84 Table 85 Table 86 Table 87

Table 88

Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm in Romance LPP-varieties Spatial interrogatives which attest to multi-word constructions in Romance versions of LPP Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Romance LPP-varieties Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in Romance LPP-varieties Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Romance LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of words per construction) in Romance LPP-varieties Paradigms of three spatial interrogatives with identical number of morphs per construction in Romance versions of LPP Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Romance LPP-varieties Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in Romance LPP-varieties Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Romance LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphs per construction) in Romance LPP-varieties Spatial interrogatives whose number of morphemes exceeds that of morphs in Romance versions of LPP Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Romance LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphemes per construction) in Romance LPP-varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Romance LPP-varieties in which zero-marking fails to apply Spatial interrogatives with equal number of syllables for all spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties

XXXII | List of Tables Table 89

Table 90 Table 91 Table 92 Table 93 Table 94 Table 95 Table 96 Table 97 Table 98 Table 99 Table 100 Table 101 Table 102 Table 103 Table 104 Table 105 Table 106 Table 107 Table 108 Table 109 Table 110 Table 111 Table 112 Table 113

Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCEconstructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of syllables per construction) in Romance LPP-varieties Size of segmental chains of spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP (expected behavior) Size of segmental chains of spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP (unexpected behavior) Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions of different segmental size in Romance LPP-varieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Romance LPP-varieties Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Romance LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of segments per construction) in Romance LPP-varieties Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in Romance LPP-varieties Derivational patterns in Romance LPP-varieties Examples of derivational patterns in Romance LPP-varieties Asturian paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety) Romanian paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety) Sardinian (Logodurese) paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety) Sardinian (Campidanese) paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety) Catalan paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety) Spanish paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety) Portuguese paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety) Friulian paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety) Genoese paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety) Latin paradigm of spatial interrogatives Changes in the Latin paradigm of spatial interrogatives Modern Romance varieties which continue Latin ubi ‘where’ Modern Romance varieties which continue Latin unde ‘whence’ Distribution patterns of etymological stems

List of Tables | XXXIII

Table 114 Table 115 Table 116 Table 117 Table 118 Table 119 Table 120 Table 121 Table 122 Table 123 Table 124 Table 125 Table 126 Table 127 Table 128 Table 129 Table 130 Table 131 Table 132 Table 133 Table 134 Table 135 Table 136

Hypothetical chronology (pull-chain) of the generalization of Latin ubi ‘where’ and subsequent disambiguation of WHENCE Hypothetical chronology (push-chain) of the generalization of Latin ubi ‘where’ and subsequent disambiguation of WHENCE Spatial interrogatives of older stages of Romance languages Changes in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives in three Romance languages Romance languages with Q-stem based on Latin unde ‘whence’ (reinforced WHENCE-construction) Doubly marked WHENCE in Romance languages (generalized Latin unde ‘whence’) Doubly marked WHENCE in Romance languages (generalized Latin ubi ‘where’) Maximally distinct paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties Germanic LPP-varieties with paradigm-internal syncretism Attested constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties Germanic LPP-varieties which attest to overabundance Weak suppletion in paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Germanic LPP-varieties (Anti-)periphrastic constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties Fused exponence in Germanic LPP-varieties Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm in Germanic LPP-varieties Multi-word constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Germanic LPP-varieties Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in Germanic LPP-varieties Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Germanic LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of words per construction) in Germanic LPP-varieties Polymorphic spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Germanic LPP-varieties Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in Germanic LPP-varieties

XXXIV | List of Tables Table 137 Table 138 Table 139 Table 140 Table 141 Table 142 Table 143 Table 144

Table 145

Table 146

Table 147 Table 148

Table 149 Table 150 Table 151 Table 152 Table 153 Table 154

Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Germanic LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphs per construction) in Germanic LPP-varieties Monomorphemic WHITHER-constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Germanic LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphemes per construction) in Germanic LPP-varieties Zero-marked WHITHER-constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties Spatial interrogatives with identical number of syllables in Germanic LPP-varieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Germanic LPPvarieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Germanic LPPvarieties Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Germanic LPPvarieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of syllables per construction) in Germanic LPP-varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives which host three constructions of different size in terms of segments (Germanic LPP-varieties) Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions of different segmental size in Germanic LPP-varieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Germanic LPP-varieties Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Germanic LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of segments per construction) in Germanic LPP-varieties Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Kölsch

List of Tables | XXXV

Table 155 Table 156 Table 157 Table 158 Table 159 Table 160 Table 161 Table 162 Table 163 Table 164 Table 165 Table 166 Table 167 Table 168 Table 169 Table 170 Table 171 Table 172 Table 173 Table 174 Table 175 Table 176 Table 177 Table 178 Table 179 Table 180

Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Limburgish Spatial interrogatives of Goal in the Luxembourgish translation of Harry Potter, vol. 1 Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three potential varieties of Luxembourgish Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Swiss German (Bern) Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Norwegian varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four Faroese sources Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three Low German varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two German varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Gothic and Old Icelandic Paradigms of spatial interrogatives on different diachronic stages of the English language Paradigms of spatial interrogatives on different diachronic stages of the German language Maximally distinct paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Slavic LPP-varieties Slavic LPP-varieties with paradigm-internal syncretism Combination of patterns in the Polish LPP-variety Attested constructions in Slavic LPP-varieties Slavic LPP-varieties which attest to overabundance Slavic LPP-varieties without suppletion Slavic LPP-varieties which attest to suppletion Slavic LPP-varieties with periphrastic spatial interrogatives Slavic LLP-varieties with cases of fused exponence Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm in Slavic LPP-varieties Combinations of mono-word constructions and multi-wordconstructions in Slavic LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of words per construction) in Slavic LPP-varieties Number of morphs of spatial interrogatives of Slavic LPPvarieties Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Slavic LPP-varieties Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of V and WHENCE in Slavic LPP-varieties

XXXVI | List of Tables Table 181 Table 182 Table 183 Table 184 Table 185 Table 186 Table 187 Table 188 Table 189 Table 190

Table 191

Table 192

Table 193 Table 194 Table 195 Table 196 Table 197 Table 198

Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Slavic LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphs per construction) in Slavic LPP-varieties Number of morphemes per spatial interrogative in Slavic LPP-varieties in Slavic LPP-varieties Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Slavic LPP-varieties Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in Slavic LPP-varieties Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Slavic LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphemes per construction) in Slavic LPP-varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Slavic LPP-varieties which allow for zero-marking Syllable count of the spatial interrogatives of Slavic LPP-varieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Slavic LPP-varieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Slavic LPP-varieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Slavic LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of syllables per construction) in Slavic LPP-varieties Number of segments of spatial interrogatives of Slavic LPP-varieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions of different segmental size in Slavic LPP-varieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Slavic LPP-varieties Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Slavic LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of segments per construction) in Slavic LPP-varieties

List of Tables | XXXVII

Table 199 Table 200 Table 201 Table 202 Table 203 Table 204 Table 205 Table 206 Table 207 Table 208 Table 209 Table 210 Table 211 Table 212 Table 213 Table 214 Table 215 Table 216 Table 217 Table 218 Table 219 Table 220 Table 221 Table 222

Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in Slavic LPP-varieties Derivational patterns in Slavic LPP-varieties Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Old Church Slavonic Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Old Church Slavonic and Russian Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in two Macedonian varieties Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Old Church Slavonic and Polish Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in two Ukrainian varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in the LPP-varieties of Bosnian, Croatian, Croatian (Burgenland), and Serbian Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in the DGB-varieties of Bosnian, Croatian (Burgenland), and Serbian Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Bulgarian varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Slavomolisano varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three Slovenian varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Slovak varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Sorbian (Lower) and two Sorbian (Upper) varieties Spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Attested constructions in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Overabundance in paradigms of spatial interrogatives of sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Suppletive spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Periphrastic spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives without multi-word constructions in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHITHER Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties

XXXVIII | List of Tables Table 223 Table 224 Table 225 Table 226 Table 227 Table 228 Table 229 Table 230 Table 231

Table 232

Table 233

Table 234 Table 235 Table 236

Table 237

Table 238

Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of words per construction) in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Number of morphs in spatial interrogatives of sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphs per construction) in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Zero-marking with spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Number of syllables of spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of syllables per construction) in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Number of segments of spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions of different segmental size in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties

List of Tables | XXXIX

Table 239 Table 240 Table 241 Table 242 Table 243 Table 244 Table 245 Table 246 Table 247 Table 248 Table 249 Table 250 Table 251 Table 252 Table 253 Table 254 Table 255 Table 256 Table 257 Table 258 Table 259 Table 260 Table 261 Table 262 Table 263 Table 264

Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of segments per construction) in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Derivational patterns in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Ancient Greek and Modern Greek Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Italo-Greek Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four varieties of Armenian Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four varieties of standard Albanian (Tosk) Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four varieties of Albanian (Gheg) Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four varieties of Romani Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three varieties of Kurmanji Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three varieties of Zazaki Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Ossetic Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four varieties of Welsh Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in five varieties of Breton Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Middle Breton Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Cornish Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in five Goidelic varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in six Lithuanian varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four Latvian varieties Spatial interrogatives in versions of LPP non-Indo-European languages of Europe Attested constructions in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties (Europe) Overabundance in paradigms of spatial interrogatives of non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Strong suppletion with spatial interrogatives in Maltese (LPP) Weakly suppletive spatial interrogatives in versions of LPP in non-Indo-European languages of Europe Potentially periphrastic spatial interrogatives in Aramaic and Georgian Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe

XL | List of Tables Table 265 Table 266 Table 267

Table 268

Table 269

Table 270 Table 271 Table 272 Table 273

Table 274

Table 275

Table 276 Table 277 Table 278

Table 279

Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of words per construction) in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Number of morphs in spatial interrogatives of non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphs per construction) in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Zero-marking of spatial interrogatives in versions of LPP in non-Indo-European languages of Europe Number of syllables of spatial interrogatives in versions of LPP in non-Indo-European languages of Europe Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of syllables per construction) in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Segmental size of spatial interrogatives in versions of LPP in non-Indo-European languages of Europe Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions of different segmental size in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe

List of Tables | XLI

Table 280

Table 281 Table 282 Table 283 Table 284 Table 285 Table 286 Table 287 Table 288 Table 289 Table 290 Table 291 Table 292 Table 293 Table 294 Table 295 Table 296 Table 297 Table 298 Table 299 Table 300 Table 301 Table 302 Table 303 Table 304

Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of segments per construction) in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Derivational patterns in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in five Uralic languages Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three varieties of Mari Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three Saami LPP-varieties Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in varieties of Veps and Votic Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three Uralic languages Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three Uralic languages of Europe Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in the four Turkic LPP-varieties of Europe Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Azerbaijani Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Tatar, Kazakh, Bashkir, and Chuvash Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Gagauz, Kumyk, and Balkar Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Crimean Tatar Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Karaim Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Old Turkic Distribution of mismatches over Turkic varieties of Europe Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Northwest Caucasian languages Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in five Northeast Caucasian languages Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four South Caucasian languages Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Maltese Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Neo-Arabic varieties of Europe Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Aramaic Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Basque

XLII | List of Tables Table 305 Table 306 Table 307 Table 308 Table 309 Table 310 Table 311 Table 312 Table 313 Table 314 Table 315 Table 316 Table 317 Table 318 Table 319 Table 320 Table 321 Table 322 Table 323 Table 324 Table 325 Table 326 Table 327 Table 328 Table 329 Table 330 Table 331 Table 332 Table 333 Table 334 Table 335 Table 336 Table 337 Table 338

Share of languages with mismatches per language family (LPP) Patterns as attested in Europe Share of zero-marking across categories Number of words per construction Number of morphs per construction Number of morphemes per construction Number of syllables per construction Number of segments per construction Complexity scores Paradigms without syncretism in languages of Africa Paradigms without syncretism in languages of the Americas Paradigms without syncretism in languages of Asia Paradigms without syncretism in languages of Oceania WHERE=WHITHER syncretism in languages of Africa WHERE=WHITHER syncretism in languages of the Americas WHERE=WHITHER syncretism in languages of Asia Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Kirghiz WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism in languages of Oceania WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in non-European languages WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism in non-European languages WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in languages of Africa WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in languages of the Americas WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in languages of Asia WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in languages of Oceania Cells which host periphrasis/anti-periphrasis (absolute numbers) Average number of words per construction Average number of morphs per construction Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in non-European varieties Distribution of basic patterns of relation (absolute frequency) Tetrachoric table of absence/presence of syncretism of spatial relations in interrogatives and declaratives Logically possible combinations of syncretic patterns in interrogatives and declaratives Ternary paradigms in Ket interrogatives and declaratives Neutralized paradigms in Palauan interrogatives and declaratives Identical syncretic patterns in Albanian (Tosk) interrogatives and declaratives

List of Tables | XLIII

Table 339 Table 340 Table 341 Table 342 Table 343 Table 344 Table 345 Table 346 Table 347 Table 348 Table 349

Identical syncretic patterns in Saami (North) interrogatives and declaratives Different patterns in Zapotecan (Isthmus) interrogatives and declaratives Different syncretic patterns in Khwe paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives Different syncretic patterns in Shona paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives Different syncretic patterns in Kanuri paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives Different syncretic patterns in Munukutuba paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives Different syncretic patterns in Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán) paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives Different syncretic patterns in Tamasheq paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives Different patterns in Persian interrogatives and declaratives Attested combinations of syncretic patterns in interrogatives and declaratives Google hits for dynamic spatial interrogatives in Ukrainian

1 Introduction 1.1 Getting to know the research question This book studies a narrowly defined subset of the class of content interrogatives, viz. the system of spatial interrogatives. The focus of our study is on the paradigmatic aspects connected to spatial interrogatives. These aspects are identified and discussed in cross-linguistic perspective. Content interrogatives trigger answers which provide new lexical information, i.e. they cannot be answered by (the translation equivalents of) yes or no. Spatial interrogatives are morphosyntactic constructions which serve the purpose of inquiring a) about the location of an entity in space, i.e. the spatial relation of Place is involved, b) the endpoint of the movement of an entity in space, i.e. the spatial relation of Goal is involved, c) the starting point of the movement of an entity in space, i.e. the spatial relation of Source is involved. Place, Goal, and Source are “case-like notions” (Fillmore 1975: 26), which identify the roles “any Ground can assume” (Wälchli & Zúñiga 2006: 286) in descriptions of spatial situations (Lehmann 1992). Within the realm of spatial interrogatives, the three notions of Place, Goal, and Source give rise to a tripartite paradigm which ideally consists of a) WHERE = a construction which serves as the basis for questions about the static location of something (cf. English Where are you?), b) two constructions which serve as the basis for questions about dynamic spatial relations, namely a. WHITHER = the movement directed away from a given deictic center to a place other than the deictic center (cf. English Where are you going?), b. WHENCE = the movement directed towards a given deictic center from a place other than the deictic center (English Where are you coming from?). The use of the somewhat antiquated English spatial interrogatives as labels of the constructions is explained further below. Summarily, Ultan (1978: 228–229) refers to the functions of spatial interrogatives under the label of locative functions in the following quote:

DOI: 10.1515/9783110539516-001

2 | Introduction Interrogative words are characteristic of all languages. That is, all languages have interrogative substitutes for nouns and a number of adverb-like words or phrases expressive of locative, temporal, enumerative, manner, purpose and other functions.

More recently, König & Siemund (2007: 302) have refined this statement by claiming that [l]anguages also show differences in their inventory of interrogative words. One usually finds interrogative words which replace the core constituents or arguments of a sentence and typically inquire about persons and things (who versus what) as well as interrogative words in an adverbial function which are typically used to seek information about (i) the location of a situation (where), (ii) its temporal setting (when), (iii) the manner of carrying it through (how), and (iv) the reason for it (why).

Thus, spatial interrogatives are considered a functionally defined sub-class of (content) interrogatives in general. According to both of the above sources, spatial interrogatives are universal categories in the sense that every language must provide its speakers with adequate means for posing questions as to the location and/or change of location of entities in space. Morphosyntactically these means may come in different shapes, i.e., we can expect to find structural variation crosslinguistically as to the constructions which are employed for the purpose of forming spatial interrogatives. These expectations alone justify that spatial interrogatives be scrutinized for a sizable number of languages world-wide. Note that there are languages for the spatial interrogative constructions of which the term interrogative word or question word is inadequate as we will have opportunity to notice repeatedly in the course of this study. The question arises immediately whether or not it makes sense indeed to study spatial interrogatives, typologically. To give a satisfactory answer to this question, we first introduce briefly the examples (1)–(2) from Coptic (Sahidic). The conventions we use for the presentation of sentential examples throughout this study as well as the crucial notions and further technical matters are exposed further below. P, G, and S are short for Place, Goal, and Source, respectively. The accompanying question mark indicates that we are dealing with the spatial interrogatives WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE. A slash is used if a given spatial interrogative neutralizes several spatial functions. All further abbreviations used in the morpheme glosses are spelled out in a separate list. Wherever our sources provide morpheme glosses we stick to them unless there are special reasons for us to modify the glosses. This means that we have not attempted to homogenize the abbreviations and other principles of morpheme glossing; in some cases, the morpheme glosses reflect narrow morphological analyses of the

Getting to know the research question | 3

examples whereas in other cases we content ourselves with relatively coarsegrained analyses. (1) (1.1)

(1.2)

(1.3)

Coptic (Sahidic) [Reintges 2004: 147–148] Place Ešaksunage tōn mpsabbat.n mn REL:HAB:2SG.M:attend_Mass P?/G?/S? on:DET.M:Saturday and tkuriakē? DET.F:Sunday ‘Where do you (usually) attend Mass on Saturday and Sunday?’ Goal ntafkaaf tōn REL:PERF:3SG.M:put:3SG.M P?/G?/S? ‘(He did not tell me) where he had put it.’ Source Eknēu tōn pason? REL:2SG.M:come P?/G?/S? POSS.1SG:brother ‘Where are you coming from, my brother?’

Each of the Coptic (Sahidic) examples in (1) involves the question word tōn ‘where’ which is highlighted in boldface in the original, in the morpheme glosses and in the English translations. This question word is an example of a mono-word construction of a spatial interrogative. English is different insofar as in (1.3) the question word where does not suffice to render the interrogative sentence grammatically acceptable. The question word has to combine with the stranded preposition from so that the two together yield a multi-word construction of a spatial interrogative which is at the same time bimorphemic. Since two syntactic words are needed to realize the discontinuous construction where (…) from, the term question word is a misnomer since it invokes a mono-word construction. In contrast, in the Coptic (Sahidic) original, tōn ‘where’ does not require any additional morphosyntactic support to fulfill its tasks. It remains the same in all three sentences although the spatial situations about which the speaker inquires are different from each other. In (1.1), the situation is static since the question is about the place where the Mass is celebrated. In (1.2), tōn ‘where’ is used to formulate an indirect question as to the goal of a movement, namely that of putting an object somewhere. Thus, the spatial situation is dynamic. This is also the case in (1.3) in which the point of departure of a voyager is inquired about. The question word tōn ‘where’ is apparently insensitive to the semantic differences of Place, Goal, and Source. However, Reintges (2004: 148) explicitly relativizes this impression when he remarks that “[t]o specify its spatial orientation, it [= tōn ‘where’] is fre-

4 | Introduction quently combined with the directional preposition e- ‘to’ or the particle ebol ‘out’.” These combinations are illustrated in (2). (2) (2.1)

(2.2)

Coptic (Sahidic) [Reintges 2004: 148] Goal Erbōk e-tōn? 2SG.F:go to-P?/G?/S? ‘Where are you going (to)?’ Source Ebol tōn atetnei epyma? out P?/G?/S? PERF:2PL:come to:DEM.PROX.M:place ‘From where have you come to this place?’

In (2.1) as well as in (2.2), the question word tōn ‘where’ is accompanied by another morpheme and thus the constructions of the spatial interrogatives are bimorphemic with etōn ‘where to (henceforth: whither [cf. below])’ representing a mono-word construction and ebol tōn ‘from where (henceforth: whence [cf. below])’ illustrating a multi-word construction. Put differently, tōn ‘where’ may neutralize the distinctions of Place, Goal, and Source. Optionally, however, the three spatial relations can be distinguished formally by constructions of their own. As to English, the question word where can be used indiscriminately for the functions of Place and Goal. In the latter function, it is still possible to employ the (stranded) preposition to additionally. That the stranded preposition to is no longer compulsory is indicated by the brackets in the translation of (2.1) above. There are thus similarities and dissimilarities. Coptic (Sahidic) and English spatial interrogatives do not behave completely the same. Both languages allow for neutralization of spatial relations under interrogation – a situation which is labeled as syncretism in the remainder of this study. In English, only Place and Goal are affected by syncretism whereas in Coptic (Sahidic), Source is involved too. Again in both languages, syncretism is optional since the dynamic spatial relations may be specified overtly if needs be. Moreover, both languages concur as to assigning the morphosyntactically most complex construction to the spatial interrogative of Source which consists of a PP of two words in both cases, namely Coptic (Sahidic) ebol tōn ‘whence’ and English where (…) from. Similarly, the most simple construction is identical with the spatial interrogative of Place not only in Coptic (Sahidic) but also in English, namely tōn ‘where’ and where. Since these elements are monomorphemic units they are also examples of zero-marking, i.e. there is no extra-exponent of the spatial relation which is inquired about. Neither tōn ‘where’ nor English where can be analyzed as portmanteau morphs in which the morphemes {INTERROGATIVE} + {PLACE} coalesce

Getting to know the research question | 5

since they can be employed in functions other than that of Place and may also combine with disambiguating additional morphemes the dynamic meaning component of which is incompatible with the static meaning component of Place. Accordingly, the simple construction serves also as basis (or Q-stem, cf. below) for the formation of the more complex constructions. The derived constructions are automatically at least bimorphemic and thus do not fulfill the requirements of zero-marking. Note that interrogativity licenses neutralization of spatial relations which in other sentence types have to be marked and distinguished overtly and obligatorily. In Coptic (Sahidic) this is achieved by the prepositions ero= ‘to’, mmo= ‘in’ and the particle ebol ‘out’ (Reintges 2004: 102) and in English by prepositions such as at, on, in, to, from. The Coptic (Sahidic) declarative sentences and their English translations in (3) are illustrative of the obligatory use of morphemes which specify the spatial relation. Boldface highlights the spatial prepositions. (3) (3.1)

(3.2)

(3.3)

Coptic (Sahidic) Place [Reintges 2004: 105] Nere pčoys m-pyma were DET.M:Lord in-DEM.PROX:place ‘If the Lord were in this place…’ Goal (cf. also epyma ‘to this place’ in (2.2) above) [Reintges 2004: 102] Afy šarof e-tabenēse PERF:3SG.M:go to:3SG.M to-Tabenese ‘He went to him to Tabenese.’ Source [Reintges 2004: 114] Afy ebol hn tefri PERF:3SG.M:go out in DET.F:3SG.M:cell ‘He came out of his cell.’

For the language pair Coptic (Sahidic) and English, it can be stated that, under interrogation, it is optional to make spatial relations explicit (except Source in English). In contrast, declarative sentences require that spatial relations are encoded by overt morphological units in both languages. This differential treatment of spatial relations according to sentence type is no minor matter since it might be the case that at least some of the extant generalizations over the grammar of space (which are based mainly on the analysis of declarative sentences, cf. below) have to be revised because they fail to apply in interrogative sentences. This potential failure makes the investigation of spatial interrogatives especially interesting for students of spatial language.

6 | Introduction This sketchy comparison of the situations in English and Coptic (Sahidic) is already indicative of the potential that the systematic cross-linguistic evaluation of the structural and functional properties of spatial interrogatives has in store. It is clear from the above that languages may differ on a variety of parameters and at the same time they may also share some features. Moreover, the system of spatial interrogatives does not necessarily constitute a simple replica of the morphosyntax of spatial relations characteristic of other sentence types. Coptic (Sahidic) and English do not exhaust the phenomenology. Neither does English represent the globally dominant solution nor is the Coptic (Sahidic) pattern its sole competitor. Even close relatives (as e.g. German as opposed to English) may opt for organizing their system of spatial interrogatives differently. At the same time, the range of variation the paradigms of spatial interrogatives are subject to is by no means unlimited. A set of recurrent patterns emerges if further languages are checked for their spatial interrogatives. Thus, it is important to determine what these patterns are and to what extent genetic, areal, and/or typological factors contribute to the shaping of the grammar of spatial interrogatives. To achieve this, it is necessary first and foremost to take stock of the empirical facts on as broad a crosslinguistic basis as possible. Taking stock of the empirical facts is exactly what we propose to do in this study since, to the best of our knowledge no attempt has been made hitherto to provide a comprehensive typology of spatial interrogatives in the languages of the world.

1.2 Previous research and on-going debate 1.2.1 In the realm of linguistic research on interrogativity In contrast to spatial interrogatives in particular, interrogatives as a major class in general have been studied typologically before by various authors such as Ultan (1978), Wąsik (1982), Cheng (1997), Siemund (2001), Cysouw (2007)1, and Dixon (2012: 376–433). Important insights for the crosslinguistics of interrogativity can be gathered also from the contributions to the collection of articles edited by Chisholm et al. (1984). Zeshan (2004) provides a crosslinguistic account of interrogative constructions in signed languages. The typology of interrogative verbs is the topic of Hagège (2008) whereas other scholars engage in a discussion of the so-called indefinite-interrogative puzzle (e.g. Bhat 2000). || 1 Cysouw (2007: 156–158) discusses the (relatively infrequent) evidence of spatial expressions (= WHERE) which serve as basis for entire interrogative systems.

Previous research and on-going debate | 7

What these previous approaches suggest is that it is indeed possible to conduct typologically-minded research on interrogatives – and that this is an endeavor that makes a lot of sense linguistically. Since many of the referenced authors aim at covering the entire domain of interrogatives and questions the space dedicated to the class of spatial interrogatives in their work tends to be very restricted if this class is mentioned at all. Wąsik (1982: 475), for instance, is already relatively informative about spatial interrogatives when he includes the word-forms of seven contemporary Indo-European languages of Europe in a tabular survey of question words of which we reproduce those cells which are of interest for the present purpose in Table 1. Table 1: Spatial interrogatives in assorted European languages according to Wąsik (1982). Language

Spatial relation PLACE

GOAL

English

where

where

SOURCE

French

où

où

Lithuanian

kur ~ kame

kur ~ kame

Albanian

ku

ku ~ nga

nga

Polish

gdzie

gdzie ~ dokąd

skąd

Russian

gde

kuda

otkuda

German

wo

wohin

woher

Boldface and single underlining identify word-forms which occur in more than one of the cells of a paradigm and thus constitute instances of syncretism. Grey shading marks those cells which are occupied by more than one word-form – a phenomenon which goes by the name of overabundance (cf. below). What strikes the eye most is the absence of word-forms in the Source cells of three languages (English, French, Lithuanian). What superficially looks like a case of defectiveness is the effect of Wąsik’s word-based approach which precludes the possibility of having multi-word constructions forming a paradigm with monoword constructions. Thus, English where (…) to and where (…) from are excluded for the same reason French d’où ‘whence’ and Lithuanian iš kur ‘whence’ are excluded from Table 1. Their exclusion from the paradigm renders it practically impossible to describe the grammar of spatial interrogatives adequately. The above comparison of English and Coptic (Sahidic) shows that multi-word con-

8 | Introduction structions have to be taken account of too since they are functionally in a paradigmatic relation with their mono-word partners.2 That the supposedly empty cells of Wąsik’s paradigms involve exclusively the Source relation is, however, an indirect proof of the higher markedness of this spatial relation. This issue and related topics will be taken up again and elaborated upon below. Discounting the functionally unjustified empty cells, Wąsik’s survey already gives us an idea of the range of variation that can be expected if more languages are scrutinized more thoroughly. Five of the seven languages (= English, French, Lithuanian, Albanian, Polish) use identical word-forms for inquiring about Place and Goal. Three of these five languages also attest to competing synonymous spatial interrogatives (= Lithuanian, Albanian, Polish). According to Wąsik’s interpretation, only German and Russian have three fully distinct spatial interrogatives without syncretism and overabundance. Albanian is the only language of his small sample which attests not only to Place-Goal syncretism but also to Goal-Source syncretism. Especially the latter pattern is worthwhile looking at more closely. The determination of the preferences and dispreferences of languages as to employing patterns of syncretism counts among the major tasks of the empirical part of this study. Without discussing the correctness of the presentation of the data in Table 1, what can be said is that several solutions of organizing the paradigm of spatial interrogatives coexist in Europe among languages which are genetically related to each other. The differences observed above for the language pair Coptic (Sahidic) and English cover only a fragment of the possibilities. The languages in Table 1 show that there are many more ways in which the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of different languages may differ from each other. Some nineteen years after Wąsik, Siemund (2001: 1023) includes a short paragraph on spatial interrogatives in his handbook article on questions. He claims that [a]s for location, for instance, Early Modern English draws a clear distinction between source and goal […]. A similar distinction is found in German, Lezgian, Georgian and Finnish, with woher/wohin, hinaj/hiniz, saidan/sait and mistä/mihin being used to inquire about source and goal respectively. Swedish only codes the goal with a separate word (vart).

For the quoted author, the distinction of Goal and Source via the opposition of Early Modern English whither and whence is crucial. The quote further suggests || 2 To avoid confusion with the notion of mono-word construction, we avoid the term lexicalization employed by Pantcheva (2010: 1055–1058) in her discussion of the internal logic of systems of spatial relations.

Previous research and on-going debate | 9

that the formerly established system might undergo changes (from Early Modern English to Modern English, for instance). At the same time, languages – even genetically closely related ones – might differ among each other as to the formal distinctions they make in the realm of the spatial interrogatives. Genetically unrelated languages, in turn, may resemble each other closely in the realm of spatial interrogatives. This scenario invites a typological interpretation unless areal factors or language contact explain the parallel behavior of otherwise differently affiliated languages. In contrast to his Polish predecessor Wąsik (1982), Siemund (2001) does not mention cases of the Albanian type which allows for Goal-Source syncretism. The puzzle posed by the Swedish case – i.e. the supposed absence of a Source interrogative – mentioned in the above quote from Siemund (2001) can be solved in the same way as that of the putative defective paradigms in Table 1. Swedish vart ‘whither’ is a bona fide mono-word construction whereas varifrån ‘whence’ is not because the final component ifrån ‘from’ is mobile and optionally winds up in clause-final position detached from its usual host var ‘where’. Thus, Swedish varifrån ‘whence’ behaves very similar to English where (…) from and German wohin ‘whither’ and woher ‘whence’ whose directional morphemes may also be subject to stranding. On this basis, it is unclear why the German spatial interrogatives are treated as mono-word constructions whereas Swedish varifrån ‘whence’ is not. These and similar cases from the Germanic languages are discussed in Section 3.2 below. At this point it suffices to emphasize that it is more promising linguistically to adopt a construction-based approach to spatial interrogatives in lieu of a mono-word approach which is bound to cut off an important element of the paradigm. Furthermore, Siemund’s of necessity very summary presentation of examples does not take account of overabundance. The critical remarks on some of the data in Wąsik (1982) and Siemund (2001) can also be understood as a plea for using a paradigm-based approach in lieu of a word-based approach to account for the entire range of the phenomena which make the grammar of spatial interrogatives interesting for linguists. In sum, our empirical knowledge about spatial interrogatives is still severely restricted. A number of questionable hypotheses have been put forward on this shaky basis. The above approaches are form-oriented in the sense that they focus exclusively on mono-word constructions – variously called question words or interrogative words. In this and only in this way, it cannot be helped that some languages appear to lack some spatial interrogatives, i.e. their paradigms contain gaps and are thus defective. If one looks at spatial interrogatives from the perspective of interrogative functions, it is clear immediately that there is no defectiveness since the putatively empty cells of the paradigm can be filled

10 | Introduction with multi-word constructions. Paradigmatic combinations of cells which host mono-word constructions and cells which host multi-word constructions invoke the notion of periphrasis as a potential morphological mismatch to be discussed with sundry mismatches in Section 2. We dare say that spatial interrogatives can be taken account of adequately only if function is given precedence over form and the paradigm is given precedence over the (syntactic) word. Our own approach is primarily functional and paradigm-based.

1.2.2 The grammar of space Spatial interrogatives are worthwhile being scrutinized by linguists because these interrogatives display a particular combination of properties which renders them especially interesting. These properties are connected on the one hand to interrogativity (as shown above) and on the other to the grammar of space. There is an abundance of studies dedicated to the linguistics of space. Several research groups and individual scholars address all kinds of interesting phenomena of spatial language as Herskovits (1986), Goldap (1991), Svorou (1993), Shay & Seibert (2003), Levinson (2003), Levinson & Wilkins (2006), Bateman (2010) and many others show. However, spatial interrogatives as such have not gained sufficient attention in the wider framework of the linguistics of space. One of the reasons and maybe not the least important is the predominance of declarative sentences as the typical format of linguistic examples. Many studies devoted to the grammar of space focus on the linguistic correlate of spatial situations in the sense of Lehmann (1992). Situations, be they spatial or other are described normally in the shape of declarative sentences. The analysis of spatial situations via the analysis of their linguistic representation in declarative sentences forms the basis for many hypotheses about language and space in general. Declarative sentences are commonly considered to be the unmarked sentence type whereas interrogative sentences belong to the class of marked sentence types (König & Siemund 2007: 285). According to Greenberg (1976: 50– 51), interrogative sentences are frequently overtly marked for sentence type whereas overt marking of declarative sentences is absolutely exceptional and at the same time statements display a much higher text frequency than questions do. One might ask therefore whether or not the status of marked sentence type also implies that other linguistic categories associated with interrogativity display a marked behavior. One might ask more specifically whether or not spatial interrogatives treat spatial relations in a marked way i.e. differently from the treatment spatial relations are subject to in declarative sentences. Our study is

Previous research and on-going debate | 11

meant to check the evidence pro and contra the idea that interrogativity has a grammar of space that is autonomous of that reconstructed on the basis of declarative sentences. There is a plethora of studies which look at the paradigmatic relations of Place, Goal, and Source in cross-linguistic perspective based on the analysis of declarative sentences. Some of the paradigmatic aspects have gained considerable attention in the extant literature because they tie in with widely interesting issues of human cognition, semantic theory, and the syntax-semantic interface. Especially prominent among these favored topics is that of syncretism i.e. the formal identity of the expressions employed for two or more categories. Creissels (2006: 19) among many others summarizes the logically possible patterns of syncretism that can affect a ternary paradigm of the spatial relations Place, Goal, and Source. Table 2 contains our adaptation of Creissels’s findings. The variables X, Y, and Z represent formally distinct constructions. Grey shading indicates which of the cells of the paradigm contain identical word-forms. Table 2: Logically possible patterns of formal distinctions. Option

PLACE

GOAL

SOURCE

Pattern

Word-forms

I

X

Y

Z

Place ≠ Goal ≠ Source

3

II

X

X

Z

(Place = Goal) ≠ Source

2

III

X

Y

Y

Place ≠ (Goal = Source)

2

IV

X

Y

X

Goal ≠ (Source = Place)

2

V

X

X

X

(Place = Goal = Source)

1

Theoretically, each of the logically possible patterns should occur with a random probability of 20% across any sample of languages. However, these statistical expectations are not met by the empirical facts. The syncretic patterns of Place, Goal, and Source have been studied crosslinguistically by among others Creissels (2006, 2009: 615), Lestrade (2010: 87–108), and repeatedly by Pantcheva (2009, 2010, 2011: 195–248). These authors concur that the five logically possible patterns of syncretism are unevenly distributed over the languages of the world. Table 3 is adopted from Pantcheva (2010: 1046) and includes the statistics of three previous studies of Blake (1977), Noonan (2008), and Rice & Kabata (2007). A detailed discussion of the prior samples is provided in Pantcheva (2011: 232–236). Grey shading highlights cells for which no information is available in the quoted study. Empty cells indicate that no language of

12 | Introduction the sample realizes a given syncretic patterns. Note that the percentages for the study by Rice & Kabata (2007) do not add up to yield 100%. No statistics is available for Lestrade (2010). Table 3: Distribution of syncretic patterns over previous samples. Pattern

Samples Blake (1977)

Noonan (2008)

Pantcheva (2010)3

Place ≠ Goal ≠ Source

91%

77

33%

25

53%

28

(Place = Goal) ≠ Source

9%

8

Rice & Kabata (2007)

58%

44

34%

18

23%

10

Place = Goal = Source

4%

3

13%

7

11%

5

(Place = Source) ≠ Goal

2.5%

2

Place ≠ (Goal = Source)

2.5%

2

100%

76

100%

53

100%

44

Total

100%

85

There are striking discrepancies between the two genetically and areally biased samples of Blake’s and Noonan’s on the one hand and the cross-linguistic sample of Pantcheva’s. Australian languages (Blake 1977) give preference to systems of three distinct categories whereas the majority of the Tibeto-Burman languages (Noonan 2008) opt for Place-Goal syncretism. The percentages for Pantcheva’s sample are a kind of compromise between those of the two predecessors. Maximally distinct paradigms are the majority solution which, however, is not as statistically dominant as in the Australian case. Place-Goal syncretism accounts for a third of the sample languages. Maximally indistinct paradigms are a sizable minority group of 13%. The shares that Place-Goal syncretism and indistinct paradigms have in Rice & Kabata’s (2007) statistics indirectly corroborate the assumption that these patterns have to be taken account || 3 There is a reproduction of this table in Pantcheva (2011: 234) which has different values for Pantcheva’s sample which, however, are problematic in terms of arithmetics. The sample is said to comprise 53 languages but the absolute figures add up to 60 languages. The maximally distinct paradigm accounts for 35 languages which is said to be equivalent to 66% of the sample languages. This is certainly wrong. First of all, the percentages yield a total of 111% in lieu of the expected 100%. Secondly, 35 languages cover two thirds of a sample of 53 languages. With a sample of 60 languages, however, the same 35 languages account for 58%. We assume that the author has added seven more languages to her sample after writing the article (Pantcheva 2010) without adjusting the statistics properly.

Previous research and on-going debate | 13

of. The four studies come to almost identical conclusions as to the statistical weight of Place-Source syncretism (with distinct Goal) and Goal-Source syncretism (with distinct Place). These patterns are either completely unattested or occur only marginally. Thus, the above paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Coptic (Sahidic) and English, for instance, reflect patterns of syncretism which, for declarative sentences, are not only attested sufficiently frequently in the languages of the world but are also in line with the basic axioms of the theory of the grammar of space. In a nutshell, it is commonly assumed that there are three major options, namely a) all three of the spatial relations are distinguished formally, i.e. syncretism does not apply – which is the case in Coptic (Sahidic) with tōn ‘where’ ≠ etōn ‘whither’ ≠ ebol tōn ‘whence’ = Option I in Table 2, b) Place and Goal are expressed by identical constructions whereas Source has a morphosyntactically distinct construction, i.e. Place-Goal syncretism applies as in English where ‘where = whither’ ≠ where (…) from ‘whence’ = Option II in Table 2, c) no formal distinctions is made at all, i.e. Place-Goal-Source syncretism applies as in Coptic (Sahidic) tōn ‘where = whither = whence’ = Option III in Table 2. The two remaining patterns are characterized by binary paradigms in which either Place and Source or Goal and Source are syncretic with each other whereas the third category is encoded by a distinct construction. These combinations are said to be typological rarities (Creissels 2006: 22), to constitute cases of “semantically unmotivated diachronic accident[s]” (Lestrade 2010: 104), or not to occur at all (Pantcheva 2010: 1046). Especially Goal-Source syncretism is declared impossible for reasons of theory (Lestrade 2010: 93, Pantcheva 2011: 226) and apparent counter-examples are rubricated as dubious, spurious, or controversial. Lestrade (2010: 92–93) puts forward a new semantically motivated analysis of directionality according to which spatial meaning consists of a directionality and configuration dimension and the view of directionality in terms of a change of configuration over time gives us three basic distinctions of directionality. Other meanings can be shown to be derived from these three. […] Goal and Source imply Place […]. Place and Goal are similar in that they do not express a negative change, Place and Source are the same in that they do not express a positive change. Goal and Source are only the same if we completely neglect a change in configuration. That is, they can only be encoded by the same marker if Place is encoded by the same marker too.

14 | Introduction Pantcheva (2010: 1055) invokes the “universal syntactic representation underlying each of the three spatial roles” as the basis from which the attested patterns of syncretism should be derivable. The supposed underlying syntactic representation precludes the realization of Options III and IV of Table 2. In his discussion of Pantcheva’s approach Lestrade (2010: 97–105) is cautious not to deny once and for all the possibility that “languages […] use the same marker for Source and Place” (Lestrade 2010: 102). The little evidence there is of this syncretic pattern in the extant literature is rebutted in Pantcheva (2011: 238–240) with the notable exception of the Saami case to which we will return in connection with the discussion of Saami spatial interrogatives. According to the arguments put forward by the above authors, there is a strict implication. This implication can be retrieved from the combination of the tetrachoric tables in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4: Possible and impossible combinations of syncretic pairs I. Place ≠ Source

Place = Source

Place = Goal

+

+

Place ≠ Goal

+

0

Table 5: Possible and impossible combinations of syncretic pairs II. Goal ≠ Source

Goal = Source

Goal = Place

+

+

Goal ≠ Place

+

0

If Source partakes in a syncretic pattern, this pattern must be that of Option V in Table 2. If syncretism applies in a paradigm of constructions of spatial relations, Place and Goal are always expressed by identical means, cf. Scheme 1. syncretism

→

Place = Goal

Scheme 1: Place-Goal syncretism.

In the light of the above hypotheses, the Albanian spatial interrogative nga ‘whither = whence’ in Table 1 is very remarkable because it gives evidence of Goal-Source syncretism, i.e. of a combination which is unexpected or even cate-

Previous research and on-going debate | 15

gorically excluded. This exceptional behavior cannot be predicted for Albanian or similar cases in other languages. Under interrogation, patterns pop up occasionally which are banned from the range of possible combinations in declarative sentences. To determine whether or not these cases challenge any of the extant hypotheses about the paradigmatic relations among spatial relations, it has to be shown that deviations from the predicted distribution of patterns occur frequently enough to pass as something worthwhile being discussed. At the same time, the occurrence of putatively impossible patterns should be explicable in terms other than those of pure coincidence. As to the role of statistically underrepresented structural constellations, we agree with Hagège (1975: 51) who claims that “les faits rares, parce qu’ils illustrent souvent des possibilités que la langue tient en lisière sans en tirer de parti, mais qu’elle possède bel et bien, sont riches en enseignement”. This means that infrequently attested phenomena should not be discarded sweepingly and beforehand because the mere existence of so-called rara and rarissima is a challenge to extant theories of linguistic structure (Cysouw & Wohlgemuth 2010: 4). From the history of word-order typology, we are familiar with the problem posed by the statistically insignificant groups of object-initial languages. Their small share of the languages of the world is not much different from that of the marked patterns of syncretism according to the percentages given in Table 3. In Dryer’s (2005: 330) sample of 1,228 languages there are 15 object-initial languages which account for 1.2% of the entire sample. For simplicity’s sake, we lump together the various samples of Table 3 without taking into consideration that they overlap to some extent. Turning a blind eye in this way yields a total of 258 languages of which four are representatives of the incriminated syncretic patterns. These four languages are equivalent of 1.5% of the pseudo-sample. Note that their numerical insignificance notwithstanding, OSV-languages and OVS-languages cannot be declared inexistent unless one is ready to risk that the explanatory power of one’s theory of word order is seriously impaired. Very much the same can be said of a grammar of space which attempts too readily to get rid of counter-examples. That is why we keep an open eye on potential evidence of patterns which do not conform to the above predictions. Syncretism is not the only criterion that gives structure to the paradigm of spatial relations. Differences in the complexity of the construction employed for the expression of the categories are also considered to be indicative of a hierarchy which assigns Place, Goal, and Source different ranks. In a recent booklength study, Stolz et al. (2014) show that zero-marking is the privilege of Place and Goal whereas Source is susceptible to zero-marking only if Place-GoalSource syncretism applies. It is a close run between Place and Goal for the sta-

16 | Introduction tus of cross-linguistically unmarked category since the evidence of zeromarking is almost evenly divided between these two spatial relations. As with the above hypotheses about the possibility and impossibility of syncretic patterns, the generalizations over zero-marking of spatial relations are based exclusively on the analysis of declarative sentences. Spatial interrogatives still need to be taken account of not only as to their susceptibility to zero-marking but also as to further aspects of marking asymmetries. The complexity of constructions can be measured against several yardsticks. In the discussion of the above examples, we have distinguished mono-word constructions from multi-word constructions, for instance, i.e. the number of words which make up a spatial interrogative construction provides the basis for the distinction of simple (= mono-word) and complex (= multi-word) constructions. In the cases discussed so far, higher complexity in terms of the number of words which are involved in a construction is always with the spatial relation of Source. This and further parameters – based on properties of form and/or behavior – can be employed to establish a markedness hierarchy of the three spatial relations under interrogation – similar to those put forward by Stolz (1992: 76–90) and Lestrade (2010: 146–154) for spatial relations in statements. Pace Haspelmath (2006), we speak of markedness relations among the members of a paradigm of spatial interrogatives. This terminological choice of ours is motivated by convention and does not imply that we take issue with the largely justified criticism of the notion of markedness by Haspelmath. For heuristic purposes, our line of argument follows some of the guidelines formulated in the framework of Natural Morphology (e.g. Mayerthaler 1981). The feasibility of this approach has been proved by Stolz et al. (2007) in their crosslinguistic study of the relation between comitatives/instrumentals and abessives. After determining the markedness hierarchy of spatial relations under interrogation, it is possible to compare these results with those achieved on the basis of the analysis of spatial relations in declarative sentences in order to determine whether or not there are overarching principles which govern both of the “modalities”. There is a gap in our knowledge about human languages and no further justification is needed for exploring how languages cope structurally with the task of providing the means for generating questions about spatial relations. It has to be proved yet that our present understanding of the grammar of space is sufficiently rich to allow us to correctly predict how spatial relations behave under interrogation.

Scenarios | 17

1.3 Scenarios Our study is intended to provide the first ever cross-linguistic account of spatial interrogatives. Apart from collecting the data and systematizing them, this investigation checks to what extent the grammar of space varies according to sentence type. We want to answer the question of whether or not the hypotheses which have been put forward on the basis of the analysis of declarative sentences also hold in the realm of interrogativity. In the extant descriptive-linguistic literature, spatial interrogatives are variously classified as adverbs, pronouns, question-words, constituent interrogatives, etc. For the present purpose, we gloss over these terminological differences by way of treating spatial interrogatives indiscriminately as NP-substitutes which form a functionally-based class of constructions. As NP-substitutes spatial interrogatives can be expected to behave morphosyntactically like the NPs they replace. Accordingly, it makes sense to formulate the working hypothesis in (4). (4)

Scenario I Spatial relations display always the same morphosyntactic behavior independent of sentence type.

Put more prosaically, Scenario I presupposes that the paradigms of Place, Goal, and Source are subject to the same principles of internal organization no matter whether we are dealing with adverbial NPs or spatial interrogatives. This means that spatial interrogatives should attest patterns of syncretism, for instance, which are identical to those which are attested in statements, cf. Table 6. Table 6: Admissible patterns of formal distinctions according to Scenario I. Pattern

Word-forms

Z

WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE

3

Z

(WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE

2

(WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE)

1

Option PLACE

GOAL

I

X

Y

II

X

X

V

X

X

X

SOURCE

In contrast, the patterns (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER and WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) should not turn up – at least not to any noticeable extent. Similarly, the markedness hierarchy of Place, Goal, and Source should be insensitive to speech-act distinctions. WHENCE is expected to be the most marked of the categories, cf. Scheme 2.

18 | Introduction

WHERE


WHERE

Scheme 2: Markedness hierarchy according to Scenario I.

In short, interrogativity is expected to have no influence on the relationship that holds between Place, Goal, and Source. However, the presentation and discussion of the data from Coptic (Sahidic) and English in (1)-(3) above suggests that the working hypothesis in (4) is perhaps too strong and thus needs to be modified such that it allows for a margin of variation which, however, remains within the limits imposed by the generalizations over spatial relations in declarative sentences, cf. (5). (5)

Scenario II Spatial relations may tolerate different morphosyntactic behavior according to sentence type provided the variation does not violate general principles.

For (5) to be the case, spatial interrogatives are required to obey to the general rules formulated on the basis of the analysis of spatial situations as described in statements. One and the same language may thus attest to differential morphosyntactic behavior of spatial relations in correlation to sentence types. However, the alternative working hypothesis (5) bears the possibility that under interrogation patterns arise which are not admissible in declarative sentences language-independently. Following Lestrade’s reservations as to the exclusion of all minor patterns from the typology, what one may expect to find is evidence of Option IV of Table 2 being attested too so that the syncretic pattern (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER has to be added to the list of possible syncretisms in Table 4 above. From the cursory discussion of the Albanian data in the foregoing section, we are already familiar with an example of a violation of principles which are meant to be universal and therefore inviolable. It cannot be ruled out completely that the empirical facts call for a revision of the above alternative working hypothesis (5). The revised version is given in (6). (6)

Scenario III Spatial relations follow different sentence-type dependent principles so that their morphosyntactic behavior may differ widely.

What else do you need to know? | 19

The revision assumes a kind of modular organization according to which interrogativity is largely autonomous of declarativity. Spatial interrogatives obey principles which are unconstrained by those which govern the grammar of space in the realm of declarative sentences, i.e. spatial interrogatives behave differently from the NPs whose substitutes they are. Given that this is the case, Option III from Table 2 is back on board in a manner of speaking because nothing prevents the pattern WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) from being realized in a given language. Similarly, the markedness hierarchy postulated in Scheme 2 could be turned upside down under the condition that Scenario III is tantamount to the complete abolition of principles. The Scenarios I–III in (4)–(6) are especially important for the evaluation of our results and the conclusions to be drawn from them. To determine which of the three hypotheses correctly predicts the position of spatial interrogatives in the grammar of space, it is necessary to assemble as many pieces of evidence as possible from as many languages as feasible in practical terms. How we intend to achieve this goal is the topic of section 1.4.

1.4 What else do you need to know? 1.4.1 Narrowing down the research object The spatial interrogatives are integrated normally in the larger class of content interrogatives with which they form a mostly functionally-motivated macroparadigm. In many languages, this paradigmatic relationship manifests itself also on the morphological level insofar as spatial interrogatives and other socalled wh-words share a common stem (at least diachronically), cf. Table 7. Table 7: Finnish interrogatives (Karlsson 1984: 155). Case

Word-form

Translation

nominative

mi-kä

‘what’

genitive

mi-n-kä

‘of which’

partitive

mi-tä

‘(of) what’

inessive

mi-ssä

‘in what, where’

elative

mi-stä

‘out of what, whence’

illative

mi-hin

‘into what, whither’

20 | Introduction The above fragment of the sizable case paradigm of the Finnish interrogative pronoun mikä ‘what’ includes the spatial interrogatives missä ‘where’, mihin ‘whither’, and mistä ‘whence’ which are regular case-forms built on the same stem mi- exactly like all other members of the paradigm (Karlsson 1984: 154). In other languages, the connection of proper interrogative pronouns and spatial interrogatives is purely functional since there is no shared stem synchronically as e.g. Uzbek kim ‘who’, ne ~ nima ‘what’ vs. qayerda ~ qatta ‘where’, qayerga ‘whither’, qayerdan ‘whence’ (note, however, that the stem qa- is also employed for qalay ‘how’, qancha ‘how many’, and qachon ‘when’) (Landmann 2010: 24). There are also instances of spatial interrogatives which are syncretic with other interrogatives which do not have any spatial functions. This is the case with Danish hvor ‘where’ which is formally identical with hvor ‘to what degree’ (Elin Fredsted personal communication, cf. also Cysouw 2007: 157). These are intriguing facts that need to be looked into. However, in this study, the paradigmatic relation of the spatial interrogatives to their non-spatial fellowinterrogatives is not an issue since the latter would lead us astray in our search for aspects which are relevant for the grammar of space. The scope of our study has to be narrowed down further. To exclude any noise factor, we focus exclusively on direct questions. Henceforth, indirect questions and/or the employment of spatial interrogatives as indefinite relative pronouns as in example (1.2) above will no longer be taken account of.4 Moreover only those constructions are discussed which can be considered to be grammaticalized, i.e. purely stylistic ad hoc alternatives have no place in our data-base. This restriction holds with the proviso that for determining the degree of grammaticalization of a construction in the vast majority of the languages of our sample5 we are entirely dependent upon our primary and second-

|| 4 In some languages, there are distinct sets of spatial interrogatives for direct and indirect questions. A case in point is Ancient Greek with pou͂ ‘where’, poi͂ ‘whither’, póthen ‘whence’ in direct questions and hópou ‘where’, hópoi ‘whither’, hopóthen ‘whence’ in indirect questions (Bornemann & Risch 1978: 68). There can be no doubt that these sets of spatial interrogatives are formally related. Relationships of this and other kinds need to be studied separately and are thus not focused upon in this study. This does not preclude the discussion of the occasional example from the realm of indirect questions to support our main line of argumentation. 5 For the identification of the individual languages which belong to our sample we adopt the glossonyms as provided in Glottolog (http://glottolog.org) unless the primary or secondary sources from which we draw the examples make use of a different glossonym of long standing. As to the genetic affiliation of our sample languages, we follow the principle of parsimony insofar as we indicate only the absolute minimum of the information about language families and their subdivisions in the appendices. For the designation of language families we employ

What else do you need to know? | 21

ary sources (and our linguistically informed gut-feeling). More importantly, the paradigm of spatial interrogatives can be diversified to a considerable extent to include spatial notions such as the Basque destinative norantz ‘in what direction’ and the Basque terminative noraino ‘up until where’ (Bendel 2006: 112). To avoid getting lost in the jungle of spatial categories, we delimit the scope of our study to those spatial interrogatives which correspond to the categories of general location AT/TO/FROM according to the classification adopted by the LDS questionnaire (Comrie & Smith 1977 – originally paragraph 2.1.1.5.1). For this paper, the fourth category of general location (i.e. PAST) is discounted on account of the scarcity of data which prove that PAST is of any relevance to the make-up of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. The three selected categories of general location correspond to the spatial relations of Place, Goal and Source which in turn constitute the three basic categories of the parameter of directionality (Lestrade 2010: 74–92) which covers Path and Place of other approaches (Pantcheva 2010: 1047). Configuration and sundry parameters of the grammar of space are not discussed in this contribution. Of the many properties spatial interrogatives may have we select those for our study which belong to the domain of morphology in the widest sense of the term, i.e. including morpho-syntactic phenomena which go beyond the limits of mono-word constructions. For each of the languages of our sample, we establish which of the spatial relations are expressed by identical spatial interrogatives and which boast a spatial interrogative construction of their own. In addition, again for each of our sample languages, we determine the scale of constructional complexity of the members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Two recurrent questions of our investigation are a) whether or not certain form-function mismatches (= syncretism, suppletion, overabundance, periphrasis, etc.) of spatial interrogatives are attested independent of genetic and areal factors, b) whether or not there are marked differences in the complexity of the constructions employed for the spatial interrogatives – and whether or not zeromarking associates particularly often with one of the three spatial relations, More generally, this study raises the questions of how the three relations Place, Goal, and Source are represented within the micro-paradigm of the spatial interrogatives and whether or not typologically meaningful patterns result from a crosslinguistic exploration of micro-paradigms of this kind. Ultimately the ques|| received terminology which is not always in accordance with the usage made thereof in Glottolog (http://glottolog.org).

22 | Introduction tion is asked to what extent the properties and the behavior of spatial interrogatives are compatible with those of spatial adverbial NPs. Are Grounds always of a kind across sentence-types? Further aspects of the grammar of spatial interrogatives are investigated only unsystematically if at all.

1.4.2 Theory, methodology, and empiry This inquiry is conducted within the framework of functional typology. In particular, canonical typology as outlined in Corbett (2005) provides very firm ground for what we are about to undertake. In terms of the grammar of space we owe most of our inspiration to Goldap (1991). As to the proper research question, we are indebted largely to the work by Creissels (2006, 2009), Lestrade (2010), and Pantcheva (2009, 2010, 2011) to whom we have referred already in the previous sections. In contrast to the latter two scholars, our approach is less formal by far and lacks the background in generative grammar. For the purposes of this study, we adopt a rather traditional stance rooted in the common structuralist heritage of our discipline. There is also a modicum of construction grammar in our line of argument (Fischer & Stefanowitsch 2006). The reason for this choice of weapon will become clear when we explain how we measure the complexity of constructions (cf. Section 2). Since we have been talking about interrogative constructions throughout this introduction, it is unsurprising that there are strong affinities to construction grammar. Similarly, we look at morphological constructions from the point of view of the word-based model of the Surrey Morphology Group (Haspelmath & Sims 2010: 46–53). For the notion of markedness as we interpret it for the purposes of this study, we follow the practice of the proponents of Natural Morphology (Dressler et al. 1987). The orientation of this study is predominantly synchronic. By synchrony we mean the 20th and 21st century, i.e. only data attested after the year 1900 are considered elements of the contemporary language system. Archaicisms and data which predate the turn of the 20th century are either ignored or relegated to the footnotes. However, at various points, it is unavoidable to include the occasional diachronic excursus because the contemporary constellations of facts are often largely opaque and can only be understood by way of scrutinizing the history of their development. As far as we are familiar with the extant literature, there is as yet no diachronic account of systems of spatial interrogatives in general. Even for individual languages, diachronic studies of spatial interrogatives seem to be almost inexistent. For obvious reasons, our crosslinguistic study cannot fill all these gaps so that a full-blown history of spatial

What else do you need to know? | 23

interrogatives is a task for the future. This does not mean that data from extinct languages like Coptic (Sahidic) or older stages of other languages are not admitted to our study as showcases of certain phenomena. Furthermore, we are mostly interested in the qualitative aspects of our subject matter. This does not mean that quantitative aspects are banned for good from this research project. However, quantities are only a minor concern to us. This marginalization of statistics is the effect of the small size of the text corpus which is employed in the empirical part of this book (cf. below). The dedicated statistical analysis of the grammar of spatial interrogatives is another topic for follow-up projects. Note that statistical methods are exploited amply in those parts of our study in which we quantify the degrees of complexity of the constructions under scrutiny. Thus, numbers as such are by no means off-limits in this study. This is a cross-linguistic investigation which involves language comparison on a grand scale. The size of the samples used in previous work on syncretism of spatial relations (cf. Table 3 above) ranges from 44 languages scrutinized by Rice & Kabata (2007) via 53 languages (Pantcheva 2010), 76 languages (Noonan 2008), 81 languages (Pantcheva 2011), and 85 languages (Blake 1977) to the current maximum of some 130 languages (Lestrade 2010). Two of these samples are genetically and/or areally severely biased, however, since Blake (1977) looks only at the languages of Australia whereas Noonan (2008) takes account of Tibeto-Burman languages exclusively (Lestrade 2010: 97). Furthermore, Rice & Kabata (2007) are interested in the grammaticalization paths of the allative (~ Goal) and thus do not cover the entire range of phenomena which are relevant for the other spatial relations. It is thus unsurprising that the statistics of the distribution of patterns of syncretism differ widely among the above languages. Without any reservations we acknowledge that the above referenced authors contribute extremely important pioneering work to furthering the general understanding of the grammar of space. Our own project would hardly be feasible without the insights gained and the hypotheses put forward by our predecessors. Two comments have to be made nevertheless. Firstly, the statistical data in Table 3 above are very helpful in the sense that they are indicative of genetic and/or areal preferences. Languages from different families and languages from different areas might have different leanings as to the choice of syncretic pattern. There is thus no truly universal pattern. One might argue, however, that the statistical evidence proves that there is a strong constraint governing the choice of syncretic pattern, namely the restriction which precludes the possibility that Source is syncretic with only one of the other two spatial relations. This potential restriction leads us to the second point that needs to be made in connection with the comparison of the previous samples. In

24 | Introduction point of fact, these samples cannot be compared directly to each other since only that of Pantcheva (2010) is properly cross-linguistic. With 53 languages the sample is still relatively small if one accepts the sample sizes of the World Atlas of Language Structures (Haspelmath et al. 2005) as normative. The sample composition (which is evidently inspired by ideas about the optimal format of a maximally unbiased sample) is certainly well-balanced and provides a good starter-kit. At the same time, it is also a fraction unsatisfactory because it prevents us from taking notice of internal variation either across genetically affiliated languages or in regional neighborhoods of languages. A number of families and areas are clearly underrepresented (e.g. none of the genera located in the Caucasian area is included in the sample nor are Austroasiatic, Daic, Creole languages and languages of a number of other phyla, the Indo-European language family is represented by two Celtic languages only, etc.). It might also be the case that the sample does not provide a net that is knitted closely enough to prevent crucially important evidence from escaping being noticed. In other words, a more densely populated language sample might reveal that the general picture is not as straightforward as is assumed in some of the above approaches to spatial relations. In accordance with the above criticism of prior approaches and guided by the ideas of Comrie (1993), we have planned our corpus as follows. With 537 languages the sample is more than three times as large as that of Lestrade’s. Of these 537 languages, 437 are evaluated for our statistics. The remaining hundred languages are aditionally discussed without being analyzed quantitatively. It is a convenience sample which is representative of the vast majority of the world’s language families. The composition of the sample is unveiled in the appendix. The sample is not meant to be balanced in the first place. There is a strong European bias to compensate for the underrepresentation of the languages of the European continent in most of the previous studies. This bias is exploited for the purpose of determining the extent of micro-variation. To avoid getting caught in the line of argumentation of our predecessors by referring exclusively to the evidence pre-analyzed by them, we have built up a data-base of our own. In the absence of typologically-minded studies of spatial interrogatives, the input for the data-base had to be gathered from extant primary and secondary sources. The sources from which we draw the examples are of various kinds. In a considerable number of the extant descriptive grammars spatial interrogatives are hardly addressed at all.6 It is not uncommon that examples of WHERE and WHITH|| 6 It is nobody’s fault that the authors of descriptive grammars or dictionaries do not share our current preoccupation with spatial interrogatives. When we complain about the fact that spa-

What else do you need to know? | 25

are provided but not for WHENCE. In Frajzyngier (1993: 359–390), there is an entire chapter devoted to the interrogative constructions of Mupun. Under the section heading Questions about the locative, the reader can find information on and examples of WHERE and WHITHER which are syncretic in Mupun (Frajzyngier 1993: 371–372). However, nothing is said about WHENCE. Is it possible to inquire about Source by way of using exactly the same construction as for questions about Place and Goal? Similarly, dictionaries are often evasive as to the exact spell out of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. An example is Futuna-Aniwa. In the English-Futuna-Aniwa part of the dictionary compiled by Capell (1984: 250), there are distinct entries for WHERE and WHENCE. This is remarkable already insofar that specific information about the latter is often missing from dictionaries. In the case of WHERE, two Futuna-Aniwa expressions are provided, namely wafe and wehe. Is the one the spatial interrogative of WHERE and the other that of WHITHER? In this case, a paradigm with three distinct constructions would exist. However, this is not the case since wafe and wehe belong to different word-classes. Wehe ‘where = whither’ is a spatial interrogative that realizes Place-Goal syncretism. Lack of clarity of this and similar kind induces us to make frequent use of sources which might look dubious to the critical reader, viz. practical didactic course materials in which asking for directions is usually a prominent topic that requires a lesson or two for the student to master. We are fully aware of the many disadvantages which are associated with the extensive use of sources of this kind. For purely didactic reasons, the system of spatial interrogatives can be presented in a simplified form. It cannot be expected that the full array of more or less synonymous constructions is introduced in a pedagogical grammar. Similarly, to gain practical mastery of the items under debate elaborate linguistic explanations are largely dispensable. What counts for the language learner is the communicative practice which more often than not is acquired via repetitive drills. For the linguist, these drills are not necessarily a very rich source of information. What is more, the examples used in pedagogical grammars to illustrate the use of spatial interrogatives vary ER

|| tial interrogatives are not important enough for descriptive grammarians to dedicate a chapter to them, the implied criticism is largely unjustified because grammaticographers and lexicographers have more on their minds than just the set of spatial interrogatives. Moreover, in traditional formats of descriptive grammars, interrogative pronouns are reserved a section of their own whereas spatial interrogatives are usually considered a minor variant of spatial adverbs. Therefore, they are mentioned most often in passing only and equally often incompletely in uncommented lists of adverbs. If the grammar contains a section on different sentence types, it is rather exceptional that the entire paradigm of spatial interrogatives can be reconstructed from the set of sentential examples which illustrates interrogative clauses.

26 | Introduction from language to language as to their internal structure and the semantics which renders comparison difficult. There is an urgent need for a comparable data-base which could be extracted from the pool of answers to a questionnaire, for instance. As a practical solution, developing, distributing, and evaluating the questionnaire would have been too time-consuming a task. This is why we have opted for a different methodology.

1.4.3 The reference text and the sample sentences We use a short common reference text which has been translated into more than half of our sample languages. This is Le Petit Prince, the well-known novel originally written and published in 1944 by French author Antoine de SaintExupéry. Since its publication during the Second World War the text has been translated into some 300 languages world-wide among which there are also numerous non-European languages of our sample. The high number of translations into nonstandard varieties especially of Romance and Germanic languages counts among the advantages of Le Petit Prince7 because some of the nonstandard data can be shown to be at odds with the hypotheses about the distribution of syncretic patterns mentioned above. For this study, we have checked 183 translations of the French original of which 173 translations form part of our statistics. Unless otherwise stated, wherever we have to illustrate the spatial interrogatives of these non-European languages, we draw the examples from their versions of Le Petit Prince. Frequently we deem it necessary that additional data from other sources (mostly grammars, dictionaries) are discussed as well.8 Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s Le Petit Prince yields a set of half a dozen direct questions involving spatial interrogatives. These six interrogative clauses plus an equally small number of control sentences from the same literary work form || 7 That is why Le Petit Prince provides an excellent basis to meet the expectations formulated in several of the contributions to Kortmann (2004) according to which nonstandard varieties should be paid more attention in crosslinguistic research. Nevertheless, we are fully aware of the disadvantages of our choice of corpus text. Among other things the availability of translations limits the size of the sample of languages that can be taken account of. 8 An import resource for checking the results which are based on the analysis of Le Petit Prince are the translations of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series (= HP I). The original by Joanne K. Rowling first published in 1997 contains nineteen cases of spatial interrogatives eleven of which are instances of WHERE, seven instantiate WHITHER, and only one case illustrates WHENCE. For the purpose of this study, we use the paperback-edition of HP I which dates back to the year 2000.

What else do you need to know? | 27

the basic corpus from which the majority of our sentential examples are taken. Since the content of the questions remains largely unaltered across the various versions of the text, they constitute a very reliable basis for the purpose of comparing huge numbers of languages. Two questions each of the set of six direct interrogative clauses inquire about the WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE of different human protagonists. For practical purposes, we divide this set of half a dozen questions into two subsets of three questions each the first of these subsets being a sequence of three questions in a paragraph of Chapter III of the sample text which provides a suitable starting point for the crosslinguistic exploration of spatial interrogatives. These questions are posed by the narrator to the Little Prince who, as usual, does not answer to them. In (7), the original French sentences are presented in the order in which they appear in the above-mentioned paragraph of Chapter III of Le Petit Prince. Where the English translation is different from the wording of the official English version of this modern classic (= LPP English, 12), the latter is added in square brackets.9 Syncretic spatial interrogatives are always given with the full array of their spatial meanings. For the presentation of the data, we make use preferably of the conventional orthographic representation (or linguistic transcription) of the object language. Only where phonological properties need to be discussed do we employ the International Phonetic Alphabet. In the glosses, the segmentation into morphemes follows similar guidelines. (7) (7.1)

(7.2)

French [LPP French, 16] Source [D‘ où] viens-tu, mon petit bonhomme? [from P?/G?] come:2SG-you my little guy ‘My little man, where do you come from?’ Place Où est-ce «chez toi»? P?/G? be.3SG-this at_place you ‘Where is your home?’ [official English version: ‘What is this ‘where I live’, of which you speak?’]

|| 9 The language of the version of Le Petit Prince from which a given example is taken is identified in square brackets alongside the page number. The bibliographical details of the original and the translations of the sample text are listed in full under the rubric Primary Sources at the end of this monograph.

28 | Introduction (7.3)

Goal Où veux-tu emporter mon mouton? P?/G? want-you take_away my sheep ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’ [official English version: ‘Where do you want to take your sheep?’]

This basic set of three questions is insufficient if it comes to determining whether or not there is overabundance in any of the cells of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. To this end it is necessary that each of the spatial relations be checked in at least two interrogative sentences. Therefore, a second set of questions is taken from Chapters III, XV, XVII and XVIII, respectively, cf. (2).10 One of the questions (= [8.3]) occurs twice in the sample text (in different chapters, viz. XVII and XVIII). Two of the questions are posed by the Little Prince himself, one goes to the credit of the geographer. (8) (8.1)

(8.2)

(8.3)

French Goal [LPP French, 18] Mais où veux-tu qu’ il aille? but P?/G? want.2SG-you that he go.SBJV ‘But where do you want him to go?’ [official English version (LPP English, 12): ‘But where do you think he would go?’] Source [LPP French, 49] [D’ où] viens-tu? [of P?/G?] come:2SG-you ‘Where do you come from?’ = [LPP English, 49] Place [LPP French, 60 and 62] Où sont les hommes? P?/G? be.3PL DET.PL man:PL ‘Where are the men?’ = [LPP English, 56 and 58]

Most of the sentential examples in the remainder of this study are translations of the French questions in (7). The second set of questions is made use of mainly to check the hypotheses formulated on the basis of the first subset and in those cases in which there are gaps or uncertainties in the first subset. Occasionally we also check the translations of the elliptical answer (9) given by the narrator to question (8.1).

|| 10 The two sets of questions exhaust the entire inventory of direct spatial interrogative sentences in the source text. We do not take account of other uses of interrogatives.

What else do you need to know? | 29

(9)

French N’ importe où. NEG matter P?/G? ‘Anywhere.’ (literally: ‘no matter where’)

[LPP French, 18]

This check is done to determine whether or not the Goal relation receives a distinct marking of its own. Note that French behaves exactly like English insofar as there is not only Place-Goal syncretism but also the construction of WHENCE is especially complex. In this aspect, French also resembles Coptic (Sahidic). French is in line with the predictions according to Scenario I in (4). French, English, and Coptic (Sahidic) agree on a further parameter. The complex construction of WHENCE is based on that of WHERE(=WHITHER). In all three of the languages, the WHENCE-construction consists of a PP the complement of which is the spatial interrogative WHERE(=WHITHER). On this basis it is tempting to hypothesize that a) Source is the most marked member of the triplet of spatial categories, b) its morpho-syntactic expression is derived from the least marked member of the same paradigm, and c) Place and Goal are attractors of each other such that they share a common morpho-syntactic expression. Admittedly, the basic corpus is very small, too small indeed to allow us to tackle all kinds of questions which arise in connection to spatial interrogatives. It is large enough a corpus nonetheless to facilitate the first collection of data which, in turn, are the input for a linguistic discussion which is additionally informed by the analyses provided in the descriptive linguistic literature. By far not all of the sample languages boast of a translation of the corpus text. This is especially the case with languages situated outside Europe. To keep those languages in the sample, we divide the presentation of the empirical facts in two. The empirical part starts with the data-driven bottom-up presentation of systems of spatial interrogatives of the languages of Europe. The line of argumentation is thus predominantly inductive. Recurrent patterns and phenomena are duly registered. For the discussion of the spatial interrogatives of non-European languages, the patterns and phenomena which we have identified inductively for the languages of Europe are taken as the starting point for the discussion of the situation(s) outside Europe, i.e. the approach is more of a deductive kind. To avoid Europeanizing the world of languages inadvertently, we take heed of any paradigmatic aspects of spatial interrogatives of non-European languages which fail to be captured by the hypotheses based on the European evidence.

30 | Introduction 1.4.4 How this book is organized internally The final issue which has to be addressed is that of the internal organization of this study. The introduction has already given the reader an inkling of what the book is about. The subsequent chapters elaborate on the issues which have been touched upon so far and introduce further topics which are no less important for the project at hand. Section 2 presents in some detail the theoretical, methodological, terminological, and empirical prerequisites of the study. This includes the presentation of the canonical paradigm of spatial interrogatives and the explanation of its function as a frame of reference. We also give an explanation for our pick from the catalogue of morphological mismatches for which the sample languages are checked. Formulae and technical conventions are presented. In the same section we introduce the criteria which are needed to determine the complexity of constructions. Their practical applicability is demonstrated by way of a small number of examples. A very simple method of determining the degree of markedness is put to practice as well. For a set of parameters, ratios have to be calculated and these calculations are a kind of leitmotif of the empirically-oriented chapters. The data from the European languages are presented, discussed, and evaluated in Section 3. This is also the section in which the corpus text and the sample sentences are presented. Each subsection reviews the data from a different phylum, subphylum, or genetically-defined assortment of languages. The internal organization of the subsections is given at the beginning of Section 3. This internal organization of the subsections of Section 3 is employed as pattern for the organization of Section 4, i.e. the headings of sub-subsections of Section 3 turn into headings of subsections of Section 4. The genetic principle is no longer a major criterion for the division of the section into subsections. The findings of Sections 3–4 are compared to the behavior of Place, Goal and Source outside the realm of the spatial interrogatives in selected languages of our sample in Section 5. The conclusions are drawn in Section 6.

2 The formal relations of spatial interrogatives In this section, the focus is on the major technical aspects which are necessary to determine the paradigmatic organization of the spatial interrogatives of our sample. The section is divided into three subsections the first two of which introduce the canonical paradigm and those form-function mismatches which are relevant for this study. Section 2.3 treats of the phenomenon of marking asymmetries including the procedure of calculating the degree of markedness of the constructions under scrutiny.

2.1 On the canonical paradigm With a view to facilitating crosslinguistic comparison, the question of how the system of spatial interrogatives is organized internally has to be answered in the first place. The canonical approach propagated by the members of the Surrey Morphology Group serves as guidance for our subsequent line of argumentation. There is a ternary distinction of spatial relations – Place, Goal, and Source – which corresponds to the categories AT, TO, and FROM subsumed under the heading general location (cf. above). These should be expressed in the system of spatial interrogatives. At the same time, the category of interrogativity should be represented as well. If the system of spatial interrogatives is conceived of as a paradigm, a canonical paradigm (Corbett 2007: 23–24) with three cells can be postulated that has the shape of the one in Table 8. Table 8: Canonical paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q-AT]where

Goal

[Q-TO]whither

Source

[Q-FROM]whence

DOI: 10.1515/9783110539516-002

32 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives There is a general construction frame [Q-{__}spatial marker]spatial interrogative. The interrogative stem Q11 is the constant element of the paradigm which gives coherence to it. It combines with a variably filled slot for those grammemes which specify the spatial relation. The combination of Q with AT, TO, or FROM yields constructions which in turn function as spatial interrogatives. At this point, the exact linear order and the morphological status of the component parts of the constructions are largely irrelevant. The presentation of the fictitious wordforms in Table 8 is reminiscent of agglutinative suffixation only incidentally. Multi-word syntagms with reversed internal order and other patterns are by no means excluded as candidates for the status of canonical spatial interrogative. A paradigm which comes close to the canonical paradigm without, however, fulfilling all the necessary requirements of canonicity is that of the spatial interrogatives of Early Modern English from which the indexes of the constructions in Table 8 are drawn. Table 9 is adapted from Dixon (2012: 408) – who concedes that the English forms in rows II–III “are a trifle archaic, but still in general use” (Dixon 2012: 407). Table 9: (Early Modern) English spatial interrogatives and sundry items. A

B

C

I

wh-ere

th-ere

h-ere

II

wh-ither

th-ither

h-ither

III

wh-ence

th-ence

h-ence

IV

wh-at

th-at

[this]

V

wh-en

th-en

The interrogatives in column A share wh- as the Q-stem which contrasts with the initial th- and h- of the deictics and demonstratives in columns B–C. The spatial relations encoded in the word-forms in rows I–III display morphological consistency across the columns A-C since Place is associated always with -ere, Goal with -ither and Source with -ence. This recurrence of the patterns notwithstanding, it would be too daring to assign full-blown morpheme status (in the sense of spatial cases, for instance) to the non-initial parts of the segmental chain of the spatial interrogatives synchronically. Perhaps all parts of || 11 Whether or not the stem Q can be assumed to give evidence of what is termed a Q-morpheme elsewhere (Cheng 1997: 30–33) is a question that cannot be pursued further in this study.

On the canonical paradigm | 33

the word-forms under scrutiny can be considered to be submorphemic. Whither and whence are stylistically marked relics of an older stage of English. Nevertheless, they are handy labels which can be used to identify the spatial interrogatives with Goal and Source function, respectively. That is why we employ these anachronistic items alongside where not only as translation equivalents of non-English spatial interrogatives (when the spatial interrogatives occur in isolation in the running text) but also as labels of the constructions which represent spatial interrogatives morphosyntactically. However, in contrast to Dixon’s above assumption that whither and whence are still commonly used in English, we stipulate that neither of the two word-forms form part of the current paradigm of spatial interrogatives of contemporary English.12 Thus, WHITHER and WHENCE are metalinguistic notions and not examples of concrete spatial interrogatives of English as a member of the sample of languages exploited for the purposes of this study. The canonical paradigm in Table 8 is maximally regular and maximally transparent. Each of the categories is encoded separately by a distinct morpheme. The word-forms display the same internal structure in terms of morphotactics. In a way, canonicity reveals itself as the absence of redundancy, implicitness, and variation. An example of a paradigm of spatial interrogatives which conforms to the above canonical paradigm has been given for Finnish in Table 7 in Section 1.4.1. The Finnish data are similar structurally, for instance, to those of Lezgian (Haspelmath 1993: 188) in Table 10. Table 10: Lezgian paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Qn-INESSIVE]where

hin-a

Goal Source

[Qn-DATIVE]whither

[Qn-INELATIVE]whence

hin-iz hin-aj

There is a Q-stem hi- which is identical to the interrogative pronoun hi ‘which’. The Q-stem is extended by the excrescent nasal /n/ to which the regular case markers of the inessive, dative, and inelative are attached to form the spatial interrogatives WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE (Haspelmath 1993: 188–189). As in

|| 12 Our decision receives strong support from the fact that whither and whence are mentioned neither in Quirk et al. (1978) nor in Biber et al. (2011).

34 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives the Finnish case, the above triplet of Lezgian spatial interrogatives forms part of a very rich morphological system which comprises a variety of additional spatial interrogatives. Canonicity of paradigms of spatial interrogatives is a trait which is characteristic of a sizable number of languages world-wide. However, there also is a plethora of examples to the contrary, i.e. the canonicity of paradigms is frequently impaired in the languages of our sample. It is exactly the failure of canonicity to dictate universally how paradigms of spatial interrogatives should look like that calls for closer scrutiny.

2.2 Mismatches The canonical paradigm can be violated against by a variety of phenomena which reduce the transparency of the paradigm. Corbett (2007: 30) provides a catalogue of the so-called mismatches which may have the effect of rendering a paradigm less transparent. Not all of the possible mismatches are relevant for this study. A phenomenon which never seems to affect paradigms of spatial interrogatives – at least in our sample – is defectiveness, i.e. the presence of an unfilled cell in the paradigm of spatial relations as in {A, B, Ø}, with two constructions A and B and an empty cell Ø. The empty cells in Table 1 (Section 1.2.1) have been shown to result from the (deliberate) exclusion of multi-word constructions from the paradigms. The situation is different with deponency, i.e. the use of grammemes which otherwise belong to a different category. Deponency cannot be ascertained on the basis of our data since evidence from outside the realm of spatial interrogatives would have to be checked too – and this goes beyond the limits of the study at hand. The same can be said of inflexional classes, heteroclisis, and homonymy. In connection with the formal properties of spatial interrogatives, uninflectability is a problematic issue. We assume that it is inapplicable to the paradigms we survey in this study. As far as we can judge, spatial interrogatives tend to be uninflectable, i.e. they are normally insensitive to grammatical categories such as gender, number, and (most probably) possession. The paradigm of spatial interrogatives itself is based on distinctions of case insofar as three spatial relations can be distinguished formally. We do not consider zero-marking and/or formal indistinction of categories to be instances of uninflectability. Finally, we also skip overdifferentiation (i.e. the existence of additional cells in the paradigm of individual lexemes) because the inflexional potential of the spatial interrogatives is not at issue in this study. Of the remaining mismatches, we especially concentrate on syncretism, suppletion, overabundance, (anti-)periphrasis, and fused exponence. What is

Mismatches | 35

important for our line of argumentation in general is the possibility that the mismatches or at least a certain subset thereof distribute unevenly over the spatial interrogatives such that one of the three categories is affected by mismatches more frequently than the other two categories. This may be taken as evidence of an internal hierarchy of the spatial relations involved.

2.2.1 Syncretism The introductory sections to this book have already shown syncretism to be the favorite topic of a variety of approaches to the grammar of space. Several of the hypotheses about the system of spatial relations put forward in the extant literature are based on the analysis of syncretic patterns. Syncretism applies if two or more cells of a paradigm are filled by identical phonological chains (Baerman et al. 2005). The use of identical means in different paradigmatic cells is a form-function mismatch because it reduces the degree of semantic transparency of the paradigm. According to the principles governing the canonical paradigm, functions which are distinct semantically should also be kept distinct on the level of form. Since syncretism has already been discussed extensively in previous sections, a glance at the Mongolian paradigm in Table 11 suffices to illustrate the phenomenon (Bittigau 2003: 142–143). Table 11: Mongolian paradigm of spatial interrogatives (Version I). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q(-na)]where

xaa

Goal

[Q(-š(aa))]whither

xaa

Source

[Q-ABLATIVE]whence

xaa-naas

Boldface marks those word-forms which are identical in two cells of the paradigm. The Q-stem xaa ‘where = whither’ alone can function as spatial interrogative of Place and Goal. The distinction of the static spatial relation of Place and the dynamic spatial relation of Goal is neutralized whereas WHENCE is made explicit obligatorily by the regular exponent of the ablative -(n)aas. The Place-Goal syncretism coincides with zero-marking of Place and Goal. In this Mongolian conforms to the picture painted above on the basis of the evidence from English and French. However, Mongolian also shares some properties with Coptic (Sahidic) as the subsequent paragraph will demonstrate.

36 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives Before we look at overabundance, another aspect of syncretism has to be mentioned. Since the phenomenon we are alluding to can only be understood with reference to diachronic processes, its discussion is not overly prominent in the empirical sections of this study which is predominantly synchronic. Nevertheless, the issue of the intraparadigmatic diffusion of stems and/or word-forms will come up repeatedly throughout part of Section 3-4. We stop beating about the bush now. With reference to the Mongolian data in Table 11, what one can say is that the Place-Goal syncretism most probably results from the spread of the WHERE-construction xaa to the cell of WHITHER. For the purpose of visualizing this process more clearly, we adopt Pantcheva’s (2010: 1063) ternary set of variables (although this set has not been intended for diachronic analyses in the first place). The variables A, B, and C refer to the constructions which are genuine to WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE, respectively. If we say that A is representative originally of WHERE, then it is justified to state that A has extended its domain to cover WHITHER as well to yield the pattern A = A ≠ C. This process is schematically represented in Scheme 3. WHERE

A

→

WHITHER

A

≠

WHENCE

C

Scheme 3: Diffusion of constructions in Mongolian.

Pantcheva’s (2010: 1064) variables will become relevant once more when we discuss the formal aspects of the markedness relations which hold in the realm of spatial interrogatives. A, B, and C are useful short-hand symbols which can be employed to describe the direction of derivational processes (cf. Section 2.3.3 below).

2.2.2 Overabundance and the problem of variation The previous reasoning about the possible diachronic path along which the spatial interrogative of Place intrudes the domain of the spatial interrogative of Goal in Mongolian presupposes that the cells of WHERE and WHITHER are not multiply occupied. As a matter of fact, Table 11 does not tell the whole story because it does not take account of overabundance (Thornton 2011). The missing pieces are added in Table 12. Grey shading highlights those cells in which several word-forms compete with each other. For further examples of overabundance, the reader is referred back to Table 1. The co-existence of synony-

Mismatches | 37

mous expressions of WHITHER suggests that Scheme 3 is misleading in the sense that the diffusion of xaa has not ousted the distinct allomorphs of WHITHER. A possible alternative reading of Scheme 3 is that the diffusion of xaa has increased the number of options to form a spatial interrogative of Goal, i.e. adding xaa to the list of allomorphs of WHITHER contributes to an increase of overabundance in this cell of the paradigm. Table 12: Mongolian paradigm of spatial interrogatives (Version II). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q(-na)]where

xaa ~ xaa-na

Goal

[Q(-š(aa))]whither

xaa ~ xaa-š ~ xaa-šaa

Source

[Q-ABLATIVE]whence

xaa-naas

As in Coptic (Sahidic), Mongolian gives evidence of the co-existence of indistinct i.e. syncretic word-forms which neutralize two distinctions and distinct word-forms which disambiguate the spatial relations of Place and Goal. Speakers of Mongolian thus have a choice. There are two word-forms for WHERE and three word-forms for WHITHER. Canonicity is affected by overabundance in the sense that there is no one-to-one correspondence of form and function. Synonymous word-forms are unpredictable on the basis of the parameters of paradigmatic canonicity. A word of caution is in order at this point since overabundance is too crucial an issue to be taken too lightly. Wherever descriptive grammars mention the co-existence of several synonymous forms it needs to be clarified exactly what status these putative instances of overabundance have in the system of the language under scrutiny. It is not uncommon that what superficially looks like overabundance turns out to be something else on closer inspection. First of all, some of the co-existing word-forms may be archaicisms typical of an earlier stage of the language. Since this means that there is a time gap separating some of the occupants of a paradigmatic cell from their cell-mates, the archaic items should be excluded from the synchronic evaluation of the system. Consider the Italian case in Table 13. Boldface and single underlining identify syncretic word-forms. Double underlining identifies a spatial interrogative the stem P of which differs from the stem Q of the majority of the wordforms in the paradigm.

38 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives Table 13: Archaic elements in the Italian system of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where=whither

dove ~ ove

Goal

[Q]where=whither

dove ~ ove

Source

[PrepABLATIVE Q ~ P]whence

da dove ~ donde ~ d’onde ~ onde

Like English whither and whence, the Italian spatial interrogatives ove ‘where = whither’ and donde ~ d’onde ~ onde ‘whence’ can still be found in the most comprehensive dictionaries of the language. However, Fava (2001: 88) characterizes these word-forms as “oggi in disuso” and “varianti disusate”, i.e. they are clearly marked as archaic. The typical examples of their use stem from literary works of the 19th century and prior periods. Thus, we feel entitled to exclude them from the synchronic investigation. As to the Italian system we refer to Table 14. Overabundance is absent from the Italian paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Table 14: Contemporary Italian system of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where=whither

dove

Goal

[Q]where=whither

dove

Source

[da Q]whence

da dove

The second – and perhaps more important – reason for not assuming that overabundance applies is that the word-forms may well be contemporary but at the same time representative of different varieties within a larger diatopic system (conventionally called language). If it is clear that some of the wordforms are used only in a specific variety while it is absent from other varieties, overabundance does not apply in the latter. This is what the Tamasheq examples in Table 15 demonstrate. Without further information one would assume that there are three synonymous WHERE-constructions actively used by every speaker of Tamasheq. However, Heath (2005: 653) tells us that this is not so. The spatial interrogative əndék ‘where’ is said to be common to “most dialects” whereas its two competitors are typical of regional varieties: əndəké ‘where’ is attested as an “optional

Mismatches | 39

Table 15: Tamasheq paradigm of spatial interrogatives (Version I). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where

əndék ~ əndəké ~ əndé

Goal

[P]whither

mí

Source

[P-CENTRIPETAL]whence

mí=dd13

variant” in the Timbuktu variety of Kal Ansar and əndé ‘where’ occurs in Kidal varieties. These varieties cover only part of the entire cluster of varieties of Tamasheq. For the varieties of Ansongo, Gao, Goundam, Gosi, Gourma, Hombori, Immenas, Rharous, and Tessalit no special forms of WHERE are reported. This means that the three forms of WHERE in Table 15 never co-occur in one and the same variety. The most one can get is a tripartition of the following kind. There are two regional varieties which are characterized by two different constellations of overabundance and a majority of varieties which give no evidence of overabundance, cf. Table 16. Table 16: Repartition of WHERE-constructions over Tamasheq varieties. Variety

WHERE-construction

Kal Ansar

əndék ~ əndəké

Kidal

əndék ~ əndé

all other

əndék

Lumping together the various bits of information provided in Table 16 results in the description of a non-existing variety. To avoid this effect, it is of utmost methodological importance to keep different varieties of the same diatopic system strictly apart. In connection with the above case, this means that we assume overabundance only for the Tamasheq varieties of Kal Ansar and Kidal but not sweepingly for all varieties of Tamasheq. When talking about the situation in Tamasheq we therefore have to specify which of the varieties we are referring to.

|| 13 On the basis of Heath (2005: 653), it cannot be decided whether or not the centripetal enclitic =dd is obligatory in the WHENCE-construction. If it is not, Tamasheq constitutes a case of Goal-Source syncretism.

40 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives This is a general problem of cross-linguistic research – a problem which reaches far beyond the dialect cluster of Tamasheq and the questions posed by spatial interrogatives. How can we make sure that we talk about one and the same variety? It is common knowledge that different grammars whose object is purportedly the same variety may yield widely different descriptions thereof. Furthermore, actual language use as documented in corpora may be at variance with these descriptions. One could think of solving the problem by lumping all of the diverging phenomena together to create a pool of options from which speakers may choose. However, our experience with the data collected for this investigation induces us to refrain from adopting this approach. In a number of cases it is clear that the descriptive discrepancies are indeed based on structural differences of (regional, social) varieties and can thus be separated neatly from each other. On the other hand, lumping together what information we get from the extant sources would lead to a pronounced disequilibrium among the sample languages because only a subset of the descriptive grammars take note of structural variation (not only) with spatial interrogatives. In those cases in which the issue of variation is passed over tacitly, it cannot always be ruled out that there are alternative options competing with the “standard”. To avoid getting entangled too much in the intricate business of the uneven accuracy of the linguistic descriptions of the structural properties of languages, we adopt a relatively naïve but immensely useful strategy. For the corpus-based part of the empirical data collection, we assume the existence of a Le Petit Prince-variety (= LPP-varieties) of each sample language which is evaluated on its own. There are also descriptive grammar-based varieties (= DGB-varieties) of the sample languages whose properties may or may not conform to those of the LPP-variety. In point of fact, the DGB-varieties are based not only on the evaluation of the descriptive-linguistic studies devoted to a given language but also (and sometimes exclusively) on textual evidence drawn from corpora other than the above sample-text. These DGB-varieties are confronted to the LPP varieties and evaluated on the basis of this confrontation. By distinguishing LPP-varieties from DGB-varieties of the same language, we do not claim that the one is superior to the other in any way. No ideas of correctness or authenticity are presupposed. LPP-varieties and DGB-varieties are considered varieties of their own right and of equal status. Overabundance very often comes in the shape of the co-existence of long and short word-forms whose the phonological chains frequently differ only slightly in the number of segments or syllables they comprise. This is the case with the WHERE-constructions əndék ~ əndəké ‘where’ and əndék ~ əndé ‘where’ Tamasheq varieties of Kal Ansar and Kidal, respectively (cf. Table 16), as well

Mismatches | 41

as with Mongolian xaa ~ xaa-na ‘where’ and xaa ~ xaa-š ~ xaa-šaa ‘whither’ (cf. Table 12). The paradigms of both languages are heterogeneous also because overabundance does not extend over all the cells. Overabundance and syncretism render the paradigm of Mongolian spatial interrogatives relatively opaque morphologically. On the other hand, the internal coherence of the paradigm is safeguarded by the Q-stem xaa which is involved in each of the word-forms. Not all paradigms of spatial interrogatives boast of a constant element of this kind though. In this case, suppletion applies – as in all varieties of Tamasheq.

2.2.3 Suppletion and sundry phenomena Suppletion of the stem also impairs the canonicity of a given paradigm (Corbett 2009). If several stems are involved in the paradigm, the cohesion thereof is reduced whereas the word-forms gain a high degree of independence of each other since they can be considered morphologically unrelated lexical items. In Table 17 we present the revised version of Table 15. This time the paradigm of spatial interrogatives is representative of the majority of the regional varieties of the Berber language Tamasheq (Heath 2005: 653–654). Table 17: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives of most varieties of Tamasheq. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where

əndék

Goal

[P]whither

mí

Source

[P-CENTRIPETAL]whence

mí=dd

There are two different stems Q and P the latter of which is used for the dynamic spatial relations. The co-existence of two stems in one and the same paradigm is an instance of suppletion. On top of that, Tamasheq attests to strong suppletion since əndék ‘where’ and mí ‘whither’ are based on two distinct lexical stems which join to form a common paradigm. The Tamasheq example illustrates that the distribution of Q-stem and P-stem correlates with the distinction of [dynamic] vs. [+dynamic]. Note that the distribution of Q-stem and P-stem in the archaic Italian paradigm in Table 13 is different since the divide is between WHERE = WHITHER and WHENCE. The crosslinguistic comparison will reveal whether or not there is a competition of only two possibilities.

42 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives By default a word-form is considered to be suppletive if its stem is unique to one cell of the paradigm. Stems which recur in at least two cells of the same paradigm are taken to represent “regular” units. According to this rule of thumb, a paradigm may host one or three suppletive word-forms. However, overabundance is a factor which might interfere in the sense that there are two competing stems each of which is attested in two cells so that one cell hosts several wordforms which are based on different stems. In cases of this kind (cf. Albanian and Polish in Table 1 above), we classify both stems as suppletive. Apart from strong suppletion, there is also weak or phonological suppletion. This type of suppletion applies if the word-forms of a paradigm are historically related to each other but cannot be derived from each other by synchronically productive rules. In the North-Germanic variety Elfdalian (Sweden) the three members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives only share the initial consonant /w/. For the WHITHER-construction and the WHENCE-construction, the phonological likeness goes as far as the first vowel which is /e/. The third segment, the trill /r/, is common to both WHERE and WHITHER. No further segments occur in more than one of the word-forms, cf. Table 18. The data stem from [LPP Elfdalian, 16]. Grey shading marks those segments which are shared by two or three word-forms. Table 18: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Elfdalian (Version I). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Segments

Place

[P1]where

war

w

a

r

Goal

[P2-t]whither

wer-t

w

e

r

t

Source

[P3-ðą̊]whence

we-ðą̊

w

e

ð

ą̊

The Old Nordic Q-stem was *war- to which the suffixes -t and *-tana were attached to form the WHITHER-construction and the WHENCE-construction, respectively. In the course of time, these were subject to morphonological changes which affected the vowel quality and the stem-final rhotic. These changes have obscured the original morphological make-up of the word-forms. Since the erstwhile morphonological processes are no longer productive, we are dealing with isolated and fossilized word-forms. It is legitimate therefore to reinterpret the above construction types of Table 18 as individual lexicalizations without synchronic internal structure, cf. Table 19.

Mismatches | 43

Table 19: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Elfdalian (Version II). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[P1]where

war

Goal

[P2]whither

wert

Source

[P3]whence

weðą̊

In contrast to the Elfdalian case, the North-Russian Romani data in Table 20 illustrate regular morphonological changes (Wentzel 1980: 31). Table 20: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives of North-Russian Romani. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where

kai̯

Goal

[Q-rík]whither

ka-rík

Source

[Q-ABLATIVE]whence

ka-tḯr

There is a Q-stem common to all three word-forms. The WHERE-construction reflects the wide-spread interrogative kaj ‘where’ (Matras 2002: 112). Wordfinal diphthongs like /aj/ lose their closing component regularly in the North Russian variety under suffixation (Wentzel 1980: 77): /aj/ → [a] / __ + {affix}. The affixation of -rík and -tḯr deletes [j] automatically. This process is predictable synchronically. With a number of inanimate nouns which display a stemfinal diphthong, the suffixation of the regular locative marker -te is blocked such that there is nominative-accusative-locative syncretism as e.g. NOMINATIVE = ACCUSATIVE = LOCATIVE phabái̯ ‘apple’ (Wentzel 1980: 78). The WHERE-construction fits in with this pattern in the sense that the absence of an affix correlates with the locative meaning i.e. with the Place relation. It is worth noting that, in contrast to the ablative suffix -tḯr of the WHENCEconstruction -rík is not a regular case-suffix in the WHITHER-construction. It is related to the noun rig ~ rik ‘side, edge, brink, direction’ instead which is attested in a great number of Romani languages (Boretzky & Igla 1994: 244). Irrespective of whether or not the use of this erstwhile noun in the WHITHERconstruction is considered to be a case of grammaticalization, the paradigm presented in Table 20 is mixed since two of the word-forms bear resemblance to regular word-forms of a specific declension class of nouns whereas the WHITHER-construction behaves differently. This cannot be a case of deponency

44 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives since -rik is not used anywhere else as a marker of grammatical categories in the morphological system of North Russian Romani. This is also why we are not dealing with heteroclisis which is “the mixture of different inflexion classes within a single paradigm” (Baerman 2007: 16). Rather, the presence of -rik sets the spatial interrogatives apart from other paradigms and can thus be understood as a characteristic of a distinct inflexional class.

2.2.4 (Anti-)Periphrasis For the purposes of this investigation, we adopt a simplified interpretation of the notion of periphrasis (and anti-periphrasis). The label periphrasis is employed here in the broad sense of a multi-word construction which belongs to a paradigm whose other cells are filled by mono-word constructions (Haspelmath & Sims 2010: 183–184). The other way round, anti-periphrasis applies if a mono-word construction combines paradigmatically with a majority of multiword constructions (Corbett 2007: 28). For practical reasons, we lump the two categories together under one heading. Henceforth, we will talk only of periphrasis as the umbrella category. The integration of multi-word spatial interrogatives in paradigms which also host mono-word constructions has been mentioned repeatedly already in the introduction. A further example is provided by Modern Standard Arabic in Table 21 (Ryding 2005: 401). Table 21: Modern Standard Arabic paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q-a]where

ʼayn-a

Goal

[‘ilaa Q-a]whither

ʼilaa ʼayn-a

Source

[min Q-a]whence

min ʼayn-a

There is a mono-word construction ‘ayn-a ‘where’ which is identical with the Q-stem. On the basis of this construction, two multi-word constructions are formed. Both WHITHER and WHENCE are represented by PPs whose complement is identical to the spatial interrogative WHERE. In our reading of the term periphrasis, the PPs are instances of periphrastic constructions. Since there is no other way to express Goal and Source relations but by PPs in Modern Standard Arabic – be it interrogative clauses or in declarative clauses – we are dealing

Mismatches | 45

with categorical periphrasis (Haspelmath & Sims 2010: 183). As there is a majority of periphrastic word-forms in the above paradigm, the Modern Standard Arabic spatial interrogative of Place is formally marked because it is not represented by a multi-word construction. This justifies that ‘ayn-a ‘where’ is classified as an instance of anti-periphrasis. Equally interesting for the purpose at hand are cases of lexical and/or paradigmatic periphrasis in which only one of the three cells of the paradigm of spatial interrogative hosts a multi-word construction or there is only one mono-word construction in the entire paradigm. The Coptic (Sahidic) data discussed at length in the introduction provide evidence of an isolated multiword construction WHENCE in a paradigm which is otherwise dominated by mono-word constructions, cf. Table 22. Table 22: Coptic (Sahidic) paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where

tōn

Goal

[(ē-)Q]whither

ē-tōn ~ tōn

Source

[(ebol) Q]whence

ebol tōn ~ tōn

Middle Welsh on the other hand attests to an isolated mono-word construction WHENCE which forms a paradigm with multi-word constructions for WHERE and WHITHER. Note, however, that just like in the Coptic (Sahidic) case, there is also a general spatial interrogative cw ~ cwd ~ cwt ‘where = whither = whence’ which neutralizes the distinctions of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE, cf. Table 23 (Evans 1977: 48–54).14 The Middle Welsh spatial interrogative of Source pan ‘whence’ is an example of anti-periphrasis because it forms a paradigm with a majority of multi-word constructions. Combinations of mono-word constructions and multiword constructions in one and the same paradigm of spatial interrogatives are not too infrequent crosslinguistically. These combinations render the paradigm

|| 14 The triplet of forms cw ~ cwd ~ cwt ‘where = whither = whence’ looks suspiciously like a ternary set of phonologically conditioned allomorphs. Much to our regret, the conditions which trigger the use of the different allomorphs cannot be retrieved from the Middle Welsh grammar (= Evans 1977) we have access to. This is why we refrain from lumping these three word-forms together as variable realizations of a hypothetical morph *{cw(D)}.

46 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives Table 23: Middle Welsh paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q le]where ~ [P]where

pa le ~ cw ~ cwd ~ cwt

Goal

[Q tu]whither ~ [P]whither

pa tu ~ cw ~ cwd ~ cwt

Source

[Qn]whence ~ [P]whence

pan ~ cw ~ cwd ~ cwt

heterogeneous in the sense that the word-forms do not have the same morphological status. Mono-word constructions are single syntactic words whereas multi-word constructions are syntagms.

2.2.5 Fused exponence Fused exponence gives rise to so-called portmanteau morphs. Several categories are expressed by a string of segments which cannot be subdivided into further morphological units. This is a deviation from the ideals of diagrammaticity and biuniqueness (Dressler et al. 1987) which require that each category on the content side should correspond to a distinct unit on the expression side and vice versa. The reduced diagrammaticity and/or biuniqueness also impinge on the canonicity of a paradigm – especially if fused exponence fails to apply in all cells of the paradigm. Table 24 contains the interesting paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Lealao Chinantec, an Otomangue language of southern Mexico (Rupp 1980: 49 and 113). Upper case numbers indicate tones. Table 24: Lealao Chinantec paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where ~ [P1]where

hyaʔ2 ~ nɨy1

Goal

[Q]whither

hyaʔ2

Source

[P2]whence

šiaʔ2

In this paradigm, none of the word-forms attests to the separate encoding of the spatial relations and interrogativity. Arguably, the word-forms nɨy1 ‘where’ and šiaʔ2 ‘whence’ are portmanteau morphs since they convey two meanings each, namely interrogativity and directionality. In neither case is it possible to

Mismatches | 47

decompose the expression into meaning-bearing smaller units. For the syncretic hyaʔ2 ‘where = whither’ the situation is similar. Each of the three wordforms of the paradigm is a separate lexicalization in which interrogativity and directionality are expressed via fused exponence. In the Lealao Chinantec case, fused exponence and suppletion go hand in hand. This is not a necessary requirement however. Table 25 illustrates the structure of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives as reported for the Chibchan language Cogui (formerly Kögaba) in Columbia. The data are taken from Preuss (1927: 527). Table 25: Cogui paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q(-ni)]where ~ [P]where

ma ~ ma-ni ~ mia

Goal

[Q(-ni)]whither ~ [P]whither

ma ~ ma-ni ~ mia

Source

[Q-žini]whence

mani-žini

In the Cogui paradigm, there are two primary stems, viz. the Q-stem ma which is also the syncretic spatial interrogative WHERE = WHITHER and the equally syncretic P-stem mia ‘where = whither’. The secondary stem mani is a combination of the primary stem ma ‘where = whither’ and the enclitic postposition -ni ‘at, to’. The enclitic postposition -žini ‘from’ is attached obligatorily to this secondary stem to yield the WHENCE-construction (Preuss 1926: 402–405). With WHERE = WHITHER the specification of the spatial relation via morphological means is optional. The synonymous word-forms ma ~ mia ‘where = whither’ can be analyzed as monomorphic whereas mani-žini ‘whence’ is certainly polymorphic. Since the long alloform mani ‘where = whither’ functions as stem for mani-žini ‘whence’, it may also be argued that mani is no longer bimorphemic but an unanalyzable portmanteau-morph like ma and mia. The paradigm is non-canonically organized because fused exponence of interrogativity and directionality alternate with separate exponence of both categories, i.e. the paradigm is patterned according to two different principles and thus heterogeneous.

2.2.6 What we have to watch out for The canonical paradigm and the ways to deviate from it constitute a fascinating topic for morphologically-inspired cross-linguistic research. In the case at

48 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives hand, it is important not to get lost in the maze created by the plethora of mismatches. Taking stock of these phenomena is one thing. It is a different business to determine whether they are randomly distributed over the languages of the world or whether they obey certain principles which allow for generalizations and predictions. This means that it cannot be expected that all kinds of mismatches occur with the same probability all over the place. If mismatches do not pop up everywhere with equal frequency, then what we have to ask is which of the spatial interrogatives is most prone to be affected by what kind of mismatch and, the other way round, which of the spatial interrogatives is particularly resistant to partake in a given mismatch. We assume that differential behavior of the spatial interrogatives on these parameters might tell us something about the internal system of the spatial relations involved. At the same time, we also assume that the mismatches are not automatically of a kind, i.e. the individualizing suppletion and the neutralizing syncretism must be interpreted differently from each other. A complicating factor is the possibility that a given paradigm is affected by several mismatches at a go. Even single spatial interrogatives may be subject to multiple mismatches. In our approach, it is especially interesting to identify those categories which invite multiple mismatches as opposed to those categories which tend to escape being mismatched morphologically. The theory-oriented evaluation of our findings in the realm of mismatches is the task of the conclusions.

2.3 Marking asymmetries This section is dedicated to the relatively technical matters which are connected to determining differences on the level of formal complexity of the constructions which are employed as spatial interrogatives. The formal means which are employed for the constructions within a given paradigm may vary as to their complexity on a variety of parameters. To make myself clear right away, we present some data from the Uralic language Yurak (aka Nenets) in Table 26 (Décsy 1966: 51). Table 26: Yurak paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q-n’a-LOCATIVE]where

xa-n’a-na

Goal

[Q-n’a-ALLATIVE]whither

xa-n’a-h

Source

[Q-n’a-ABLATIVE]whence

xa-n’a-d

Marking asymmetries | 49

All three of the spatial relations involved in this paradigm are marked overtly by morphological means. The Q-stem xa- hosts the case-inflected postposition na- to which the regular exponents of the locative -na, the allative -h, and the ablative -d are attached. This means that none of the categories is privileged by zero-marking. All three of the relations have to be established morphologically. Superficially, this looks like a perfectly balanced situation with three spatial interrogatives of equal hierarchical rank. On closer inspection, however, one is bound to note that the two dynamic spatial relations are encoded by mono-consonantal morphs on the postposition whereas the WHERE-construction contains a syllabic case suffix of two segments. This means that the WHERE-construction exceeds in length the constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE alike by a syllable. As to the number of segments, the WHERE-construction also counts one segment more than the other constructions in the same paradigm do. Thus, the WHERE-construction is the most complex of the three constructions on the parameter of the number of syllables and segments. In contrast, on both these parameters, WHITHER and WHENCE yield identical values which are lower than those of WHERE. Superficially, the above observations might seem trivial and without much import. Is this just an example of irrelevant bean counting? What can a plus or minus of a segment or two tell us about the systematic relations which hold between constructions and the categories they represent? Nothing if we are dealing with unpredictable singularities. However, the situation would be completely different if cross-linguistically recurrent patterns arise which allow the linguist to put forward hypotheses which can be proved to be correct with considerably more than chance frequency. That the latter is or is not the case cannot be claimed without sufficient empirical proof. The empirical chapters of this study are also meant to demonstrate that the putatively nitpicking procedure of measuring the complexity of constructions in order to put up a rank order is worthwhile giving a try indeed. Most of the prior attempts at determining whether or not there are correlations of the degree of formal complexity and functions of linguistic signs have been conducted with reference to the notion of (constructional) iconicity (Mayerthaler 1981). Their tenability has been challenged by Haspelmath (2008) who assumes that asymmetries on the level of complexity of constructions can generally be ascribed to the workings of so-called frequency effects. Since our approach does not allow us to statistically determine which of the constructions under scrutiny displays exactly what token frequency, we refrain from discussing the controversial issue of conceptually-grounded iconicity vs. frequency-based iconicity. To avoid confusion, we do not use the term iconicity

50 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives in much of the remainder of this book. Only on the final pages will we address the iconicity problem again. In the realm of interrogatives in general, Heine et al. (1991: 55–59) are forerunners of ours in the sense that they measure the complexity of interrogative constructions in terms of the number of words, morphemes, syllables, and segments which are needed to build the constructions. Siemund (2001: 1023) points out that the above study is “small-scale and not very representative”. Nevertheless, what Heine et al. (1991) show is that their principles of measuring constructional complexity may yield linguistically interesting results if applied thoroughly on as broad an empirical basis as possible. Since Heine et al. (1991) aim at making statements about entire systems of interrogatives, the class of spatial interrogatives is treated only among the also-ran. To their mind, interrogative constructions which inquire about space belong to those interrogative constructions “which are expressed by monomerphemic and monosyllabic forms in the majority of languages” (Heine et al. 1991: 56). Note, however, that this statement seems to refer exclusively to proper WHEREconstructions as found in the fifteen languages (with six Indo-European, seven Niger-Kordofanian languages plus one each from the Afroasiatic macrophylum and the Malayo-Polynesian languages) of the sample of the quoted authors’. Nowhere do they mention WHITHER or WHENCE. Thus, the problems we address in this study are not tackled by Heine et al. (1991). In the subsequent Section 2.3.1, we discuss briefly the five parameters which we consider relevant for determining the formal complexity of the interrogative constructions to be analyzed throughout the empirical part of this study. Each of these parameters is treated in a subsection of its own. After surveying these parameters, we introduce the technical aspects of the procedure of measuring formal complexity in Section 2.3.2 below.

2.3.1 Parameters of complexity The parameters are presented in descending order starting on the level of syntagms and continuing with word-internal phenomena to terminate on the level of segments. Given that all of the notions which are crucial for our endeavor are notoriously difficult to define crosslinguistically, we adopt a rather unsophisticated and coarse-grained interpretation of the terms which we disclose for each of the parameters separately.

Marking asymmetries | 51

2.3.1.1 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions Haspelmath (2011) argues that it is impossible to define the word as a universal category. This means that a word in language X may be based on principles which differ from those which justify the existence of the category word in language Y. We do not intend to contribute to the controversy about the notion of word. To the contrary, we have to turn a blind eye to the wide range of variation one is confronted with when it comes to defining the word-category. The easy way out for us is as follows. In lieu of defining the word language-independently, we rely entirely on the conventions according to which strings of words are divided by spaces in writing – either in terms of the orthographical traditions of a given speech-community or according to the transcription which linguists use to represent a given language in writing. This means that we give precedence to the orthographic level which in turn privileges syntactic words to the detriment of phonological words. Note too that cliticized adpositions are generally counted as separate syntactic words. Thus, when talking about mono-word constructions as opposed to multi-word constructions we base our assumptions on the graphic representation of the languages of our sample. What is an orthographic word in language X does not necessarily correspond to an orthographic word in language Y. We are fully aware of this inconvenience. In Table 27, the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of the Austronesian language Paiwan is given (Egli 2002: 77). Table 27: Paiwan paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where=whither

inu

Goal

[Q]where=whither

inu

Source

[kasi Q]whence

kasi inu

This paradigm is mixed in the sense that the syncretic mono-word construction inu ‘where = whither’ combines with the multi-word construction kasi inu ‘whence’ to form the paradigm of spatial interrogatives (with the deverbal kasi ‘to depart from’). As to the number of words which belong to the constructions, that of WHENCE exceeds that of WHERE = WHITHER since it comprises two orthographic words as opposed to only one word which is necessary to express WHERE = WHITHER. What might appear to be an idiosyncrasy of an individual language gains in linguistic importance if the same pattern recurs frequently across a large

52 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives sample of languages. From the previous chapters we know already that WHENCE-constructions tend to be more complex than their counterparts WHERE and WHITHER. If it can be shown that if the constructions of a paradigm of spatial interrogatives differ as to the number of words, it is the WHENCEconstruction which is “more wordy” than those of the other categories, then chance can be ruled out as a factor. There must be a principle which dictates that more words are needed to construe WHENCE than are needed for WHERE and/or WHITHER. The existence of such a principle is supported further if similar differences of complexity can be detected also on the other parameters.

2.3.1.2 Number of morphs and morphemes The notion of the morpheme is as controversial as that of the word (Mugdan 1986). In recent approaches to morphology – like that of Construction Morphology (Booij 2010), for instance – downgrade the importance of the morpheme for the morphological system. In a word-based model of morphology, the morpheme is but of limited interest. Our own focus on the canonical paradigm notwithstanding, we assume that the formal complexity of words can be measured in terms of the morphological units into which the word can be decomposed. How these units are called is largely irrelevant. For purely practical purposes, we employ the terms morph (for the units on the expression side) and morpheme (for the distinct categories on the content level). The brief subsequent discussion suggests that it is necessary to keep the two levels – content side vs. expression side – apart since their degrees of complexity do not always correspond to each other one-to-one. The Galibi Carib paradigm of spatial interrogatives reproduced in Table 28 contains exclusively mono-word constructions (Hoff 1968: 270–276). Nevertheless, it can be compared to the above data from Paiwan which attest to a mixture of mono-word constructions and multi-word constructions (cf. Table 27). Table 28: Galibi Carib paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q-we]where

o:-we

Goal

[Q-ya]whither

o:-ya

Source

[Q-we-mbo]whence

o:-we-mbo

Marking asymmetries | 53

There is a Q-stem o:- which is common to all three of the spatial interrogatives. Each of the constructions is polymorphic, i.e. the Q-stem is accompanied by at least one additional morph and morpheme. This means that all of the spatial relations are marked overtly by morphological means. In the case of the WHEREconstruction the suffix -we encodes the spatial relation of Place. Goal is expressed by the suffix -ya in the WHITHER-construction. The Source relation requires the most complex construction because two morphs are attached to the Q-stem. The suffixes -we and -mbo combine to yield the inflexional complex of the WHENCE-construction. Arguably the WHERE-construction serves as secondary stem for the formation of the WHENCE-construction. In any case, o:wembo ‘whence’ is the most complex of the three constructions morphologically. Both WHERE and WHITHER are represented by bimorphemic constructions whereas WHENCE counts three morphological units. It is thus longer by one morph than the other members of the paradigm, cf. Table 29. Table 29: Number of morphemes and morphs of Galibi Carib spatial interrogatives. Construction

Morphemes

Morphs

WHERE

Q

-Place

o:

-we

WHITHER

Q

-Goal

o:

-ya

WHENCE

Q

-Source

o:

-we

-mbo

1

2

1

2

3

On the content side, the three constructions are equally complex insofar as all of them are bimorphemic. In contrast, on the expression side, WHENCE is trimorphic whereas WHERE and WHITHER count two morphs each only. This is exactly identical to the pattern that emerges from the confrontation of mono-word constructions and multi-word constructions in the previous case of Paiwan. The spatial relation of Source thus tends to trigger relatively complex constructions not only on the level of syntagms but also on the level of morphemes.

2.3.1.3 Zero-marking In connection with marking asymmetries, we especially search for instances of zero-marking because crosslinguistic evidence from other areas of the grammar of space are indicative of a competition of Place and Goal for the status of the (maximally) unmarked spatial relation (Stolz et al. 2014). A zero-marked spatial interrogative which is not suppletive can be considered the derivation-

54 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives al basis of the other members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. It is not imperative to assume a zero-morpheme (Mel’čuk 2002) if there is no separate exponent of a given category. If none of the members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives is marked for directionality for instance, zero-marking is not distinctive. It does not privilege any of the categories. Therefore, we take account only of those cases in which a paradigm hosts both zero-marked spatial interrogatives and overtly marked spatial interrogatives. Neither does zeromarking apply if the category under inspection is encoded alongside other categories by a portmanteau morph (cf. Section 2.2.5 above). In the Paiwan paradigm (cf. Table 27), the syncretic spatial interrogative of WHERE = WHITHER does not host any marker of directionality whereas the WHENCEconstruction involves a distinct marker of Source. Accordingly, Place and Goal are zero-marked. The examples from Aymara in Table 30 show that Place can be zero-marked independently of the morphological behavior of Goal (Hardman et al. 1988: 185). Table 30: Aymara paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where

kawki

Goal

[Q-ru]whither

kawki-ru

Source

[Q-ta]whence

kawki-ta

The expression of WHERE is identical with the Q-stem of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. There is no marker of the spatial relation of Place. It is counterintuitive to assume that the relation of Place is co-encoded with interrogativity in the Q-stem. Fused exponence can be ruled out because the supposed portmanteau-morph recurs throughout the paradigm. If Place were encoded by fusion in the Q-stem, it would also be accounted for in the constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE. However, in these constructions the meaning component Place would clash with the dynamic directionality of Goal and Source. Both Goal and Source are encoded by suffixes with -ru marking Goal and -ta marking Source. The WHERE-construction is monomorphemic and monomorphic. The WHITHER-construction and the WHENCE-construction are both bimorphemic and bimorphic. It is worth noting that the two dynamic spatial relations are represented by constructions of equal complexity. Still, the WHENCE-construction is more complex than the WHERE-construction. In this way, the situation in Aymara corresponds to the situations of the previous languages be-

Marking asymmetries | 55

cause their WHENCE-constructions are never less complex than their constructions.

WHERE-

2.3.1.4 Number of syllables At this point we leave the realm of content categories and enter the domain of phonology. Following the top-down order of levels we have adopted for this study, the next category to scrutinize is that of syllables. There is a plethora of models of the syllable as language-independent category. As with the previous notions, the definition of the syllable as such is largely controversial. For the purposes of this study, an unsophisticated approach to the syllable is called for. To facilitate counting the number of syllables which are involved in a construction, we deliberately gloss over distinctions such as nuclear syllable and extrasyllabic segments. What we count as syllables is the number of heterosyllabic syllable peaks. Where syllable peaks are absent from the phonological chain (e.g. in so-called secondary syllables with a non-vocalic nucleus with the feature [+sonorant]), we assume that there is no separate syllable. We refer exclusively to phonological i.e. abstract syllables and ignore phonetic syllables completely. Furthermore, we do not differentiate a syllable type from the other, i.e. we do not discriminate open and closed syllables, naked and covered syllables. The numbers of segments which fill a syllable head or a syllable coda are irrelevant, too. With this very simplistic stipulation of what is a syllable in the back of our minds, we can take a look at the data from the Mongolian language Kalmyk given in Table 31 (Benzing 1985: 105). Table 31: Kalmyk paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q-DATIVE]where

al’-d

Goal

[Q-DIRECTIVE-REFLEXIVE]whither

al’-dagš-an ~ al’-dar-an

Source

[Q-ABLATIVE]whence

al’-das

The three spatial interrogatives are represented by mono-word constructions all of which are polymorphic and polymorphemic. This parallel behavior notwithstanding, there are noticeable differences too. The WHERE-construction is monosyllabic because the dative suffix -d consists of a single consonant. In the other two constructions, however, the case exponents are syllabic. The abla-

56 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives tive suffix -das is attached to the Q-stem al’- ‘which’ and thus adds a syllable to the construction. The dative and ablative suffixes belong to the regular case markers which are used in the declension of nouns (Benzing 1985: 32). The spatial interrogative of Goal is special in several senses. First of all, there is overabundance with two synonymous WHITHER-constructions. Secondly, the affixes used in these WHITHER-constructions are typical of adverbs (Benzing 1985: 55), i.e. they are not found in noun paradigms. Thirdly, the spatial interrogative of Goal is trimorphic whereas both WHERE and WHENCE are bimorphic. This morphological complexity correlates with complexity on the level of the number of syllables. The two WHITHER-constructions are trisyllabic. Their length exceeds that of the WHENCE-construction by a syllable and that of the WHERE-construction by two syllables, cf. Table 32. The symbol σ serves as variable for syllable. Table 32: Number of syllables of Kalmyk spatial interrogatives. Construction WHERE WHITHER WHENCE

Syllables al’d al’

dag

šan

al’

da

ran

al’

das

σ1

σ2

σ3

The data in Table 32 reflect a pattern which is familiar from the previous cases, viz. of the three constructions, it is the WHERE-construction which is the least complex of the entire paradigm. The dynamic spatial relations are represented by constructions which comprise more syllables than the monosyllabic WHEREconstruction. What is different from the examples from other languages discussed above is the exceptionally high degree of complexity of the WHITHERconstruction. Hitherto the rank of the most complex construction has been assigned repeatedly to the WHENCE-construction. The Kalmyk data tell us that the spatial relation do not behave the same crosslinguistically. There is variation as to which of the categories triggers the most complex construction. The morphological and phonological complexity of the Kalmyk WHITHERconstruction is explicable as follows. Outside the realm of the spatial interrogatives, the dative case (aka dative-locative) is used indiscriminately for the purpose of encoding Place and Goal (Benzing 1985: 30). This syncretism seems

Marking asymmetries | 57

to be barred from spatial adverbs – a word-class which has several means to express Goal none of which is identical to the regular directive suffix -ur of Kalmyk nouns. The spatial interrogatives behave syntactically like adverbials and thus qualify as hosts of the case exponents which are genuinely found with adverbs. The special complexity of WHITHER is perhaps a secondary phenomenon.

2.3.1.5 Number of segments In this section, we reach the bottom level, namely the level of segments. We treat segments as discreet, disjunct, and distinct countable units although we are aware of the problems that arise if one tries to decompose phonological chains into their components. Since we do not respect the phonetic level of realization, the segments we refer to are the abstract (“underlying”) phonemes not the allophonic realizations thereof. Not all segments have the same value though. Singleton vowels and plain consonants are usually counted as single segments. The following is a list of special phonological units and their segmental value. There is no specific phonological theory behind our decision to assign the values below to the segments mentioned in the list.  Affricates are monosegmental and thus are counted as ‘1’  Secondary articulations (palatalization, labialization, aspiration, etc.) do not change the segmental value of a consonant which is thus counted as ‘1’  Geminates are bisegmental and thus are counted as ‘2’  Long vowels are bisegmental and thus are counted as ‘2’  Diphthongs are bisegmental and thus are counted as ‘2’  Nasal vowels are bisegmental and thus are counted as ‘2’ Future research has to reveal whether or not the above stipulated values make sense. A further remark is necessary at this point. The segmental chains of spatial interrogatives of several languages of our sample are affected by external sandhi such that apocope or similar reductive phonological processes apply. Similarly, sentence phonetics might be responsible for paragoge and other processes which add segments to a construction. If these processes are regularly triggered by the phonological properties of syntagmatic neighbors, the manipulated phonological chains are not considered to be full-blown allomorphs the presence of which would yield overabundance. The number of segments is crucial for the degree of complexity of the constructions in the Ubykh paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Table 33 (Charachidze 1989: 381–382).

58 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives Table 33: Ubykh paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q-LOCATIVE]where=whither

mạ̀-kˈ’a

Goal

[Q-LOCATIVE]where=whither

mạ̀-kˈ’a

Source

[Q-LOCATIVE-INSTRUMENTAL]whence

mạ̀-kˈ’a-wn

The constructions are mono-word constructions. There is a common Q-stem mạ̀- ‘which’ to which the suffix -kˈ of the general locative is added. The paradigm attests to Place-Goal syncretism. The syncretic spatial relations are zeromarked. The three constructions are polymorphic and polymorphemic. Similarly, all three of the constructions are disyllabic. The WHENCE-construction differs from that of WHERE = WHITHER on two parameters. On the one hand, there are three morphs whereas the syncretic construction of WHERE = WHITHER consists of two morphs only. Moreover, the spatial interrogative of Source is represented by a phonological chain of six segments as opposed to the spatial interrogative of Place-Goal which is shorter by two segments, cf. Table 34. The symbol π is the variable for segment. Table 34: Segmental chains of Ubykh spatial interrogatives. Construction WHERE

Segments m

ạ̀

kˈ’

a

WHITHER

m

ạ̀

kˈ’

a

WHENCE

m

ạ̀

kˈ’

a

w

n

π1

π2

π3

π4

π5

π6

The situation resembles several of the cases which we have discussed in the foregoing sections. The whence-construction is the most complex of the paradigm although the number of syllables is the same throughout the paradigm. This time it is the number of segments which makes a difference. This means that complexity does not make itself felt automatically on all of the parameters under scrutiny. Complexity may manifest itself under different guises. The contrasts of multi-word constructions vs. mono-word-constructions, polymorphemic vs. monomorphemic constructions, polymorphic vs. monomorphic constructions, polysyllables vs. monosyllables, and short segmental chains vs.

Marking asymmetries | 59

long segmental chains have all the same value, i.e. none is principally more important than the other.

2.3.1.6 Intermediate summary The final remarks of the previous paragraph do not deny the possibility that there is a tendency of the following kind. Multi-word constructions are often also polymorphic and polymorphemic constructions. Multi-word constructions are of necessity polysyllabic and ultimately tend to be segmentally complex. However, this tendency cannot be read from the other end, i.e. the complexity of segmental chains does not lead directly to multi-word constructions. This means that the analysis of the empirical facts has to embrace all of the above levels since it is not possible to predict without fault all of the properties of the constructions on level X on the basis of their properties on level Y and vice versa. The vast majority of the examples which we have discussed above are indicative of the marked status of the spatial relation of Source. At the same time, the same examples suggest that the spatial relation of Place tend to be the least marked of the three categories. This constellation (i.e. the combination of unmarked WHERE and marked WHENCE in one and the same paradigm) recurs very frequently across our sample of languages. However, the high frequency of this pattern does not completely preclude the possibility that paradigms deviate from the majority solution. Kalmyk is a case in point. The data-survey in the empirical chapters of our study will prove that deviations of this and other kind are attested sufficiently frequently to call for closer inspection. Accordingly, every case of deviation which we come across in our database will be paid the necessary attention. Before these issues can be addressed, Section 2.3.2 provides the detailed illustration of the technical procedure of measuring and evaluating marking asymmetries and morphological mismatches.

2.3.2 How to quantify mismatches and complexity The methodology we apply when it comes to quantifying the phenomena under scrutiny is as straightforward as possible. It is not meant to be overly technological in order to guarantee easy understanding. The quantification will be conducted on two dimensions. First of all, the occurrence of mismatches and the degrees of structural complexity of the constructions have to be determined for each individual language separately. Only after this has been achieved it is pos-

60 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives sible to compare the values crosslinguistically with a view to identifying patterns. These two tasks require different types of arithmetic. For this reason, we illustrate the technical issues of our methodology in two consecutive subsections. We start with the analysis of the data from an individual language in Section 2.3.2.1 and continue with the comparison of data from a variety of languages in Section 2.3.2.2. These sections are intended to exhaust the subject of how we have come by the numerical data as input for the statistics in the remainder of this book. To be on the safe side, we emphasize that each single spatial interrogative reported for our sample languages has been analyzed according to the principles presented below. The same holds for the comparisons carried out in Sections 3–4, i.e. they essentially follow the procedure adopted in Section 2.3.2.2.

2.3.2.1 An individual language To avoid spilling too many beans of the plot of the empirical chapters of this study, we develop our ideas on the basis of an analysis of the spatial interrogatives of a constructed language, viz. Esperanto. Constructed languages are normally excluded from crosslinguistic investigations because of their artificial character and the (supposed) absence of native speakers. Nevertheless, a closer look at the Esperanto data shows them to be instructive linguistically. Since there is an Esperanto translation of Le Petit Prince, the first step is to check how the sample sentences (cf. [7] above) are rendered in Esperanto. The Esperanto equivalents of three questions are given in (10). (10) (10.1)

(10.2)

(10.3)

Esperanto [LPP Esperanto, 14] Source De kie vi venas, etulo mia? little_person my from P? you come:PRES ‘Where do you come from, my little one?’ Place Kie estas tiu via ĉe mi? this your at I P? be:PRES ‘Where is this your “at my place”?’ Goal Kie-n vi volas forporti mian ŝafeton? P?-ACC you want:PRES take:INF my:ACC sheep:DIM:ACC ‘Where do you want to take my lamb?’

The three constructions of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE are the same throughout the corpus text. Thus, there is no variation. Furthermore, the constructions are in line with the information given in the descriptive grammar of Esperanto

Marking asymmetries | 61

(Willkommen 2007). In the domain of the spatial interrogatives, the LPPvariety of Esperanto does not differ from the DGB-variety of the same language. It is possible therefore to postulate the following paradigm of spatial interrogatives for Esperanto, cf. Table 35. The Q-stem is the initial k- of the head-word with {ie} being a morpheme with a general locative meaning which is often translated as ‘place’ (Willkommen 2007: 118). Table 35: Esperanto paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q-PLACE]where

k-ie

Goal

[Q-PLACE-ACCUSATIVE]whither

k-ie-n

Source

[de Q-PLACE]whence

de k-ie

The next task is to determine whether or not any mismatches apply within the paradigm. Table 35 shows that the three constructions are distinctive and that no synonymous allomorphs exist. This means that there is evidence neither of syncretism nor of overabundance. The three spatial interrogatives share a common Q-stem so that there is no evidence of suppletion either. Directionality is zero-marked for the WHERE-construction (i.e. the morph {ie} = morpheme {PLACE} is not the exponent of the spatial relation of Place since it is not a marker of directionality but a derivational morpheme to create spatial interrogatives) and overtly marked for WHITHER and WHENCE. This is tantamount to the absence of fused exponence. The sole example of a mismatch is periphrasis, cf. Table 36. The empty cells of this table correspond to negative statements like “no” or “does not apply”. Table 36: Check-list for mismatches (Esperanto). Level

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

syncretism overabundance suppletion periphrasis fused exponence

yes

62 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives The WHENCE-construction de kie ‘whence’ stands out from the other members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives because it is the only multi-word construction. The spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal are represented by mono-word constructions. Directionality is either not specified at all (= kie ‘where’) or encoded inflexionally (= kie-n ‘whither’). In the case of WHENCE, however, the PP de kie ‘whence’ consisting of two words is used. The paradigm is heterogeneous in the sense that different strategies are employed to indicate directionality. This heterogeneity can be explained as follows. Esperanto boasts of a binary morphological case-system which consists of a zero-marked base-form and a so-called accusative encoded by the suffix -n which, however, is multifunctional (Willkommen 2007: 65–68). All other syntactic relations and semantic roles are expressed via PPs. The heterogeneity of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives is consistent with the structural properties of the grammatical system in general. These are the bare facts. What do we do with them beyond stating the obvious? To make the above observations into an evaluation of some kind, the occurrence of mismatches has to be weighed against the absence of mismatches. To this end, numerical values have to be assigned to those spatial interrogatives which give evidence of mismatches. In the case of Esperanto there is exactly one such case, namely periphrasis with WHENCE. In accordance to our elementary methodology, Esperanto WHENCE is assigned the value ‘1’ whereas WHERE and WHITHER receive a nil each since they do not attest to mismatches, cf. Table 37. The high score is highlighted doubly by boldface and grey shading. Table 37: Mismatch score of Esperanto spatial interrogatives. Construction

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

score

0

0

1

The matrices are by no means always that simple. Several of our sample languages yield scores which are considerably more differentiated (cf. Section 2.3.2.2). The topic of the previous paragraphs has been the occurrence of mismatches. This search for heterogeneity within the paradigm has to be complemented by the calculus of the degree of complexity of the constructions involved in the paradigm. The relevant figures are given in Table 38. In the leftmost column, we indicate the levels on which the three constructions are compared. The formal analysis and the numerical values are given for each

Marking asymmetries | 63

spatial interrogative separately. Sequences of vowels are always heterosyllabic as there are no diphthongs in Esperanto (Willkommen 2007: 16). Table 38: Complexity values of Esperanto spatial interrogatives. Level

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

kie

kien

de kie

words

[kie]ω = 1

[kien]ω = 1

[de]ω + [kie]ω = 2

morphs

{k}-{ie} = 2

{k}-{ie}-{n} = 3

{de} + {k}-{ie} = 3

morphemes

{Q}-{PLACE} = 2

{Q}-{PLACE}-{ACC} = 3

{from} + {Q}-{PLACE} = 3

zero-marking

yes

no

no

syllables

ki$e = 2

ki$en = 2

de$ki$e = 3

segments

/kie/ = 3

/kien/ = 4

/de#kie/ = 5

As we know from the above, WHERE and WHITHER are mono-word constructions as opposed to multi-word WHENCE. All constructions are polymorphic and polymorphemic. The WHERE-construction counts two morphs and two morphems whereas WHITHER and WHENCE are trimorphemic and trimorphic. Zeromarking applies to WHERE exclusively. WHERE and WHITHER are disyllabic in contrast to WHENCE which consists of three syllables. The number of segments increases in steps of one from WHERE via WHITHER to WHENCE. It is obvious that the three constructions do not behave the same. In lieu of simply adding up the numerical values in Table 38, we rank the constructions for each of the levels separately. For this purpose, a scale with the values ‘0’, ‘1’, and ‘2’ is employed. If there are three different numerical values, the lowest corresponds to ‘0’ whereas the highest equals ‘2’. The intermediate value counts as equivalent of ‘1’. If there are only two different values, these correspond to ‘0’ and ‘1’, respectively. If there are three identical values, they are counted indiscriminately as instances of ‘0’. In the case of zero-marking, ‘yes’ corresponds to ‘0’ and ‘no’ is assigned a ‘1’. In this way, Table 38 can be rearranged to yield Table 39. What Table 39 reveals is a relatively clear partition. To start with, there is no parameter on which all three of the constructions display identical values. The Esperanto WHERE-construction is consistently rated ‘0’ and thus has a total of ‘0’. This result contrasts drastically with that of the WHENCE-construction.

64 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives Table 39: Scores for the complexity levels of Esperanto spatial interrogatives. Level

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

kie

kien

de kie

words

0

0

1

morphs

0

1

1

morphemes

0

1

1

zero-marking

0

1

1

syllables

0

0

1

segments

0

1

2

Total

0

4

7

WHENCE is never assigned ‘0’. It always gives evidence of higher complexity. Its total of ‘7’ also exceeds that of WHITHER since the latter shares the assignment of ‘0’ with WHERE twice. The differences as reflected by the above totals can be captured by a graph, cf. Diagram 1. Diagram 1 fits perfectly with Table 37 which singles out the WHENCEconstruction as the sole example of a construction being affected by a mismatch. This is largely unsurprising because periphrasis implies multi-word constructions and – as mentioned at the beginning of Section 2.3.1.6 – these are automatically polymorphic, etc. The likelihood that a construction scores relatively high on several parameters if it is a multi-word construction is high as well. However, the reverse does not strictly hold since many segments do not automatically yield several words. It makes sense therefore to check the constructions on all of the levels in lieu of restricting the investigation to the highest level.

8 6 4 2 0 where

whither

Diagram 1: Total of complexity scores (Esperanto).

whence

Marking asymmetries | 65

Additionally it is possible to calculate the average values for the levels mentioned in Table 38 (with the exception of zero-marking) and determine the degree to which the values of the three spatial interrogatives deviate from the average, cf. Diagram 2. 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 where words

whither morphs

morphemes

whence syllables

average segments

Diagram 2: Average of and deviations from complexity values (Esperanto).

This graph is as clear as the previous one. The values of WHENCE always exceed the average whereas those reported for WHERE are always below the average. Unsurprisingly, WHITHER displays values which oscillate around the average. Diagram 2 corroborates the prior findings, namely that there is a strong tendency for WHENCE to fulfill the requirements of being the most marked category and for WHERE to represent the best candidate for the role of unmarked category so that WHITHER occupies a middle position between the two extremes. The discussion of the Esperanto examples has given the reader a coarse idea of how the values are computed which form the input for the statistics to follow. Since this is a crosslinguistic study, the statistics we allude to do not focus exclusively on individual languages. To the contrary, they usually unify the values of several languages. How this is done technically is the topic of the subsequent section. We emphasize at this point that Section 2.3.2.2 does not exhaust the full array of the possibilities of evaluating the data. The focus is on the major issues. Further aspects are introduced in due course in the empirical chapters.

66 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives 2.3.2.2 Across languages The paradigms of the spatial interrogatives of those twenty-six languages which have been mentioned in the previous Sections 1–2.3.2.1 are employed for the illustration of our methodology of language comparison. The paradigms are presented together in Table 40. For those languages whose paradigms contain gaps in Table 1 we have added the missing information. A small number of the paradigms need to be revised in the empirical chapters of this book. For the time being, the uncommented data suffice to illustrate how the mechanisms of the calculus are supposed to work. The mismatches are marked as follows:15  as before boldface and single underlining mark those word-forms which are syncretic within a given paradigm;  grey shading highlights those cells which testify to overabundance;  double underlining and an asterisk (*) identify cases of strong suppletion (weak suppletion is not taken account of in this section);  the bracketed gap (…) indicates that the constituent parts of a given construction may or must be detached from each other such that multi-word constructions are created;  an exclamation-mark in square brackets [!] is used as mark for word-forms which instantiate either periphrasis or anti-periphrasis. The languages come in alphabetical order. In this section, we do not discuss the data of the individual languages at any length since this either has been done already above or will be done in one of the sections to follow. Table 40: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in twenty-six languages. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Albanian

ku*

ku* ~ nga*

nga*

Elfdalian

war

wert

weðą̊

Arabic (Modern Standard)

‘ayna [!]

‘ilaa ‘ayna

min ‘ayna

|| 15 These conventions are valid only for this section. Wherever we deem it necessary in the remainder of this text we employ different regulations. For instance, we keep the practice of marking (anti-)periphrasis with [!] in Sections 2 and 3.1. From Section 3.2 onwards this symbol is employed differently, namely to mark multi-word constructions. The reason for this and other changes of procedure is economy.

Marking asymmetries | 67

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Aymara

kawki

kawkiru

kawkita

Galibi Carib

o:we

o:ya

o:wembo

Lealao Chinantec

hya ~ nɨy

hya

šiaʔ2

Cogui

ma ~ mani ~ mia

ma ~ mani ~ mia

mažini

Coptic (Sahidic)

tōn

tōn ~ ētōn

tōn ~ ebol tōn [!]

English

where

where

where (…) from [!]

Esperanto

kie

kien

de kie [!]

Finnish

missä

mihin

mistä

French

où

où

d’où [!]

German

wo

wo(…)hin [!]

wo(…)her [!]

Italian

dove

dove

da dove [!]

Kalmyk

al’d

al’dagšan ~ al’daran

al’das

Lezgian

hina

hiniz

hinaj

Lithuanian

kur ~ kame

kur ~ kame

iš kur [!]

Middle Welsh

pa le ~ cw ~ cwd ~ cwt

pa tu ~ cw ~ cwd ~ cwt

pan [!] ~ cw ~ cwd ~ cwt

ʔ2

1

ʔ2

Mongolian

xaa ~ xaana

xaa ~ xaaš ~ xaašaa

xaanaas

Paiwan

inu

inu

kasi inu [!]

Polish

gdzie

gdzie ~ dokąd*

skąd*

Romani (North Russian)

kai̯

karík

katḯr

Russian

gde

kuda

otkuda

Tamasheq

əndék

mí

mí=dd

Ubykh

mạ̀kˈ’a

mạ̀kˈ’a

mạ̀kˈ’awn

Yurak

xan’ana

xan’ah

xan’ad

2.3.2.2.1 Mismatches According to the principles of canonicity, we expect seventy-eight distinct word-forms since that is the number of cells if we multiply three spatial interrogatives by the number of languages taken account of in Table 40. What we find instead is a total of 102 word-forms which distribute as follows over the three categories under scrutiny, cf. Table 41. Seventeen of the twenty-six languages give evidence of mismatches (several of them multiply). This means that almost two thirds (= 65%) of the small sample are affected by mismatches.

68 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives Table 41: Expected vs. attested number of word-forms. WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Sum

expected

26

26

26

78

attested

34

38

30

102

excess

+31%

+46%

+15%

+31%

The excess rates are indicative of the relatively strong position of overabundance. Diagram 3 reveals that overabundance is by no means the only mismatch that is characteristic of the small sub-sample of languages analyzed in this section. 100% 90%

5

6

3

1

80% 70% 60% 50%

19

20

5

whence

9

whither

40%

3

30% 20% 10%

9

13

where

6 1 1

0% syncretism

overabundance

suppletion

periphrasis

fused exponence

Diagram 3: Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in twenty-six languages.

The absolute numbers in the bars of Diagram 3 refer to the number of wordforms which are affected by the mismatches. In the case of overabundance, we have additionally counted the cells which host two or more synonymous wordforms. This extra-count yields for overabundance a share of 19% of the 78 cells. The percentages based on the number of word-forms are displayed in two separate diagrams. Diagram 3 above computes the shares of WHERE, WITHER and WHENCE within the different categories of mismatches whereas Diagram 4 shows the distribution of mismatches among the three spatial interrogatives.

Marking asymmetries | 69

100% 90% 80%

3 1 6

70%

1

fused exponence

9 periphrasis

20

60% 50%

1 5

3

13

suppletion

40% 6

30% 20% 10%

overabundance

19 9

5

0% where

whither

syncretism

whence

Diagram 4: Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in twenty-six languages.

As to the syncretic patterns in Table 40, a clear hierarchy emerges which is corroborative of the hypotheses formulated in Section 1.2.2 above. There is a population of altogether 36 patterns (tokens) which have the following shares:  WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE: 17 cases ~ 47%  (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE: 14 cases ~ 39%  WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE: 4 cases ~ 11%  WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE): 1 case ~ 3% In the above sample of twenty-six languages, there is no example of PlaceSource syncretism to the exclusion of Goal, i.e. the pattern (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER is unattested. In a way, the above values look like a compromise between those given by Pantcheva and those calculated by Noonan in Table 3 above. What we learn further from the above statistics is that the absence of any clear evidence of fused exponence notwithstanding WHITHER is most prone to be affected by mismatches. The typical mismatches associated with WHITHER are overabundance and syncretism. Those are also the favorites of WHERE. However, WHENCE clearly has a different preference because this spatial interrogative displays a predilection for periphrasis – a phenomenon which is disfavored by the other members of the same paradigm. Fused exponence is at-

70 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives tested too infrequently to allow us to draw definite conclusions about its attraction to any of the spatial interrogatives. We also learn that the favorite mismatches of WHERE and WHITHER taken together account for seventy of the 111 word-forms which are affected by mismatches, i.e. there is a concentration of 63% of all cases of mismatches under the rubrics of syncretism and overabundance in connection with WHERE and WHITHER. If the twelve cases of these mismatches found with WHENCE are added to this, the two mismatches cover 74% of all cases. The remaining three mismatches – suppletion, periphrasis, and fused exponence – are down to 26%. On this basis one may dare to hypothesize that  there is a 2-to-1 probability that a spatial interrogative is subject to morphological mismatches;  if mismatches occur, then there is a probability of almost 3-to-1 that we are facing overabundance or syncretism;  if mismatches occur, then there is a probability of slightly more than 3-to-1 that WHERE or WHITHER is involved;  if the mismatch comes in the shape of periphrasis, then with considerably more than chance probability the mismatch affects WHENCE. In sum, the three spatial interrogatives behave differently so that WHERE and can be grouped together to the exclusion of WHENCE. The latter is comparatively immune against mismatches (though by no means completely). WHERE and WHITHER, on the other hand, frequently bear signs of mismatches and, what is more, seem to have similar preferences. These observations and additional aspects will be elaborated upon especially in the conclusions below. Another aspect that needs being looked into in more detail below is the cooccurrence of mismatches in one and the same paradigm. The instances of multiple mismatches are counted in Table 42. The mismatches are ordered from left to right and top-down according to the decreasing total of the cases they participate in. The total computed for suppletion exceeds the number of fourteen suppletive word-forms attested in the twenty-six languages because suppletion occasionally combines with several other mismatches (in lieu of combining with only one other mismatch). Thirteen languages have paradigms of spatial interrogatives in which several mismatches co-occur, i.e. exactly half of the languages of the small sample allow for multiple deviations from the canonical paradigm. To understand Table 42 better, we explain how the first row is to be read:  there are five cells in Table 40 which host two word-forms each of which is syncretic with another word-form of the same paradigm; WHITHER

Marking asymmetries | 71

 there are another five cells in which syncretism and suppletion co-occur;  there are seven cells in which a combination of syncretism and overabundance is attested;  the combination of periphrasis and syncretism also occurs in seven cells,  whereas the combination of fused exponence and syncretism is absent in Table 40. Table 42: Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm. Syncretism Suppletion Overabundance Periphrasis Fused Sum exponence syncretism

5

5

7

suppletion overabundance

5

2

4

7

4

periphrasis

7

fused exponence Sum

24

7 4

10

3

4

4 24

15

15 14

3

14

10

4

66

The results are telling. Fused exponence always combines with suppletion – in the above cases, this means that one and the same word-form is suppletive and an example of fused exponence at the same time. Syncretism and suppletion are compatible with most of the other mismatches. The compatibility decreases from overabundance and periphrasis to fused exponence. Before any conclusions can be drawn, it is paramount to see whether the above pattern is corroborated empirically on the basis of a much more sizable sample.

2.3.2.2.2 Complexity 2.3.2.2.2.1 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions After having reviewed the distribution of mismatches over the paradigms of the twenty-six languages, we have to turn our attention to the complexity of the constructions. The first parameter to check is that of the number of words which make up a construction. From the above discussion of periphrasis, we already know that there are fourteen cases of multi-word constructions. Mind, however, that not every instance of a multi-word construction is a mismatch! The eleven languages for which these multi-word constructions are reported

72 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives are presented separately in Table 43. The numbers ‘1’ and ‘2’ refer to the number of words employed for the spatial interrogatives (there are no constructions with more than two words). The cells which host multi-word constructions are shaded grey in Table 43. Additionally, the number ‘2’ is printed in boldface for better recognition. Table 43: Languages which attest to multi-word constructions. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Coptic (Sahidic)

1

1~1

1~2

English

1

1

2

Esperanto

1

1

2

French

1

1

2

Italian

1

1

2

Lithuanian

1~1

1~1

2

Paiwan

1

1

2

Tamasheq

1

1

2

Arabic (Modern Standard)

1

2

2

German

1

2

2

Middle Welsh

2~1~1~1

2~1~1~1

1~1~1~1

What strikes the eye is the relatively strong correlation of multi-word constructions with the spatial interrogative of Source. Ten out of eleven languages instantiate this correlation. Middle Welsh is exceptional since it uses a monoword construction for WHENCE but has multi-word constructions for WHERE and WHITHER. If WHITHER is represented by a multi-word construction, one of the other two spatial interrogatives is also represented by a multi-word construction. As to WHERE, one can observe the inverse behavior in contrast to WHENCE. Ten of the eleven languages display a mono-word construction for the spatial interrogative of Place. One should also take note of the fact that no cell contains several multi-word constructions. If there is overabundance, a monoword construction or several mono-word constructions are involved. In terms of the number of languages which attest multi-word constructions there is  a probability of ten-to-one that of a pair of constructions WHERE and WHENCE, it is the WHENCE-construction which consists of several words,  a probability of three-to-one that of a pair of constructions WHITHER and WHENCE, it is the WHENCE-construction which consists of several words, and

Marking asymmetries | 73

 a probability of three-to-one that of a pair of constructions WHERE and WHITHER, it is the WHITHER-construction which consists of several words. Tables 44–46 are meant to support the above statements. What these tables take account of are the combinations of mono-word constructions and multiword constructions in a given paradigm (with reference to the languages mentioned in Table 43). All logical combinations are counted so that the paradigm of Middle Welsh, for instance, yields altogether forty-eight combinations. Table 44 shows that there is a very strong tendency for WHERE and WHITHER to be represented by an equal number of words. This is the case twenty-two times, i.e. in 73% of all possible combinations. In eight cases, the number of words is different for WHERE and WHITHER. Both spatial interrogatives prefer mono-word constructions over multi-word constructions. Table 44: Number of co-occurrences of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in the paradigms of languages which allow for periphrastic spatial interrogatives. WHERE

WHITHER

Sum

mono

multi

mono

21

5

26

multi

3

1

4

Total

24

6

30

Table 45 covers the combinations of WHERE and WHENCE. The distribution is relatively clear. Every multi-word WHENCE-construction combines with a monoword WHERE-construction. All examples of multi-word WHERE-constructions combining with mono-word WHENCE-constructions belong to the paradigm of Middle Welsh. Discounting the exceptional behavior of the Celtic language, what can be said more generally is that if WHERE and WHENCE are represented by constructions only one of which is a syntagm then it is the WHENCE-construction which consists of several words. In terms of the number of words, the relation of WHERE and WHENCE resembles that of WHERE and WHITHER. It remains to be checked how the two dynamic spatial interrogatives compare on this parameter. It is once more the data from Middle Welsh which add a modicum of heterogeneity to the picture.

74 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives Table 45: Number of co-occurrences of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in the paradigms of languages which allow for periphrastic spatial interrogatives. WHERE

WHENCE

Sum

mono

multi

mono

13

11

24

multi

4

0

4

Total

17

11

28

What can be stated nevertheless is that in 47% of all combinations, the constructions of the two categories are unequal as to the number of words. Of the fourteen cases of unequal complexity, ten (= 71%) involve the combination of multi-word WHENCE and mono-word WHITHER. Table 46: Number of co-occurrences of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in the paradigms of languages which allow for periphrastic spatial interrogatives. WHITHER

WHENCE

sum

mono

multi

mono

14

10

24

multi

4

2

6

Total

18

12

30

The above observations can be understood as pieces of evidence of the higher markedness of Source. This assumption if further supported by the average number of words. For the languages which attest periphrasis in their paradigms, the averages (rounded decimals) are 1.1 words per WHERE-construction, 1.2 words per WHITHER-construction, and 1.7 words per WHENCE-construction. If we take account also of those languages which lack multi-word constructions, the averages drop to 1.0 word per WHERE-construction, 1.1 words per WHITHERconstruction, and 1.3 words per WHENCE-construction. In any case, the WHENCEconstruction is more likely to exceed the others in size than it is likely that the inverse holds. According to the line of reasoning introduced in the previous section, WHERE is thus entitled to the score ‘0’ whereas WHITHER and WHENCE receive the scores of ‘1’ and ‘2’, respectively.

Marking asymmetries | 75

2.3.2.2.2.2 Morphs On the morphological level, we first look at the number of morphs which are used to build up a construction. No construction exceeds the maximum of three morphs. Diagrams 5–6 survey the different preferences of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE as to the morphological composition of the constructions they associate with. The spatial interrogative of Place clearly tends towards being represented by monomorphic constructions. The WHITHER-construction oscillates between the monomorphic and the dimorphic option whereas, in the majority of the case, the WHENCE-construction consists of more than a single morph. 100% 90%

6 17

80% 70% 60% 50% 30%

4

22

whence

whither

17

40% 20%

7

17

where

11

10%

1

0% monomorphic

dimorphic

trimorphic

Diagram 5: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in twenty-six languages.

Almost two thirds of all instances of WHERE are monomorphic. In contrast, more than 80% of all cases of WHENCE are polymorphic. As to WHITHER, the relation of monomorphic and polymorphic is more balanced (with 45% for monomorphic constructions and 55% for polymorphic constructions). Slightly less than half of all monomorphic constructions go to the credit of WHERE with WHENCE accounting for only 13% of this construction type. It is the other way round with trimorphic constructions. With trimorphic constructions, WHENCE boasts a coverage of almost 60% whereas the share of WHERE of the same type drops below the 10%mark and thus can be considered exceptional. In all of the three classes – monomorphic, dimorphic, and trimorphic constructions, the spatial interrogative of Goal yields percentages which are slightly higher than a third of the cases.

76 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives 100%

1

4

90% 80%

7

11

70%

17

60%

trimorphic

50%

17

40% 30%

dimorphic

22 monomorphic

17

20% 10%

6

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 6: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in twenty-six languages.

We are now in a position to compare the constructions pair wise. Within a given paradigm, how many morphs do the constructions of two spatial interrogatives comprise? In Table 47, the combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER are compared statistically. In thirty-seven out of sixty-two combinations, both constructions contain an equal number of morphs, i.e. the degree of complexity is the same in 60% of the cases. In nineteen cases (= 31%), the WHITHER-construction is longer than the WHERE-construction by one morph. Only in six cases (= 10%) the WHEREconstruction is more complex than the WHITHER-construction. Table 47: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

monomorphic

dimorphic

trimorphic

monomorphic

25

16

0

dimorphic

6

11

3

20

trimorphic

0

0

1

1

Total

31

27

4

62

41

Marking asymmetries | 77

For forty-seven constellations in which WHERE and WHENCE combine, nineteen (= 40%) reflect identical degrees of morphological complexity. In contrast, twenty-five cases show the WHENCE-construction to be more complex than that of WHERE. This means that 53% of all WHERE-WHENCE pairs realize this pattern. With just three cases, WHERE-constructions which exceed those of WHENCE in complexity account for only for 6% of all cases. Table 48: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

monomorphic

dimorphic

trimorphic

monomorphic

13

16

3

32

dimorphic

3

5

6

14

trimorphic

0

0

1

1

Total

16

21

10

47

The relation of WHITHER and WHENCE is shaped as follows. Twenty-eight (= 54%) cases attest to equal complexity. Twenty (= 38%) cases give evidence of a WHENCE-construction which is more complex than that of WHITHER. The inverse relation with a complex WHITHER-construction which combines with a simple WHENCE-construction is attested four times (= 8%). This picture resembles closely the relation of WHERE and WHENCE depicted above. Table 49: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

monomorphic

dimorphic

trimorphic

monomorphic

13

12

2

27

dimorphic

4

11

6

21

trimorphic

0

0

4

4

Total

17

23

12

52

In sum the above evidence lends support to the hypothesis that Source is the most marked of the three relations whereas Place is the prime candidate for the

78 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives status of unmarked category. Accordingly, the average size of a spatial interrogative in terms of the number of morphs is 1.4 for WHERE, 1.7 for WHITHER, and 2.0 for WHENCE. This distribution justifies that, as above, WHERE is given the complexity score of ‘0’ whereas WHITHER receives a score of ‘1’ and WHENCE is assigned ‘2’.

2.3.2.2.2.3 Morphemes On the level of morphemes, several decisions have to be taken to facilitate computing the degrees of complexity. This is no easy endeavor – at least in some of the cases. First of all, the Q-stem frequently is just that – a general Q-stem and thus monomorphemic. In other cases, the Q-stem of the spatial interrogatives is different from the Q-stem which is employed outside the realm of spatial interrogatives. It is possible therefore to interpret the Q-stem of these spatial interrogatives as morphologically complex, i.e. as a portmanteau morph which expresses interrogativity and spatial reference. Under this analysis, there would be several additional cases of fused exponence. However, according to the limitations we have imposed on our study in the introduction, we do not take account of the system of interrogatives beyond the spatial interrogatives we pass over these cases so that they are considered to be monomorphic for the purposes of this investigation. Secondly, the Albanian paradigm poses problems (and not for the last time!). As will be discussed in some detail in Section 3.4 below, the spatial interrogative nga ‘whither = whence’ is identical to the dynamic spatial preposition nga ‘to; from’ and lacks any trace of a Q-stem. It is therefore monomorphemic. Its partner in the paradigm, ku ‘where = whither’ too is analyzed as monomorphemic here although one may object to this analysis and postulate a dimorphemic construction instead. To cut the discussion short at this point, we refer the reader again to Section 3.4 in which these and other problems posed by the Albanian case are prominently featured. On the basis of these clarifications, it is possible to count the morphemes per spatial interrogative in the twenty-six languages. The range of variation is as restricted as in the case of the number of morphs. The constructions comprise either one morpheme, two morphemes or three morphemes. The absolute values differ from those which are calculated for the level of morphs in Diagrams 5–6 above. However, the tendency is largely the same also in the case of the number of morphemes as the shares in Diagrams 7–8 demonstrate. There are no trimorphemic WHERE-constructions. In contrast, monomerphemic WHENCE-constructions are a minority solution. 83% of all WHENCEconstructions are polymorphemic. Unsurprisingly, WHITHER displays values which occupy the zone between the two extremes. Tables 50–52 confirm the above findings.

Marking asymmetries | 79

100% 90%

5

80% 70% 60%

22

3

16

whence

50% 30% 20%

whither

19

40%

where

3

20 14

10% 0% monomorphemic

dimorphemic

trimorphemic

Diagram 7: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphemes in twenty-six languages.

100%

3

90% 80%

3

14

70%

19

60%

trimorphemic

22

50%

dimorphemic

40% 30%

20

monomorphemic

16

20% 10%

5

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 8: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphemes in twenty-six languages.

80 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives Table 50: Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

monomorphemic

dimorphemic

trimorphemic

monomorphemic

21

18

0

39

dimorphemic

9

11

3

23

trimorphemic

0

0

0

0

Total

30

29

3

62

In thirty-two cases or 52% of all binary combinations (cf. Table 50), the constructions of WHERE and WHITHER are equally complex morphologically. With twenty-one cases slightly more than a third of all combinations follow the pattern according to which the WHITHER-constructions express more morphemes than that of WHERE. The WHERE-construction is more complex than the WHITHER-construction in nine cases which is equivalent of 14.5%. Table 51: Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

monomorphemic

dimorphemic

trimorphemic

monomorphemic

11

19

0

30

dimorphemic

3

11

3

17

trimorphemic

0

0

0

0

Total

14

30

3

47

Similarly, WHERE and WHENCE yield constructions of identical complexity in twenty-two cases (cf. Table 51). The same number of cases reflects the pattern according to which the more complex of the two constructions is that of WHENCE. Each of the two constellations accounts for 47% of the cases. With three cases, the higher complexity of the WHERE-construction is responsible for 6% of all combinations of WHERE and WHENCE. Equal complexity of WHITHER and WHENCE applies in thirty-three cases which yields a share of 63% of all combinations of the spatial interrogatives of Goal and Source. Fifteen cases or 29% of the combinations testify to the higher complexity of WHENCE. This leaves only four cases (= 8%) for which the reverse holds.

Marking asymmetries | 81

Table 52: Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

monomorphemic

dimorphemic

trimorphemic

monomorphemic

12

14

0

26

dimorphemic

4

18

1

23

trimorphemic

0

0

3

3

Total

16

32

4

52

The averages of the number of morphemes per construction are almost identical to those computed for the number of morphs per construction, namely 1.4 for WHERE, 1.7 for WHITHER, and 1.9 for WHENCE. Accordingly, the complexity score is ‘0’ for WHERE, ‘1’ for WHITHER, and ‘2’ for WHENCE.

2.3.2.2.2.4 Zero-marking There are altogether thirty-one cases of zero-marking. Only in two cases are there two zero-marked spatial interrogatives which occupy the same cell in a given paradigm (namely in Cogui WHERE and WHITHER). Except the abovementioned case of Albanian nga ‘whither = whence’, all instances of zeromarking refer to zero-marking of spatial relations. The statistics of this phenomenon are given in Table 53. Table 53: Statistics of zero-marking in twenty-six languages. WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Sum

absolute

16

13

2

31

share of spatial interrogative

47%

34%

6%

30%

share of all zero-marked cases

52%

42%

6%

100%

It is clear from this table that WHENCE is associated with zero-marking only exceptionally. The two cases in which a WHENCE-construction is classified as zero-marking are Albanian nga ‘whither = where’ which lacks an exponent of interrogativity and Coptic (Sahidic) tōn ‘where = whither = whence’ which neutralizes all spatial relations. The exceptionality of zero-marking legitimizes our decision to assign the score of ‘1’ to WHENCE. As to WHERE and WHITHER, we opt

82 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives for scores of ‘0’ for both since they are prone to allow for zero-marking to relatively the same degree.

2.3.2.2.2.5 Syllables As to the number of syllables per construction, the following observations can be made. First of all, the maximum size is that of a tetra-syllabic spatial interrogative – a size which is attested just twice in the languages in Table 40. No WHEREconstruction comprises four syllables. Among the mono-syllabic constructions, WHERE constitutes the strongest group. With di-syllabic constructions, the strongest group is represented by WHITHER. WHENCE-constructions, however, yield the bulk of the tri-syllabic constructions. Diagrams 9–10 inform about the relative strength of each category. For WHERE and WHITHER, monosyllabicity and disyllabicity are the favorite options so that more sizable constructions are attested only marginally. This is different with WHENCE since slightly more than a quarter of all WHENCE-constructions is tri-syllabic or tetra-syllabic. 100% 90%

9

80%

13

70% 60%

7

1 whence

16 18

50%

whither

40% 30% 20%

18

10%

15

3

1

where

1

0% monosyllabic

disyllabic

trisyllabic

tetrasyllabic

Diagram 9: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in twenty-six languages.

The special position of WHENCE is underlined further if we look at the shares the spatial interrogatives claim of the various construction sizes. In the realms of monosyllabicity and disyllabicity, the category of WHENCE yields percentages, which revolve around the 25%-mark. However, if we go beyond disyllabicity,

Marking asymmetries | 83

the share of WHENCE increases considerably such that it becomes the majority solution, cf. Diagram 10. 100% 80%

1 3

1

1 7

15 18

60%

13 40% 20%

tetrasyllabic

trisyllabic

disyllabic

18

16

9

monosyllabic

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 10: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in twenty-six languages.

It makes sense to check the binary combinations of the constructions. Of the sixty-two pairs of WHERE and WHITHER (cf. Table 54), thirty-six are of equal size for both. This means that for 58% of all combinations the complexity is the same. In sixteen cases (= 26%), the WHITHER-construction exceeds in size the WHERE-construction by a syllable or two. Ten times it is the other way round. Table 54: Combinations of monosyllabic and polysyllabic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

σ

σσ

σσσ

σσσσ

σ

22

12

2

0

36

σσ

9

14

1

1

25

σσσ

0

1

0

0

1

Total

31

27

3

1

62

The combination of WHERE and WHENCE yields even more pronounced results, cf. Table 55. Equal size accounts for 40.5% of all cases whereas in 48% of all

84 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives combinations of WHERE and WHENCE, it is the WHENCE-construction which is the more complex construction of the two. With 11.5%, more complex WHEREconstructions are clearly a minority solution. Table 55: Combinations of monosyllabic and polysyllabic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

σ

σσ

σσσ

σσσσ

σ

16

14

3

0

33

σσ

5

5

7

1

18

σσσ

0

1

0

0

1

Total

21

20

10

1

52

The relation of WHITHER and WHENCE yields a majority of 55.5% for equal size (= thirty-one cases). If WHITHER and WHENCE count different numbers of syllables, WHENCE exceeds WHITHER on this parameter in sixteen cases (= 28.5%). In contrast, WHITHER is represented by the more sizable construction in nine cases (= 16%). Table 56: Combinations of monosyllabic and polysyllabic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in one and the same paradigm in twenty-six languages. WHITHER

σ

Sum

WHENCE

σ

σσ

σσσ

σσσσ

22

6

2

0

30

σσ

6

8

7

1

22

σσσ

0

2

1

0

3

σσσσ

0

0

1

0

1

Total

28

16

11

1

56

The data show that, if there are differences in the complexity of the constructions, WHENCE tends to be more complex than both WHITHER and WHERE in terms of the number of syllables. Similarly, WHITHER-constructions are more likely to exceed in size those of WHERE as to the number of syllables if there are any differences on this level. The average number of syllables per construction is

Marking asymmetries | 85

1.5 for WHERE, 1.7 for WHITHER, 2.0 for WHENCE. This justifies the following score: ‘0’ for WHERE, ‘1’ for WHITHER, and ‘2’ for WHENCE.

2.3.2.2.2.6 Segments The maximal number of segments which form the phonological chain of a spatial interrogative in the twenty-six languages is ten. There is no construction which comprises nine segments. The minimal length is defined by a single segment. The absolute numbers indicated in the bars of Diagram 11 are indicative of a cumulation of constructions whose length ranges from three to five segments. These constructions yield a subtotal of seventy-two cases and thus cover 70% of all cases. Half of all tri-segmental constructions are covered by WHERE. WHENCE claims the same share of constructions of five segments. With 54% the share WHITHER holds of tetra-segmental constructions is even higher, cf. Diagram 11. 100% 90% 80% 70%

2

5

2

1

60%

10 4

9

13

4

whence

5

2

50%

1

40% 30% 20%

whither

5 1

4

14

2 9

10%

5

0% 1

2

3

4

5

1 6

where

2

7

1

8

10

segment segments segments segments segments segments segments segments segments

Diagram 11: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in twenty-six languages.

At the same time, constructions of three segments are especially frequent with WHERE-constructions whereas constructions of four segments boast of the biggest share of all WHITHER-construction. Similarly, a third of all WHENCEconstructions go to the credit of constructions of five segments, cf. Diagram 12.

86 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives 100% 10 segments

90%

8 segments

80% 70%

7 segments

60%

6 segments

50%

5 segments

40%

4 segments

30%

3 segments

20%

2 segments

10% 1 segment

0%

where

whither

whence

10 segments

0

1

0

8 segments

0

1

2

7 segments

0

2

5

6 segments

1

2

4

5 segments

5

5

10

4 segments

9

13

2

3 segments

14

9

5

2 segments

4

4

2

1 segment

1

1

0

Diagram 12: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in twenty-six languages.

As to WHENCE, shares of 50% and beyond start with constructions of a length of five segments and include segmentally more extended phonological chains up to eight segments. Discounting the singularity of a WHITHER-construction with ten segments, sizable percentages of WHERE and WHITHER associate with constructions the length of which does not exceed four segments. Put differently, WHENCE has its stronghold in the domain of segmentally complex construc-

Marking asymmetries | 87

tions. In contrast, WHITHER and especially WHERE show clear preferences for shorter phonological chains. Tables 57–59 survey the binary combinations of the phonological chains of the three spatial interrogatives. In all three of these tables, grey shading highlights those cells which contain the frequency of combinations of equal length. Table 57 shows that 37% of all combinations of WHERE and WHITHER are segmentally of the same complexity. Twenty-five cases i.e. 40% of all combinations prove WHITHER to be segmentally more complex than WHERE. Only 23% give evidence of the inverse order. Table 57: Combinations of constructions of WHERE and WHITHER of different segmental size in one and the same paradigm (twenty-six languages). WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

0

3

4

2

1

0

0

0

0

10

3

0

3

10

9

1

2

1

1

0

27

4

0

2

5

8

1

0

0

0

0

16

5

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

7

6

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

Total

1

9

20

20

5

3

2

1

1

62

Table 58: Combinations of constructions of WHERE and WHENCE of different segmental size in one and the same paradigm (twenty-six languages). WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

4

0

1

1

0

0

7

3

2

6

1

6

2

3

0

20

4

1

3

1

2

3

1

1

12

5

0

0

1

1

0

2

1

5

6

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

Total

5

13

3

11

6

6

2

46

88 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives The relative simplicity of the WHERE-construction is more pronounced in combinations with whence. In nine out of forty-six cases, equal complexity applies. These forty-six cases equal 20% of all combinations of WHERE and WHENCE. In 17% the WHERE-construction counts more segments that the WHENCE-construction. In contrast, 63% attest to the higher segmental complexity of WHENCE. For pairs of WHITHER and WHENCE, the share of equal complexity is 23%. Slightly more than three quarters of all cases differ in segmental complexity. With just nine examples WHITHER-constructions which exceed the size of the corresponding WHENCE-construction account for only 17% of all cases. The vast majority of the binary combinations – namely thirty-one instances or 60% of all cases – show the WHENCE-construction to be more complex than that of WHITHER. Table 59: Combinations of constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE of different segmental size in one and the same paradigm (twenty-six languages). WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

3

10

1

0

1

0

0

15

3

0

2

0

2

1

3

0

8

1

4

1

4

1

3

4

3

1

17

5

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

5

6

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

7

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

8

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

Total

5

16

2

13

6

8

2

52

The above data are largely uncontroversial since they concur as to the high complexity of WHENCE and the relative simplicity of WHERE. WHITHER is once more located in the zone between WHERE and WHENCE. In this zone, WHITHER seems to be closer to WHERE. The average lengths of the segmental chains of the spatial interrogatives fit this picture. The averages are 3.5 segments per WHERE-construction, 3.9 segments per WHITHER-construction, and 5.1 segments per WHENCE-construction. Accordingly, the score ‘0’ is given to WHERE, ‘1’ goes to WHITHER, and WHENCE is again given ‘2’.

Marking asymmetries | 89

We are now in a position to conduct a very simple arithmetic operation, viz. adding up all of the above complexity scores to conclude this subsection, cf. Table 60. Table 60: Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in twenty-six languages. Level

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

words

0

1

2

morphs

0

1

2

morphemes

0

1

2

zero-marking

0

0

1

syllables

0

1

2

segments

0

1

2

Total

0

5

11

The total is as clear as can be. The spatial interrogatives behave absolutely consistently across the levels on which we have tested their complexity. The category WHERE has the monopoly on ‘0’. In contrast, WHENCE is always assigned the high score whereas WHITHER is usually rated with ‘1’ the only exception being the criterion of zero-marking. Diagram 13 shows that the above results yield a relatively simple graph. The increase of complexity from WHERE via WHITHER to WHENCE is enormous. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 where Diagram 13: Scores of complexity.

whither

whence

90 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives 2.3.3 Derivational patterns In connection with Scheme 3 in Section 2.2.1 above, we have mentioned a concept of Pantcheva’s (2010), namely the derivational dependence among the members of a paradigm of spatial categories. If the expression of a given spatial category X is formally derived from that of spatial category Y, it is legitimate to assume that Y enjoys primacy over X conceptually since the category Y seems to be more basic than the category X. The concept of derivational dependence can be applied also to the domain of spatial interrogatives. It is possible to identify four distinct derivational patterns. The statistics of these patterns are given in Table 61. There are thirtytwo patterns since several of the languages allow for more than one pattern because of overabundance. Table 61: Derivational patterns in twenty-six languages. WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Absolute

Share

A

A+x

A+y

8

25%

A

A

A+y

8

25%

A

B

C

5

16%

A

A

A

4

12.5%

A

B

A+y

3

9%

A

B

B+y

2

6.5%

A

A

C

1

3%

A

A~B

B

1

3%

32

100%

Total

The upper-case letters A, B, and C are variables for distinct word-forms representing WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE, respectively. The lower-case letters x and y are variables for morphological units which are added to the word-forms A, B, or C to yield the construction of one of the members of the paradigm. Table 61 tells us that WHERE is never derived from any of the other categories of the same paradigm. On the contrary, the WHERE-construction is the derivational basis of WHITHER and/or WHENCE in nineteen cases, i.e. 70% of all patterns involve word-forms which are derived from WHERE. In six additional cases, there is syncretism such that the construction employed for WHERE is also present in other cells of the same paradigm. The two dynamic spatial interrogatives behave differently from each other. In eight cases, WHITHER is formally derived from WHERE and in fourteen cases the word-forms of WHERE and WHITHER are

Marking asymmetries | 91

identical. As to WHENCE, there is a majority of twenty-one cases (= two thirds of all cases) in which its construction is formally derived from either WHERE or WHITHER. In a further five cases, the WHENCE-construction is identical with that of WHERE or WHITHER. This leaves a minority of eight cases which boast of a derivationally independent expression of WHENCE. WHITHER is never derived from WHENCE whereas the WHENCE-construction is formally based on or identical with that of WHITHER in three cases. There is thus a cline with WHERE being the default basis of derivational processes and WHENCE being on the receiving end of the derivational process. This cline corresponds nicely to the markedness hierarchy which results from the distribution of mismatches and the differences in formal complexity discussed in the foregoing sections. Moreover, the cline also fits the insights gained by Pantcheva (2011: 211–248). The behavior of the spatial interrogatives in the twenty-six languages under scrutiny meets our expectations. These expectations are made explicit in Section 2.3.4 which also concludes the discussion of the technical issues involved in the crosslinguistic comparison and evaluation of paradigms of spatial interrogatives.

2.3.4 Expectations In this section, we recapitulate the above findings in the form of hypotheses about what we expect to find when we scrutinize the empirical evidence from the languages of our sample. These expectations still have to stand the empirical test, i.e. they are not meant as irrevocable laws. Since their general validity has not been proved yet, it might be the case that on closer inspection, some of the hypotheses have to be revised or even replaced by others. For reasons of space, the subsequent list of hypotheses will not be commented upon further in this section. Hypotheses  For two out of three paradigms of spatial interrogatives, it is expected that morphological mismatches occur.  For three out of four cases, it is expected that the mismatch is either syncretism or overabundance.  In three out of four cases, we expect that the constructions of WHERE or WHITHER are affected by mismatches.  If the mismatch involves fused exponence, there is a high probability that the same word-form is affected by suppletion.  If the mismatch involves periphrasis, there is an overwhelming probability that the construction of WHENCE is periphrastic.

92 | The formal relations of spatial interrogatives  If in a pair of constructions WHERE and WHITHER, there are differences as to their complexity, with considerably more than chance frequency, it is the WHITHER-construction which displays the higher degree of complexity.  If in a pair of constructions WHERE and WHENCE, there are differences as to their complexity, with considerably more than chance frequency, it is the WHENCE-construction which displays the higher degree of complexity.  If in a pair of constructions WHITHER and WHENCE, there are differences as to their complexity, with considerably more than chance frequency, it is the WHENCE-construction which displays the higher degree of complexity.  If in a triplet of constructions WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE, there are differences as to their complexity, with considerably more than chance frequency, it is the WHENCE-construction which displays the highest degree of complexity as opposed to the WHERE-construction which tends to be represented by a relatively simple construction.  If in a pair of constructions WHERE and WHITHER, one is derivationally dependent on the other, it is the WHITHER-construction which is derived from the WHERE-construction.  If in a pair of constructions WHERE and WHENCE, one is derivationally dependent on the other, it is the WHENCE-construction which is derived from the WHERE-construction.  If in a pair of constructions WHITHER and WHENCE, one is derivationally dependent on the other, it is the WHENCE-construction which is derived from the WHITHER-construction.  If in a triplet of constructions WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE, there exist derivational relations among its members, with overwhelming more than chance-frequency, the dynamic spatial interrogatives are derived from the static spatial interrogative. These hypotheses aim at a markedness hierarchy of the three categories under scrutiny which can be understood as a revision of the markedness hierarchy in Scheme 2 above, cf. Scheme 4.

Scheme 4: Markedness hierarchy (revised).

What we have to ask ourselves while reviewing the empirical data in Section 3–4 is whether or not this markedness hierarchy has sufficient explanatory power to account for the variation of which the sample languages give evidence.

3 WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe The empirical data survey starts in Europe. For practical reasons, we adopt the interpretation of the notion of Europe as has been utilized in the context of the EUROTYP project so that the entire Caucasian and Transcaucasian area, the national territory of Turkey, Cyprus and Malta and the languages spoken there are included in what we understand by the term Europe (König & Haspelmath 1999: 112). In this way, Georgian, Kazakh, Aramaic and sundry languages are considered to be languages of Europe in this study. European languages which have already been looked at in the previous sections are fully integrated in the data survey below. The major divisions of Section 3 follow the genetic principle. Since the sample text is originally in French, the situation in the Romance branch of the Indo-European language family is discussed first (= Section 3.1). Section 3.2 looks at the Germanic languages whereas Section 3.3 is dedicated to the Slavic languages. The minor branches and internal isolates of Indo-European are scrutinized jointly in Section 3.4. Similarly, all non-Indo-European languages are treated together in Section 3.5. Finally, Section 3.6 serves to wrap-up the major findings of the data survey. The internal organization of Section 3 is largely motivated by the number of languages of each phylum into which the sample text has been translated. Each of the major subsections is further subdivided into two parts the first of which is the purely statistical evaluation of the LPP varieties as to their susceptibility to mismatches and constructional complexity. These quantitatively-oriented subsections are strictly corpus-based, i.e. only those data are taken account of which are attested in the sample text. Additional data and further aspects are discussed separately in the second part of each major subsection. This second part is purely qualitative. It compares LPP varieties and DGB varieties. Since those are frequently at variance of each other, much of the discussion centers round problematic issues to the detriment of the straightforward cases. We therefore emphasize in advance that by no means all paradigms of spatial interrogatives of European and non-European languages give rise to controversies. The presentation of the facts which emerge from the analysis of the LPP varieties follows the order which we have introduced in Sections 2.2–2.3. This means that each data set is first checked for mismatches in the order syncretism, overabundance, suppletion, periphrasis, and fused exponence. In the next

DOI: 10.1515/9783110539516-003

94 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe step, the complexity of constructions is measured first as to the number of words and then, one after the other, for morphs, morphemes, syllables, and segments. Ultimately, the derivational relations within the paradigms are identified and statistically evaluated. The comparison of LPP varieties and DGB varieties is complemented by the discussion of data from languages which lack a translation of the sample text. In addition, diachronic issues are addressed as well wherever this is possible. Syncretism is given precedence over other mismatches in terms of the order in which they are discussed in what follows because Creissels (2006: 20) makes a strong claim implicitly when he states that [a]mong these five logically possible patterns, only two are commonly found in European languages: Pattern 1, in which each meaning is encoded by means of specialized adpositions or case affixes […], and Pattern 2a, in which essive and allative conflate, and ablative only is expressed by means of specialized adpositions or case affixes […].

If we employ the terminology introduced in Table 2 above, what Creissels claims is that he expects to find evidence of the syncretic patterns Place ≠ Goal ≠ Source and (Place = Goal) ≠ Source in the languages of Europe. Source is always represented by a distinct construction of its own. For paradigms of spatial interrogatives, this means that the patterns WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE and (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE are likely to occur to the exclusion of all other patterns. This hypothesis provides an excellent point of departure for the discussion of the empirically attested facts.

3.1 Micro-level variation in Romance 3.1.1 Romance LPP-varieties 3.1.1.1

Mismatches

3.1.1.1.1 Syncretism For the purposes of this study, we have checked the occurrences of spatial interrogatives in forty-seven Romance versions of Le Petit Prince.16 In accordance to

|| 16 This is the number of translations we had access to when conducting this research project. In that same period of time, there already existed translations into some further six or seven Romance languages which we have been unable to put our hands on. Without having seen the hard facts relating to these absentees from our sample, we daresay that there is a very high

Micro-level variation in Romance | 95

Creissels’s observations quoted in the foregoing paragraph, only two patterns of syncretism are attested, namely the two expected patterns (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE (cf. Table 62) and WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE (cf. Table 63). In Table 64, those languages are presented separately which, owing to a combination of syncretism and overabundance, attest to both patterns. The rightmost column of these and many subsequent tables indicates the page number of the sample sentences in the translations. In Tables 62–64, the languages are presented in alphabetical order. The conventions of marking the different types of mismatches are those which have been introduced in the foregoing sections. Table 62: Spatial interrogatives with WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism in Romance versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP17

Aromunian

iu

iu

di iu [!]

16

Badiota

olá

olá

da olá [!]

16

Bergamasco

‘nduè

‘nduè

de ‘nduè [!]

10

Catalan

on

on

d’on [!]

16

Corsican

induva

induva

da induva [!] ~ donde

17

Eonavian

onde

onde

de onde [!]

9

French

où

où

d‘où [!]

16

Friulian

dulà

dulà

dontri

18

Gallurese Sardinian

undi

undi

da undi [!]

16

Genoese

dove

dove

donde

16

Gardenese

ulá

ulá

da ulá [!]

16

Italian

dove

dove

da dove [!]

19

Languedocien

ont

ont

d‘ont [!]

16

|| probability that these varieties fit in squarely with the general picture painted of the Romance languages in this chapter. An additional remark is called for. There are two different Provençal translations of Le Petit Prince. It is not entirely clear to us whether this co-existence of translations reflects regional differences of two slightly different varieties of Provençal or represents two stylistically alternative ways of translating the French text into (one and the same variety of) Provençal. To be on the safe side, we treat the two translations as texts belonging to two distinct varieties Provençal I and Provençal II. This decision is justified insofar as we will see that the two varieties do not behave absolutely the same as to their spatial interrogatives. 17 In this column and its equivalents in the subsequent tables we indicate the page on which the first of the examples is mentioned in a given version of the corpus text.

96 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP17

Liègeois

wice

wice

di d’wice [!]

16

Limousin

onte

onte

d’onte [!]

16

Milanese

in doe

in doe

de doe

12

Moldavian

unde

unde

de unde [!]

12

Neapolitan

addo‘

addo‘

‘a do‘ [!]

14

Niçard

doun

doun

de doun [!]

15–16

Occitan (Piemonte)

nté

nté

da nté [!]

12

Parmigiano

indo‘

indo‘

d’indo‘ [!]

16

Picard

dùsque

dùsque

ed’dùsque [!]

16

Picard (Borain)

ayu

ayu

d’ayu [!]

16

Provençal I

ounte

ounte

d’ounte [!]

16

Romanian

unde

unde

dincotro ~ dincolo

16

Rumantsch

nua

nua

danunder

14

Sicilian

unni

unni

runni ~ di unni [!]

16

Surmiran-Albula

noua

noua

danonder

16

Valdotain

yaou

yaou

de yaou [!]

12

Valenciano

on

on

d’on [!]

15

Vallader

ingio

ingio

dingionder

16

Venetian

ndove

ndove

da ndove [!]

12

Walloon

èwou

èwou

d’èwou [!]

16

Walloon (Central)

èwou

èwou

d’èwou [!]

16

Table 63: Triplets of distinct spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Aragonese

dó [!]

ta dó

d’án

18

Aranese

a on

tà on

d’a on

15

Extremaduran

ondi [!]

andi ~ p’aóndi

d’ondi ~ d’andi

25

Galician

onde [!]

para onde ~ a onde

de onde

16

Gascon

a on

on [!]

d’on

14

Portuguese

onde [!]

para onde

donde ~ de onde

16

Sardinian

inue [!]

a nue

da nue

18

Spanish

dónde

adónde

de dónde [!]

19

Micro-level variation in Romance | 97

Table 64: Romance LPP-varieties with evidence of two syncretic patterns in their versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Asturian

ú ~ ande

ú ~ ande

d’ú [!]

16

Bologna Emiliano

duv [!]

duv ~ in duv

d’in duv

12

Piemontese

anté ~ andoa

anté ~ doa

d’anté [!]

18

Provençal II

ounte ~ mounte

mounte

de mounte [!]

16

Sephardic

onde ~ ande

onde ~ ande

de ande [!]

10

For forty-seven languages there should be altogether 141 constructions. Each of the categories WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE should account for a third of this sum. Table 65 shows that this is not the case in the Romance LPP-varieties. Table 65: Attested constructions in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Sum

estimate

47

47

47

141

attested

51

53

52

156

increase

+8.5

+13%

+11%

+10%

Of the 156 attested constructions, forty-one or 26% occur twice in the paradigms they belong to. This means that there are 115 formally distinct constructions. The surplus of constructions in Table 65 and the reduction of the number of distinct constructions to 115 are indicative of the workings of syncretism and overabundance. There are thirty-four Romance languages which attest exclusively to WHEREWHITHER-syncretism. They constitute a solid majority of 72% of the forty-seven Romance LPP-varieties. Only a minority of eight languages opts exclusively for the pattern with three formally distinct constructions. This minority covers 17% of the Romance LPP-varieties. In five languages (= 11%), the two syncretic patterns coexist side by side. Superficially, this means that the vast majority of the Romance LPP-varieties behave like French as documented in (7) above. However, there are remarkable differences which show that this likeness does not always amount to 100% identity of the paradigmatic structures. At the same time, the statistical relations within the Romance phylum tell us that it is exactly the group of those languages which resemble the canonical type the most (cf. Section 2.1) that is vastly outnumbered by languages which deviate from the canonical type.

98 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 3.1.1.1.2 Overabundance Table 66 presents a subset of the languages in Tables 62–64 above. From these tables, we have extracted those languages the paradigms of which give evidence of overabundance. The languages are ordered according to the number of cells which testify to overabundance. Those cells are highlighted by grey shading. Table 66: Spatial interrogatives with overabundance in Romance versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Asturian

ú ~ ande

ú ~ ande

d’ú

16

Piemontese

anté ~ andoa

anté ~ doa

d’anté

18

Sephardic

onde ~ ande

onde ~ ande

de ande

10

Extremaduran

ondi

andi ~ p’aóndi

d’ondi ~ d’andi

25

Portuguese

onde

para onde

donde ~ de onde

16

Corsican

induva

induva

da induva ~ donde

17

Romanian

unde

unde

dincotro ~ dincolo

16

Sicilian

unni

unni

runni ~ di unni

16

Bologna Emiliano

duv

duv ~ in duv

d’in duv

12

Galician

onde

para onde ~ a onde

de onde

16

Provençal II

ounte ~ mounte

mounte

de mounte

16

There are eleven languages which provide examples of overabundance. This corresponds to a share of 23% of the Romance LPP-varieties. If two categories are subject to overabundance in a paradigm, the cell of WHITHER is always involved. There is no Romance LPP-variety which attests to overabundance in all of the paradigmatic slots. The absolute numbers for the cases of overabundance are not much different for the three spatial interrogatives, cf. Diagram 14. Of the 141 cells which result from multiplying the ternary paradigm by fortyseven Romance varieties, only fifteen are affected by overabundance. This number yields a percentage as low as 7% of all cells. Overabundance is thus not a prominent feature of the languages scrutinized in this section. Overabundance is attested not only in languages with WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism but also in languages without syncretism. There seems to be no correlation of syncretism and overabundance.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 99

where

whence

4

5

27%

33%

whither 6 40%

Diagram 14: Shares of spatial interrogatives of overabundance in Romance LPP-varieties.

3.1.1.1.3 Suppletion The next mismatch to check is that of suppletion. Weak suppletion is attested only twice, namely in Extremaduran and Sephardic. In these Ibero-Romance varieties, the Q-stem comes in two shapes ondi ~ andi and onde ~ ande, respectively, with oscillation of the initial vowel from mid back /o/ to low /a/. We assume that these stems are in free variation to each other. Since all other cases of suppletion are of the strong kind and occur in languages which witness WHEREWHITHER-syncretism, we discount the two instances of weak suppletion. Extremaduran provides the sole example of weak suppletion which would also be unique among the languages which lack evidence of syncretism. Table 67 surveys the instances of strong suppletion. As before the languages are ordered according to the number of cells which are subject to the mismatch at hand. Grey shading identifies those cells which host suppletive word-forms. The suppletive word-forms themselves are marked by single underlining. Table 67: Strong suppletion in paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Asturian

ú ~ ande

ú ~ ande

d’ú

16

Piemontese

anté ~ andoa

anté ~ doa

d’anté

18

Corsican

induva

induva

da induva ~ donde

17

Romanian

unde

unde

dincotro ~ dincolo

16

100 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Friulian

dulà

dulà

dontri

18

Genoese

dove

dove

donde

16

Rumantsch

nua

nua

danunder

14

Surmiran-Albula

noua

noua

danonder

16

Aragonese

dó

ta dó

d’án

18

The number of languages which attest to strong suppletion is comparatively small. There are only nine languages which cover 19% of the Romance LPPvarieties. The share rises to 20.5% within the class of languages which are characterized by WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism. Aragonese is special insofar as it is the only example of a language without syncretism which nevertheless attests to strong suppletion. There are twelve word-forms which can be considered to be suppletive. Their distribution over the spatial interrogatives is widely uneven as the values in Diagram 15 show.

where 2 16.7% whither whence 8

2 16.7%

66.7%

Diagram 15: Shares of spatial interrogatives of strong suppletion in Romance LPP-varieties.18

Strong suppletion is a phenomenon which associates overwhelmingly with WHENCE. On the other hand, suppletion is a relatively marginal mismatch within the Romance phylum. If we add that above two putative instances of weak sup|| 18 The percentages in this and some of the other diagrams add up to slightly more than 100%. This is an automatic effect of the calculating software we used for the purpose of this study.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 101

pletion to the cases of strong suppletion, we get a total of eleven languages which is equivalent of 23% of the Romance LPP-varieties.

3.1.1.1.4 Periphrasis Another phenomenon which is predominantly connected to the spatial interrogative of Source is periphrasis. Periphrasis is a property of the overwhelming majority of the Romance LPP-varieties as the data in Tables 68–69 demonstrate unmistakably. The languages appear in the order of the decreasing number of cells which are affected by periphrasis. For better recognition, those cells which attest periphrasis or anti-periphrasis are shaded in grey. Two languages – Milanese and Aranese – show up in neither of the two tables since their entire paradigms consist exclusively of periphrastic constructions. These paradigms are therefore homogeneously structured. The data of Milanese and Aranese become interesting for us when we discuss complexity below (cf. Table 68). Table 68: Spatial interrogatives which attest to anti-periphrasis in Romance versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Bologna Emiliano

duv

duv ~ in duv

d’in duv

12

Aragonese

dó

ta dó

d’án

18

Extremaduran

ondi

andi ~ p’aóndi

d’ondi ~ d’andi

25

Galician

onde

para onde ~ a onde

de onde

16

Portuguese

onde

para onde

donde ~ de onde

16

Sardinian

inue

a nue

da nue

18

Gascon

a on

on

d’on

14

Table 69: Spatial interrogatives which attest to periphrasis in Romance versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Aromunian

iu

iu

di iu

16

Asturian

ú ~ ande

ú ~ ande

d’ú

16

Badiota

olá

olá

da olá

16

Bergamasco

‘nduè

‘nduè

de ‘nduè

10

Catalan

on

on

d’on

16

Corsican

induva

induva

da induva ~ donde

17

102 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Eonavian

onde

onde

de onde

9

French

où

où

d‘où

16

Gallurese Sardinian

undi

undi

da undi

16

Gardenese

ulá

ulá

da ulá

16

Italian

dove

dove

da dove

19

Languedocien

ont

ont

d‘ont

16

Liègeois

wice

wice

di d’wice

16

Limousin

onte

onte

d’onte

16

Moldavian

unde

unde

de unde

12

Neapolitan

addo‘

addo‘

‘a do‘

14

Niçard

doun

doun

de doun

15–16

Occitan (Piemonte)

nté

nté

da nté

12

Parmigiano

indo‘

indo‘

d’indo‘

16

Picard

dùsque

dùsque

ed’dùsque

16

Picard (Borain)

ayu

ayu

d’ayu

16

Piemontese

anté ~ andoa

anté ~ doa

d’anté

18

Provençal I

ounte

ounte

d’ounte

16

Provençal II

ounte ~ mounte mounte

de mounte

16

Sephardic

onde ~ ande

onde ~ ande

de ande

10

Sicilian

unni

unni

runni ~ di unni

16

Spanish

dónde

adónde

de dónde

19

Valdotain

yaou

yaou

de yaou

12

Valenciano

on

on

d’on

15

Venetian

ndove

ndove

da ndove

12

Walloon

èwou

èwou

d’èwou

16

Walloon (Central)

èwou

èwou

d’èwou

16

(Anti-)periphrasis occurs in the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of thirtynine Romance LPP-varieties, i.e. 83% of these languages provide examples of the phenomenon. In all of the languages which attest to (anti-)periphrasis, WHENCE is expressed by multi-word constructions (cf. Section 3.1.1.2). In the seven languages which give evidence of anti-periphrasis, WHERE is six times expressed by a single word in a paradigm which is characterized by a majority of periphrastic word-forms. Anti-periphrasis affects WHITHER but once. It is worth noting that six of seven cases of anti-periphrasis are attested in languages

Micro-level variation in Romance | 103

which do not display syncretism. For periphrasis, the relation is the other way round. Of thirty-two languages which instantiate periphrasis, only Spanish belongs to the class of Romance varieties which do not allow syncretic wordforms in their paradigms of spatial interrogatives. There is thus a very strong preference of WHENCE to be affected by periphrasis. This correlation is unilateral since there also are WHENCE-constructions which are mono-word constructions and thus do not fit the description of periphrasis. There are altogether thirty-nine constructions which fit the description of either periphrasis or anti-periphrasis. Their distribution over the three spatial interrogatives is indicated in Diagram 16.

where 6 15%

whither 1 3%

whence 32 82%

Diagram 16: Shares of (anti-)periphrastic spatial interrogatives in Romance LPP-varieties.

The statistical preponderance of periphrastic WHENCE is uncontroversial. The phenomenon is marginal with WHITHER and a minority solution with WHERE.

3.1.1.1.5 Fused exponence The last mismatch to discuss is that of fused exponence. Table 70 provides a survey of the paradigms in which fused exponence is attested in Romance LPPvarieties. Grey shading identifies the cells which host a word-form with fused exponence the word-form itself being marked by single underlining.

104 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 70: Fused exponence with spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Asturian

ú ~ ande

ú ~ ande

d’ú

16

Piemontese

anté ~ andoa

anté ~ doa

d’anté

18

Corsican

induva

induva

da induva ~ donde

17

Friulian

dulà

dulà

dontri

18

Genoese

dove

dove

donde

16

Romanian

unde

unde

dincotro ~ dincolo

16

Rumantsch

nua

nua

danunder

14

Surmiran-Albula

noua

noua

danonder

16

The languages and the word-forms affected by fused exponence are almost identical with those in Table 67 above. Fused exponence and strong suppletion cooccur in eight out of nine languages the only exception being Aragonese. 17% of the Romance LPP-varieties provide examples of fused exponence. Owing to the absence of Aragonese from Table 69, the situation is as follows. Fused exponence is attested exclusively in those languages which do not only reflect WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism but also have suppletive spatial interrogatives. Each of the instances of fused exponence is a case of suppletion at the same time. There is thus a very strong correlation, cf. Scheme 5. fused exponence



strong suppletion

Scheme 5: Implicational relation of fused exponence and strong suppletion.

The eleven word-forms distribute unevenly over the spatial interrogatives, cf. Diagram 17 (to be compared with Diagram 15 above). Unsurprisingly, the association of fused exponence with WHENCE is practically as strong as the association of strong suppletion with WHENCE.

3.1.1.1.6 Results The above results are presented systematically in Diagrams 18–19. It is clearly evident that the spatial interrogatives have different leanings when it comes to allowing for mismatches to affect them. Diagrams 18–19 demonstrate that, as to the favorite combinations with mismatches, there is a clear divide between WHERE and WHITHER on the one side and WHENCE on the other side. As to the

Micro-level variation in Romance | 105

shares each spatial interrogative has of all mismatches, the percentages are almost identical. Each of the spatial interrogatives claims a third of all cases. where 2 56% whither

whence

2

32

56%

88.9%

Diagram 17: Shares of spatial interrogatives of fused exponence in Romance LPP-varieties. 100% 80%

41

5 8

60%

7

6

40% 20%

32

41

0% syncretism

whither

2 4 overabundance

whence

2

2

1 6

suppletion

periphrasis

where

2 fused exponence

Diagram 18: Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in Romance LPP-varieties.

Syncretism is the domain of WHERE and WHITHER to the exclusion of WHENCE. On the other hand, WHENCE is at its strongest with periphrasis. Except syncretism, none of the mismatches is particularly important for the spatial interrogative of WHERE. The situation is similar with WHITHER. In a way, the behavior of WHENCE is diametrically opposed to that of WHERE and WHITHER. This also holds for secondary favorites among the mismatches. Viewed from the vantage point of the mismatches, WHENCE is the stronghold of periphrasis, suppletion, and fused exponence whereas syncretism associates exclusively with WHERE and WHITHER. Overabundance is remarkable in the sense that it shows relatively high shares

106 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe for WHITHER and WHENCE. In terms of absolute numbers, however, WHERE does not lag far behind its competitors WHITHER and WHENCE. 100% 80%

2 6 2 4

21 2 6

7

fused exponence periphrasis

60% 40%

32 41

41 overabundance

20%

8 5

0% where

suppletion

whither

syncretism

whence

Diagram 19: Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in Romance LPP-varieties.

Syncretism and periphrasis together account for 121 of the 159 tokens of mismatches in the above paradigms. This is equivalent to 76% of all cases. If mismatches occur in a paradigm of spatial interrogatives in a Romance LPP-variety, there is thus  a three-to-one probability that syncretism or periphrasis applies,  a 100% certainty that WHENCE is not involved if we are dealing with syncretism,  a four-to-one probability that WHENCE is involved if we are dealing with periphrasis. To conclude this section, we provide the absolute frequencies of the combinations of (pairs of) mismatches in one and the same paradigm of spatial interrogatives in the Romance LPP-varieties, cf. Table 71. Since syncretism and periphrasis are the top-ranking mismatches, it is unsurprising to see that they co-occur rather frequently in the same paradigm. In point of fact, 68% of the languages under scrutiny allow for syncretism and periphrasis to affect their paradigms at the same time. 61% of all syncretic paradigms are also characterized by periphrasis. In 68% of all paradigms which give evidence of periphrasis, there is also evidence of syncretism. It is therefore very likely that a paradigm which attests to the one mismatch also attests to the other of the two and vice versa.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 107

Table 71: Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm in Romance LPP-varieties. Syncretism Overabundance Suppletion Periphrasis Fused Sum exponence syncretism

8

overabundance 8 suppletion

7

3

periphrasis

32

7

32

5

52

3

10

3

24

2

5

17

3

47

10

2

fused exponence 5

3

5

3

Total

24

17

47

52

16 16

156

3.1.1.2 Constructional complexity 3.1.1.2.1 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions At the beginning of this section, the focus is on the competition of mono-word constructions and multi-word constructions which occur in the paradigms of the Romance LPP-varieties. Table 72 provides the inventory of all those of the paradigms which contain one or several multi-word constructions. The cells which host multi-word constructions are shaded grey. The actual examples of multi-word constructions are marked by single underlining. Table 72 includes all of the languages featured in Tables 68–69 above plus Milanese and Aranese. Table 72: Spatial interrogatives which attest to multi-word constructions in Romance versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Milanese

in doe

in doe

de doe

12

Aranese

a on

tà on

d’a on

15

Gascon

a on

on

d’on

14

Bologna Emiliano

duv

duv ~ in duv

d’in duv

12

Aragonese

dó

ta dó

d’án

18

Extremaduran

ondi

andi ~ p’aóndi

d’ondi ~ d’andi

25

Galician

onde

para onde ~ a onde

de onde

16

Portuguese

onde

para onde

donde ~ de onde

16

Sardinian

inue

a nue

da nue

18

Spanish

dónde

adónde

de dónde

19

Aromunian

iu

iu

di iu

16

108 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Asturian

ú ~ ande

ú ~ ande

d’ú

16

Badiota

olá

olá

da olá

16

Bergamasco

‘nduè

‘nduè

de ‘nduè

10

Catalan

on

on

d’on

16

Corsican

induva

induva

da induva ~ donde

17

Eonavian

onde

onde

de onde

9

French

où

où

d‘où

16

Gallurese Sardinian

undi

undi

da undi

16

Gardenese

ulá

ulá

da ulá

16

Italian

dove

dove

da dove

19

Languedocien

ont

ont

d‘ont

16

Liègeois

wice

wice

di d’wice

16

Limousin

onte

onte

d’onte

16

Moldavian

unde

unde

de unde

12

Neapolitan

addo‘

addo‘

‘a do‘

14

Niçard

doun

doun

de doun

15–16

Occitan (Piemonte)

nté

nté

da nté

12

Parmigiano

indo‘

indo‘

d’indo‘

16

Picard

dùsque

dùsque

ed’dùsque

16

Picard (Borain)

ayu

ayu

d’ayu

16

Piemontese

anté ~ andoa

anté ~ doa

d’anté

18

Provençal I

ounte

ounte

d’ounte

16

Provençal II

ounte ~ mounte

mounte

de mounte

16

Sephardic

onde ~ ande

onde ~ ande

de ande

10

Sicilian

unni

unni

runni ~ di unni

16

Valdotain

yaou

yaou

de yaou

12

Valenciano

on

on

d’on

15

Venetian

ndove

ndove

da ndove

12

Walloon

èwou

èwou

d’èwou

16

Walloon (Central)

èwou

èwou

d’èwou

16

Multi-word constructions are attested in forty-one languages. This is a share of 87% of the Romance LPP-varieties. It is relatively uncommon therefore that the phenomenon is absent from the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of a Romance language. Those five which lack multi-word constructions altogether belong to the class of languages with WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 109

The distribution of the fifty-four multi-word constructions over the three spatial interrogatives is skewed, cf. Diagram 20.

where 3 5%

whence 42

whither

78%

9 17%

Diagram 20: Skewed distribution of multi-word constructions in Romance LPP-varieties.

The statistical dominance of WHENCE in the realm of multi-word constructions is unquestionable. The close association of WHENCE and multi-word constructions is underlined further by the high percentage multi-word constructions represent among all WHENCE-constructions, cf. Diagram 21. 60

53

51

52 42

40 20

9

3 0 where

whither total

whence

share

Diagram 21: Share of multi-word constructions across all constructions per spatial interrogative in Romance LPP-varieties.19

|| 19 In this diagram and the corresponding diagrams in the subsequent sections we use light grey color for those bars which represent the total of cases whereas the dark grey color is em-

110 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe As to WHERE, multi-word constructions are a marginally attested strategy. They are also a minority option in the case of WHITHER. In contrast, multi-word constructions are by far the preferred option with WHENCE. On account of the above statistics, it is possible to postulate the implication given in Scheme 6. multi-word WHERE 

multi-word WHENCE

multi-word WHITHER Scheme 6: Implication of multi-word constructions.

Multi-word constructions do not always come as binary syntagms. There are three examples of ternary syntagms all of which are WHENCE-constructions. These extracomplex syntagms are attested in Aranese, Bologna Emiliano, and Liègeois. WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions never count more than two words. From Table 73, one can gather how often WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions of equal or different size combine in the same paradigm. Table 73: Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

Sum

mono-word

multi-word

mono-word

51

7

58

multi-word

1

2

3

Total

52

9

61

In fifty-three of sixty-one combinations, the constructions of WHERE and WHITHER are of identical complexity in terms of words per construction. Thus, 84% of the combinations do not display any differences on this parameter. Seven of the remaining eight cases combine a mono-word WHERE-construction with a multi-

|| ployed for the bars which represent the share of a given phenomenon within the total. For the latter case, in addition to absolute numbers, we also calculate the percentages.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 111

word

construction. Only once does a WHERE-construction exceed a WHITHER-construction in terms of the number of words. The situation is markedly different for combinations of WHERE and WHITHER as the numerical values in Table 74 indicate. WHITHER

Table 74: Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

mono-word

multi-word binary

ternary

41

2

mono-word

10

53

multi-word

0

2

1

3

Total

10

43

3

56

There is not a single case of a WHENCE-construction being shorter than the WHERE-construction of the same paradigm. Equal size applies twelve times or in 21.5% of all combinations. A striking majority of 78.5% of the cases combine a relatively short WHERE-construction with a relatively long WHENCE-construction. The picture is similar though not absolutely the same in case of the combinations of WHITHER and WHENCE, cf. Table 75. Table 75: Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Romance LPP-varieties. WHITHER

mono-word mono-word

Sum

WHENCE

9

multi-word binary

ternary

37

2

48

multi-word

1

7

3

11

Total

10

44

5

59

Portuguese donde ‘whence’ is the only example of a WHENCE-construction which is shorter than the corresponding WHITHER-construction (in this case para onde ‘whither’). There is equality of size in sixteen cases which yield a share of 27% of

112 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe all WHITHER-WHENCE combinations. In 75%, however, it is the WHENCE-construction which is longer than the WHITHER-construction by a word or two. This tendency of WHENCE to being represented by syntagms in lieu of single words is also reflected by the averages given in Table 76. Table 76: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of words per construction) in Romance LPP-varieties.

words

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.0

1.2

1.9

1.4

It is absolutely normal for a Romance LPP-variety that its WHENCE-construction comprises two words and thus comes in the shape of a syntagm. Accordingly, on the parameter of mono-word constructions vs. multi-word-constructions, WHERE is given the score of ‘0’, WHITHER that of ‘1’, and WHENCE that of ‘2’. This result meets our expectations. It remains to be seen whether this is also the case on the other parameters of complexity.

3.1.1.2.2 Morphs The high incidence of multi-word constructions is suggestive of an equally high frequency of polymorphic constructions since the combination of several words in a syntagm is tantamount to the combination of several morphs to form a construction. In point of fact, the Romance LPP-varieties give evidence of the combination of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions in the vast majority of the paradigms. Table 77 spells out in full the small set of languages whose paradigms contain three spatial interrogatives of identical morphological complexity. Grey shading marks those paradigms in which all spatial interrogatives are bimorphic. In case of overabundance involving constructions of different morphological complexity, single underlining is used to identify those spatial interrogatives of a given paradigm which display an identical number of morphs. Table 77: Paradigms of three spatial interrogatives with identical number of morphs per construction in Romance versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Corsican

induva

induva

da induva ~ donde

17

Friulian

dulà

dulà

dontri

18

Micro-level variation in Romance | 113

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Genoese

dove

dove

donde

16

Rumantsch

nua

nua

danunder

14

Surmiran-Albula

noua

noua

danonder

16

Milanese

in doe

in doe

de doe

12

Neapolitan

addo‘

addo‘

‘a do‘

14

Sardinian

inue

a nue

da nue

18

There are only eight languages in Table 77. This leaves a majority of 83% of the Romance LPP-varieties to utilize the differences on the level of morphs to give structure to the paradigms of spatial interrogatives. There are 227 morphs of which the largest segment goes to the credit of WHENCE which accounts for almost half of all morphs. In contrast, WHERE and WHITHER claim shares each of which is slightly higher than a quarter of all morphs, cf. Diagram 22.

where whence 104 46%

58 25% whither 65 29%

Diagram 22: Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphs in Romance LPP-varieties.

Of the 156 constructions, ninety are examples of monomorphic constructions. This means that 58% of all constructions are morphologically simple. No construction exceeds the number of three morphs. WHERE and WHITHER clearly prefer monomorphic constructions whereas WHENCE has a similarly strong leaning towards polymorphic constructions, cf. Diagram 23.

114 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

100% 90%

5

80% 70%

41

60%

42

whence

50%

5

40% 30% 20%

44

where

12

10%

whither

7

0% monomorphic

dimorphic

trimorphic

Diagram 23: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Romance LPP-varieties.

The different preferences of the spatial interrogatives can also be gathered from Diagrams 23–24 which display the shares of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions in connection to the three spatial interrogatives. 100% 90%

7

12

5

80% trimorphic

70% 60% 50% 40%

44

42

dimorphic

41 monomorphic

30% 20% 10%

5

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 24: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Romance LPP-varieties.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 115

71% of all polymorphic constructions express WHENCE. WHENCE is also responsible for all trimorphic constructions. In contrast, WHERE and WHITHER account for 94.5% of all monomorphic constructions. The combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions corroborate the above results. The pairs of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions are counted in Table 78. Table 78: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

monomorphic

polymorphic

monomorphic

54

8

62

polymorphic

3

5

8

Total

57

13

70

In fifty-nine cases, the two spatial interrogatives yield identical numbers of morphs. This means that 84% of all combinations of WHERE and WHITHER display the same complexity morphologically. Eight of eleven combinations with unequal morphological complexity show that the WHITHER-construction exceeds the WHERE-construction in size. It does not come as a surprise that the combinations of WHERE and WHENCE yield a radically different picture, cf. Table 79. Table 79: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

monomorphic

polymorphic dimorphic

trimorphic

monomorphic

5

40

4

49

polymorphic

0

5

2

7

Total

5

45

6

56

Only ten out of fifty-six combinations show both constructions to be equally complex. The vast majority (= 82%) of the combinations instantiate a different

116 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe pattern. All of the forty-six cases in which there is a difference in size are of the same kind because it is always the WHENCE-construction which is the more complex of the two constructions. The pairs of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions yield results which are reminiscent of those of the combinations of WHERE and WHENCE, cf. Table 80. Table 80: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Romance LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

monomorphic

polymorphic dimorphic

trimorphic

monomorphic

5

37

3

45

polymorphic

0

11

3

14

Total

5

48

6

59

The share of equal size reaches 27%. The remaining 73% are the monopoly of combinations of a relatively simple WHITHER-construction with a relatively complex WHENCE-construction. There is no example of a WHENCE-construction that is morphologically simpler than the corresponding WHITHER-construction. The average size of the spatial interrogatives in terms of the number of morphs per construction is consistent with the above statistics. The values in Table 81 are similar to those given in Table 76 for the number of words per construction. Table 81: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphs per construction) in Romance LPP-varieties.

morphs

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.1

1.2

2.0

1.4

Accordingly, WHERE deserves to be given the score of ‘0’ once more. The score of ‘1’ goes again to WHITHER whereas WHENCE receives the usual score of ‘2’.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 117

3.1.1.2.3 Morphemes Determining the number of morphemes which constitute the above spatial interrogatives is a variation of the theme of the previous section. There is no oneto-one correspondence of morphs and morphemes. Nevertheless, the results of both counts resemble each other closely. More often than not, the number of morphs and that of morphemes are identical for a given construction. Where suppletion and fused exponence intervene however, monomorphic word-forms may be analyzed as polymorphemic. On the other hand, there are polymorphic constructions which correspond to a number of morphemes which is smaller than that of the morphs – and suppletion is absent from the paradigm. The paradigms for which these analyses make sense are presented in Table 82 (to be compared to Tables 67 and 70 above). Grey shading signals that a given cell hosts a word-form with diverging numbers of morphs and morphemes. The word-forms to which the analysis applies are additionally marked by single underlining. Paradigms in the upper part of the table are examples of polymorphemic but monomorphic constructions. Below the dividing line, there follow those languages the paradigms of which host a trimorphic construction which corresponds to a dimorphemic construction on the content side. Table 82: Spatial interrogatives whose number of morphemes exceeds that of morphs in Romance versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Corsican

induva

induva

da induva ~ donde

17

Friulian

dulà

dulà

dontri

18

Genoese

dove

dove

donde

16

Rumantsch

nua

nua

danunder

14

Surmiran-Albula

noua

noua

danonder

16

Asturian

ú ~ ande

ú ~ ande

d’ú

16

Liègeois

wice

wice

di d’wice

16

Vallader

ingio

ingio

dingionder

16

Aranese

a on

tà on

d’a on

15

Bologna Emiliano

duv

duv ~ in duv

d’in duv

12

Provençal II

ounte ~ mounte

mounte

de mounte

16

The analysis follows rule-of-thumb-like principles and goes as follows:

118 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe  If in a paradigm of spatial interrogatives there is suppletion and the suppletive word-form is monomorphic synchronically, it is assumed that it is a portmanteau-morph which expresses interrogativity and directionality simultaneously. This analysis covers all members of a paradigm in five out of eleven cases in Table 82. All of these cases are languages which also have WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism.  If in a paradigm of spatial interrogative there is a trimorphic construction which differs from other members of the same paradigm only as to one content category, the construction is considered to be dimorphemic. This analysis covers five of the eleven cases in Table 82. Three of these five cases belong to languages which either lack syncretism or are of the mixed type. The number of morphemes is slightly higher than the number of morphs for WHERE and WHITHER whereas in the case of WHENCE the number of morphemes is exactly the same as the number of morphs, cf. Diagram 25 (to be compared with Diagram 22).

where whence 104

64 27%

43% whither 71 30%

Diagram 25: Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphemes in Romance LPP-varieties.

The minor adjustments notwithstanding, WHENCE still has the largest share of the sum of morphemes found in the Romance LPP-varieties. No construction of any spatial interrogative counts more than two morphemes. In Diagram 26 we specify how many constructions are monomorphemic or dimorphemic for each of the spatial interrogatives.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 119

100% 80%

35

52

60%

whence

whither

40% 18

38

20%

where

13

0% monomorphemic

dimorphemic

Diagram 26: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphemes in Romance LPP-varieties.

The absolute numbers suffice to prove that monomorphemicity and WHENCE are incompatible with each other. In contrast, monomorphemicity is the preferred option of both WHERE and WHITHER. Slightly more than half of the monomorphemic constructions go to the credit of WHERE whereas WHITHER covers slightly less than 50% of the same construction type, cf. Diagram 26. As to the dimorphemic construction type, it can be stated that it is a (sizable) minority solution for WHERE and WHITHER with a quarter and a third of all cases, respectively. With WHENCE, dimorphemicity is the only option attested in the Romance LPP-varieties, cf. Diagram 27. 100% 80%

13

18

60% 40%

dimorphemic

52 38

monomorphemic

35

20% 0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 27: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphemes in Romance LPP-varieties.

120 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Since all WHENCE-constructions are dimorphemic anyway, it is superfluous to check the combinations of whence-constructions with those of WHERE and WHITHER. It is largely sufficient to glance at the combinations of the latter two, cf. Table 83. Table 83: Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

monomorphemic

monomorphemic

polymorphemic

36

9

45

polymorphemic

4

11

15

Total

40

20

60

In forty-seven combinations or 78% of all cases, the constructions of WHERE and WHITHER cannot be told apart on the basis of the number of morphemes. Of the remaining thirteen combinations, a majority of 69% shows the WHITHERconstruction to be more sizable than the WHERE-constructions in terms of the number of morphemes. The average number of morphemes per spatial interrogative is disclosed in Table 84. The average number of morphemes for WHERE, WHITHER, and the general average of all spatial interrogatives exceeds the corresponding average of morphs by 0.1. In the case of WHENCE, the average of 2.0 applies to morphemes and morphs alike. Table 84: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphemes per construction) in Romance LPP-varieties.

morphemes

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.2

1.3

2.0

1.5

The morphological complexity of the whence-constructions is independently predictable since there are always two morphemes involved no matter how the other members of the paradigm behave on the same parameter. Accordingly, WHERE is given the score of ‘0’ once more. The score of ‘1’ goes to WHITHER whereas WHENCE receives the habitual score of ‘2’.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 121

3.1.1.2.4 Zero-marking Among the Romance LPP-varieties there are just nine languages which give no evidence of zero-marking in their paradigms of spatial interrogatives at all. These languages are listed in Table 85. Grey shading indicates that all constructions are dimorphic. Underlining is used to identify those constructions which testify to the absence of zero-marking in paradigms which allow for overabundance. Table 85: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Romance LPP-varieties in which zero-marking fails to apply. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Corsican

induva

induva

da induva ~ donde

17

Friulian

dulà

dulà

dontri

18

Genoese

dove

dove

donde

16

Rumantsch

nua

nua

danunder

14

Surmiran-Albula

noua

noua

danonder

16

Milanese

in doe

in doe

de doe

12

Neapolitan

addo‘

addo‘

‘a do‘

14

Aranese

a on

tà on

d’a on

15

Sardinian

inue

a nue

da nue

18

Zero-marking is absent from 19% of the Romance LPP-varieties. The presence of zero-marking is thus clearly preferred by 81% of the languages under scrutiny. The incidence of zero-marking coincides with the token frequency of monomorphemic constructions in Diagram 26 above, i.e. WHENCE is excluded from the candidacy for zero-marked category. Zero-marking occurs with WHERE and WHITHER. Table 83 above tells us that there are forty-nine cases, in which either one of the two categories WHERE and WHITHER or both are zero-marked. There is a strong tendency that both categories are subject to zero-marking in one and the same paradigm, cf. Diagram 28. This is the effect of the numerically strong WHEREWHITHER-syncretism in the Romance LPP-varieties.

122 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

whither 4 where

8%

9 18% where/whither 36 74%

Diagram 28: Distribution of zero-marking across spatial interrogatives in Romance LPP-varieties.

This frequent parallel zero-marking of WHERE and WHITHER justifies that both categories are given the score of ‘0’. There can be no doubt that WHENCE must be rated ‘1’.

3.1.1.2.5 Syllables In twenty languages of the Romance LPP-sample the spatial interrogatives do not differ as to the number of syllables within a given paradigm. This means that the parameter of syllables is relevant for 57.5% of the Romance LPPvarieties only. In Table 86, all those cases are surveyed in which equal size in terms of the number of syllables is characteristic of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Wherever overabundance intersects with the syllable count, single underlining identifies those constructions which display equal numbers of syllables. Grey shading marks those paradigms whose constructions are polysyllabic throughout. Boldface additionally highlights trisyllabicity. In Table 86, the actual word-forms are replaced by numerical values which indicate the number of syllables of each construction. Table 86: Spatial interrogatives with equal number of syllables for all spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Catalan

1

1

1

16

French

1

1

1

16

Languedocien

1

1

1

16

Micro-level variation in Romance | 123

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Valenciano

1

1

1

15

Asturian

1~2

1~2

1

16

Friulian

2

2

2

18

Genoese

2

2

2

16

Limousin

2

2

2

16

Neapolitan

2

2

2

14

Parmigiano

2

2

2

16

Picard (Borain)

2

2

2

16

Provençal I

2

2

2

16

Walloon

2

2

2

16

Walloon (Central)

2

2

2

16

Aranese

2

2

2

15

Sicilian

2

2

2~3

16

Piemontese

2~3

2~2

2

18

Extremaduran

2

2~3

2~2

25

Milanese

3

3

3

12

Sardinian

3

3

3

18

In our Romance subsample, there are altogether 328 syllables the distribution of which over the three spatial interrogatives is given in Diagram 29.

where

whence

97

124

29%

38%

whither 107 33%

Diagram 29: Shares the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties.

124 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe The shares do not differ widely from each other. Nevertheless, it results clearly from Diagram 29 that there is again a scale with WHERE occupying the position at the bottom and WHENCE being located at the other extreme. As expected, the middle position is reserved for WHITHER. The absolute token frequency of the constructions sizes in terms of syllables is displayed in the bars of Diagram 30. Note that there is no construction which exceeds the maximum of four syllables. 100% 90% 80%

7

19

70% 60% 50%

9

36

1

whither

40%

2

30% 20% 10%

whence

25

9

38

where

6 4

0% monosyllabic

disyllabic

trisyllabic

tetrasyllabic

Diagram 30: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties.

The preferences of WHERE and WHITHER, on the one hand and those of WHENCE on the other are again not the same. The constructions of WHERE and WHITHER are mostly disyllabic whereas trisyllabicity is the preferred (though not absolutely dominant) option for WHENCE. The latter category is responsible for the vast majority of all trisyllabic constructions. Diagram 31 shows that almost three quarters of all WHERE-constructions and slightly more than two thirds of all WHITHER-constructions are disyllabic. In contrast, almost half of all WHENCE-constructions are trisyllabic. None of the WHERE-constructions goes beyond the size of a disyllabic construction. 60% of all constructions are disyllabic independent of the spatial interrogative they represent. Tetrasyllabicity is a rarity – and is attested only with the dynamic spatial relations of Goal and Source.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 125

100% 90%

1

2

4

6

80%

25

70% 60%

38

50%

tetrasyllabic

trisyllabic

36

40%

disyllabic

19

30%

monosyllabic

20% 10%

9

9

7

where

whither

whence

0%

Diagram 31: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties.

The combinations of WHERE-constructions and following picture, cf. Table 87.

WHITHER-constructions

yield the

Table 87: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

σ

σσ

σσσ

σσσσ

σ

8

3

0

0

11

σσ

2

37

3

2

44

σσσ

0

2

3

0

5

Total

10

42

6

2

60

Forty-eight of sixty combinations involve constructions of equal size. This means that in 80% of all cases, there is no difference on the level of syllables. Of the remaining dozen of cases, two thirds combine a relatively complex WHITHERconstruction with a relatively simple WHERE-construction.

126 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Equality in size applies to 43% of all combinations of WHERE and WHENCE, cf. Table 88. Table 88: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

σ

σσ

σσσ

σσσσ

σ

6

2

0

0

8

σσ

2

16

25

0

43

σσσ

0

2

2

1

5

Total

8

20

27

1

56

In twenty-eight cases or exactly 50% of all combinations, it is the WHENCEconstruction which exceeds in size the WHERE-construction. Only four times is it the other way round. As to the pairs of WHITHER and WHENCE, Table 89 indicates that constellations of equal size and those of relatively complex WHENCE-constructions are of almost equal statistical weight, cf. Table 89. Table 89: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Romance LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

σ

σσ

σσσ

σσσσ

σ

6

3

0

0

9

σσ

2

16

21

0

39

σσσ

0

3

4

1

8

σσσσ

0

1

2

0

3

Total

8

23

27

1

59

The share of equal size is 44% whereas relatively complex WHENCE-constructions cover 42% of all combinations. The inverse constellation of a relatively complex WHITHER-construction combined with a relatively simple WHENCE-construction represents 14% of all combinations.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 127

These facts support the hypothesis that WHENCE is the marked member of the ternary paradigm. Further support stems from the average number of syllables per spatial interrogative computed in Table 90. Table 90: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of syllables per construction) in Romance LPP-varieties.

syllables

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.9

2.0

2.4

2.1

As before, WHERE and WHITHER yield relatively similar results with WHERE displaying always slightly lower averages than those calculated for WHITHER. In contrast to WHERE and WHITHER, WHENCE reaches a value which exceeds the general average of the spatial interrogatives by a relatively wide margin. Therefore it is legitimate to assign the score of ‘0’ to WHERE, that of ‘1’ to WHITHER, and that of ‘2’ to WHENCE.

3.1.1.2.6 Segments The final parameter on which the different complexity of the spatial interrogatives of the Romance LPP-varieties is to be measured is found on the level of segments. To this end we present the entire set of languages of this subsample in two tables. Table 91 contains those languages whose phonological chains meet the expectations in the sense that their different length follows the patterns WHENCE > WHITHER/WHERE and WHITHER > WHERE. In contrast, Table 92 lists those languages which violate the principles. The numbers in the cells of both tables indicate the number of segments which make a construction. In Table 92, grey shading marks those cells in which unexpected sizes are attested. Single underlining marks a construction the size of which exceeds the prediction. Boldface marks the reverse case, namely unexpectedly short phonological chains. The languages are ordered according to the increasing size of the WHEREconstructions – in case of equal size on the side of the WHERE-constructions, the size of the WHITHER-construction or ultimately the size of the WHENCEconstruction decides which of the languages precedes which.

128 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 91: Size of segmental chains of spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP (expected behavior). Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

French

1

1

2

16

Catalan

2

2

3

16

Valenciano

2

2

3

15

Aromunian

2

2

4

16

Languedocien

3

3

4

16

Picard (Borain)

3

3

4

16

Walloon

3

3

4

16

Walloon (Central)

3

3

4

16

Badiota

3

3

5

16

Gardenese

3

3

5

16

Niçard

3

3

5

15–16

Occitan (Piemonte)

3

3

5

12

Valdotain

3

3

5

12

Rumantsch

3

3

8

14

Surmiran-Albula

3

3

8

16

Bologna Emiliano

3

3~5

6

12

Aranese

3

4

4

15

Genoese

4

4

5

16

Limousin

4

4

5

16

Parmigiano

4

4

5

16

Provençal I

4

4

5

16

Sardinian

4

4

5

18

Sicilian

4

4

5~6

16

Bergamasco

4

4

6

10

Eonavian

4

4

6

9

Friulian

4

4

6

18

Gallurese Sardinian

4

4

6

16

Italian

4

4

6

19

Moldavian

4

4

6

12

Sephardic

4~4

4~4

6

10

Liègeois

4

4

7

16

Romanian

4

4

8~7

16

Micro-level variation in Romance | 129

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Vallader

4

4

9

16

Provençal II

4~5

5

7

16

Picard

5

5

7

16

Venetian

5

5

7

12

Spanish

5

6

7

19

Table 92: Size of segmental chains of spatial interrogatives in Romance versions of LPP (unexpected behavior). Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Aragonese

2

4

3

18

Extremaduran

4

4~6

5~5

25

Galician

4

8~5

6

16

Portuguese

4

8

5~6

16

Asturian

1~4

1~4

2

16

Gascon

3

2

3

14

Neapolitan

4

4

3

14

Piemontese

4~5

4~3

5

18

Milanese

5

5

5

12

Corsican

6

6

8~5

17

Thirty-seven of the forty-seven Romance LPP-varieties testify to the correlation according to which WHENCE-constructions exceeds WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions in size no matter how sizable the latter two happen to be. Wherever the constructions of WHERE and WHITHER have different size in Table 91, it is always the WHITHER-construction which counts more segments than the WHERE-construction. Ten languages or 21% of all Romance LPP-varieties deviate from these patterns. Table 92 shows that seven of these deviating languages attest to overabundance such that a cell may host a construction which does not meet the expectations alongside an alloform which is fully in line with the expectations. In five languages, the WHERE-construction is unexpectedly long. In seven languages, the unexpected length characterizes the WHITHER-construction. Also in seven languages, WHENCE boasts of a particularly short phonological chain – a situation which applies only twice to WHITHER. Milanese pro-

130 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe vides the only example of a paradigm all members of which are equally long segmentally. The size of the constructions ranges from the minimum of a single segment to the maximum of nine segments. Diagram 32 shows how the construction sizes distribute over the spatial interrogatives. 100% 90% 80% 70%

2

5

6

13

23

2

60%

4

50%

17

6

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

4

11

2

4

14

24

1

6 6

whence

whither

3 1

2 where

Diagram 32: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Romance LPP-varieties.

Similarly to the parameters discussed above, the distribution of the sizes of phonological chains is indicative of different preferences of WHERE and WHITHER on the one hand and WHENCE on the other hand. The highest turnout for the latter is with constructions which comprise five and six segments whereas the other two categories clearly prefer constructions of a size of three or four segments. The different preferences of the spatial interrogatives are also clearly visible on the basis of the calculation of shares in Diagrams 32–33. WHERE and WHITHER together are responsible for at least 80% of all different size categories of the constructions up to and including four segments. With all constructions which exceed four segments, it is WHENCE which covers at least 58% of all cases. For both WHERE and WHITHER, construction of four segments claim the highest single share of all constructions attested for these spatial interrogatives. In the case of WHENCE, constructions of five segments yield the

Micro-level variation in Romance | 131

highest percentage. Thus, WHENCE tends to dominate in the domain of the more extended constructions. 100%

9 segments

90%

8 segments

80% 70%

7 segments

60%

6 segments

50%

5 segments

40%

4 segments

30%

3 segments

20%

2 segments

10% 0%

where

whither

whence

9 segments

0

0

1

8 segments

0

2

4

7 segments

0

0

6

6 segments

1

3

11

5 segments

6

6

17

4 segments

24

23

6

3 segments

14

13

5

2 segments

4

4

2

1 segment

2

2

0

1 segment

Diagram 33: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in Romance LPP-varieties.

A cursory glance at the combinations of the different constructions may suffice. Table 93 accounts for altogether sixty combinations of WHERE and WHITHER of which forty-five (= 75%) display equal length for both constructions. Ten of the remaining fifteen constructions involve WHITHER-constructions whose sizes exceed those of the corresponding WHERE-constructions.

132 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 93: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions of different segmental size in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

1 seg.

2 seg.

3 seg.

4 seg.

5 seg.

6 seg.

8 seg.

1 seg.

2

0

0

1

0

0

0

3

2 seg.

0

3

0

1

0

0

0

4

3 seg.

0

1

12

1

1

0

0

15

4 seg.

1

0

1

23

2

1

2

30

5 seg.

0

0

1

1

4

1

0

7

6 seg.

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Total

3

4

14

27

7

3

2

60

For the combinations of WHERE and WHENCE, equal size is attested only three times. This means that in 95% of all cases, there is a difference in the number of segments which form the constructions. In fifty cases (= 90%), the segments of the WHENCE-construction outnumber the segments of the WHERE-construction, cf. Table 94. Table 94: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

2 seg.

3 seg.

4 seg.

5 seg.

6 seg.

7 seg.

8 seg.

9 seg.

1 seg.

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2 seg.

0

3

1

0

0

0

0

0

4

3 seg.

0

1

5

5

1

0

2

0

14

4 seg.

1

1

0

10

11

3

1

1

28

5 seg.

0

0

0

2

0

4

0

0

6

6 seg.

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

2

Total

3

5

6

18

12

7

4

1

56

As to combinations of WHITHER and WHENCE, equal size is even rarer than in the previous combination. There are only two instances of equal size. In 84% of all combinations of WHITHER and WHENCE, the WHENCE-construction counts more segments than the corresponding WHITHER-construction, cf. Table 95.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 133

Table 95: Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Romance LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

2 seg.

3 seg.

4 seg.

5 seg.

6 seg.s 7 seg.

8 seg.

9 seg.

1 seg.

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2 seg.

0

3

1

0

0

0

0

0

4

3 seg.

0

0

4

6

1

0

2

0

13

4 seg.

1

2

1

8

9

2

1

1

25

5 seg.

0

0

0

1

2

3

0

0

6

6 seg.

0

0

0

2

0

1

1

0

4

8 seg.

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

3

Total

3

5

6

19

13

6

4

1

57

After reviewing the above statistics, it comes as no surprise that the averages characterize WHENCE once more as the category with the highest degree of complexity on the expression side, cf. Table 96. Table 96: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of segments per construction) in Romance LPP-varieties.

segments

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

3.6

3.9

5.3

4.3

On these grounds, the score must be the habitual ‘0’ for and ‘2’ for WHENCE.

WHERE,

‘1’ for WHITHER,

3.1.1.2.7 Results in the realm of complexity The conspectus of the results of the parameters of complexity yields a picture for the Romance LPP-varieties which is identical to that in Table 74, cf. Table 97. Throughout Table 97, WHERE is given the lowest score, viz. ‘0’. In contrast, WHENCE always receives the score for the most complex constructions on each of the parameters. With the exception of the binary parameter of zero-marking, WHITHER is given consistently the intermediate score of ‘1’. Accordingly, the graphic rendering of the total of Table 97 as Diagram 34 replicates Diagram 13.

134 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 97: Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in Romance LPP-varieties. Level

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

words

0

1

2

morphs

0

1

2

morphemes

0

1

2

zero-marking

0

0

1

syllables

0

1

2

segments

0

1

2

Total

0

5

11

15 10 5 0 where

whither

whence

Diagram 34: Scores of complexity of Romance LPP-varieties.

Unsurprisingly, the summary of the above results is the absolutely uncontroversial corroboration of the hypotheses formulated at the end of Section 2.3.4 above. The data from the LPP-varieties of the Romance phylum strongly support the view that the spatial interrogative of Source is the prime candidate for the status of most marked category of the ternary paradigm. At the opposite end of the scale, the spatial interrogative of Place is without a serious competitor for the status of unmarked category. Between the two extremes, there is the spatial interrogative of Goal.

3.1.1.2.8 Derivation (synchronic analysis) There are nine different derivational patterns in the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of the Romance LPP-varieties. There statistical weight is markedly uneven as the absolute numbers and percentages in Table 98 show.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 135

Table 98: Derivational patterns in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Absolute

Share

A

A

A+y

35

56.5%

A

A+x

A+y

8

13%

A

A

C

7

11%

A

A+x

C+y

3

5%

A

A+x

[A + x] + y

3

5%

A

A

[A + x] + y

3

5%

A

B

A+y

1

1.5%

A

B

B+y

1

1.5%

B+x

B

B+y

Total

1

1.5%

62

100%

What strikes the eye first is the absence of three patterns which are included in Table 75 above, namely A/B/C, A/A/A, A/B/B, and A/A~B/B. In addition to the remaining patterns of Table 75, Table 98 also includes four patterns which display a) a WHENCE-construction which is built on a WHITHER-construction that is itself derived from the WHERE-construction = pattern A/A+x/A+x+y, and b) a doubly marked WHENCE-construction of similar type = pattern A/A/A+x+y, and c) a basic WHITHER-construction from which both WHERE and WHENCE are derived = pattern B+x/B/B+y, and d) a suppletive P-stem which combines with an ablative preposition to form the whence-construction = pattern A/A+x/C+y. Arguably, options a) and c) show that the spatial interrogative of Goal may serve as derivational basis for other members of the paradigm. It cannot be ruled out that option b) is related to option a) diachronically. The languages in Table 99 are representative of the derivational patterns mentioned in the previous table. Table 99: Examples of derivational patterns in Romance LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Pattern

Catalan

on = A

on = A

d’on = y + A

A/A/A+y

Spanish

dónde = A adónde = x + A

de dónde = y + A

A/A+x/A+y

Friulian

dulà = A

dontri = C

A/A/C

Language

dulà = A

136 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Pattern

Aragonese

dó = A

ta dó = x + A

d’án = y + C

A/A+x/C+y

duv = A ~ in duv = x + A

d’in duv = y + x + A

A/A~A+x/A+x+y

Bologna Emiliano duv = A Liègeois

wice = A

wice = A

di d’wice = y + x + A

A/A/A+x+y

Aranese

a on = A

tà on = B

d’a on = y + A

A/B/A+y

Sardinian

inue = A

a nue = B

da nue = x + B

A/B/B+x

Gascon

a on = x + B on = B

d’on = y + B

B+x/B/B+y

In fifty-two cases, i.e. in 85% of all tokens, the WHENCE-construction is derived from the WHERE-construction, the WHITHER-construction, or it consists of a suppletive stem which combines with an ablative adposition. In the latter case, WHENCE behaves partly like a derived construction and partly like an independent construction. The five instances in which this is not the case involve a suppletive spatial interrogative of Source. Similarly, there are only three types with a joint token frequency of three in which the WHITHER-construction does not derive from the WHERE-construction or WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism does not apply. This means that WHITHER depends on WHERE in 95% of all cases. There is only a single example of WHERE being derived from WHITHER. WHENCE never serves as the derivational basis for any of the other categories of the paradigm. There is thus again an asymmetry which privileges WHERE in the sense that it seems to be more basic than WHITHER and WHENCE. Just one type (with seven tokens) in Table 98 shows WHENCE to be derivationally fully autonomous whereas there are three types (with a total of three tokens) which prove WHITHER to be derivationally independent. Going by type frequency, one might interpret this distribution as a sign of the higher markedness of WHENCE as compared to that of WHITHER.

3.1.2 About qualities The small number of sample sentences provided by the corpus text severely restricts the possibilities to capture the full range of variation which might be characteristic of a given variety not to mention an entire language subfamily. It is remarkable that nevertheless the evaluation of the versions of Le Petit Prince provides evidence say, of overabundance on the basis of only two sample sentences per spatial interrogative (or three in the case of the spatial interrogative of Place).

Micro-level variation in Romance | 137

Before we continue with the discussion of the Romance data, we have to reiterate what has already been said in the first paragraphs of Section 3 because, when reading the sections devoted to the DGB-varieties, it must be borne in mind that these sections are different from those which deal with the LPPvarieties. Since we have access to descriptive linguistic material for only a subset of our sample languages – and this restriction also holds for the Romance languages – we cannot check the LPP-borne results for all varieties and for each of the parameters discussed above. This means more generally that the sections which deal with the DGB-varieties do not serve the purpose of revising the statistics. An attempt at correcting the statistics on the basis of the insights gained from the DGB-varieties would run the risk of being beside the point because there is no absolute guarantee that the LPP-variety and the DGB-variety which go by the same name are indeed identical varieties. This problem arises specifically often with minor languages of all descriptions since strict norms might be inexistent or not generally accepted throughout the speech-community. Therefore, the DGB-data are employed to complement the LPP-data and facilitate the discussion of qualities and problems. The LPP-based statistics are unaffected by this discussion and remain what they are, viz. corpus-based statistics.

3.1.2.1 Discussion The above data survey shows that the French model known from the sample sentences in (7) is also reported for the vast majority of the Romance languages – among which we find Aromunian, cf. (11). (11) (11.1)

(11.2)

(11.3)

Aromunian [LPP Aromunian, 16] Source Di iu yinj tini, njic om? from P?/G? come:2SG you little man ‘Where do you come from, little man?’ Place Iu easti ‘la tini’? P?/G? be.3SG at you ‘Where is “at your place”?’ Goal Iu va u duts oaia mea? P?/G? FUT ACC.F take.2SG sheep:DEF.F my:F ‘Where are you going to take my sheep?’

138 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe As to the phenomenon under scrutiny, Aromunian behaves similarly to French (and other languages such as English) insofar as the representative of Balkan Romance gives evidence not only of WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism but also of zeromarking of the syncretic categories as opposed to explicit marking of Source by an ablative preposition (= di ‘of, from’) in the WHENCE-construction. The addition of the preposition to the Q-stem renders the construction of WHENCE more complex than the other members of the paradigm. Phonologically, Aromunian WHENCE is two segments longer than WHERE/WHITHER. [di iu]whence is a bimorphemic multi-word construction as opposed to the monomorphemic mono-word construction [iu]where=whither. This is perfectly in line with the hypotheses about the higher markedness of WHENCE put forward in the foregoing sections. The Aromunian example is representative of the bulk of the Romance LPPvarieties. This does not mean that the data drawn from the corpus text already tell the whole story about the spatial interrogatives of an individual language. It is sufficient to look at Asturian. According to the LPP-data there is strong suppletion in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of this Ibero-Romance variety since the word-forms ú ‘where = whither’ and ande ‘where = whither’ are too dissimilar phonologically to pass as instances of weak suppletion. The examples in (12)–(13) demonstrate that both word-forms can be used indiscriminately for WHERE as well as for WHITHER. (12) (12.1)

(12.2)

(13) (13.1)

(13.2)

Asturian – Place ¿Ú vives? P?/G? live:2SG ‘Where do you live?’ ¿Ande án los P?/G? be.3PL DET:M:PL ‘Where are the men?’

[LPP Asturian, 16]

homes? man:PL

Asturian – Goal ¿Ande uies llevar el mio corderu? P?/G? want:2SG take:INF DET.M my:M sheep ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’ ¿Ú diba dir? P?/G? must:3SG of:go:INF ‘Where should it go?’

[LPP Asturian, 62]

[LPP Asturian, 16]

[LPP Asturian, 16]

According to the normative grammar of Asturian (Academia 2001: 232–233), ónde (= ande) and ú are indeed fully synonymous. There is also a third option – aú ‘where = whither’ (unattested in the source text), which is a bimorphemic construction consisting of the general spatial preposition a ‘to, at’ and the inter-

Micro-level variation in Romance | 139

rogative ú ‘where/whither’. This third construction is subject to morphosyntactic constraints, i.e. it cannot replace either ú ‘where/whither’ or ónde (= ande) ‘where/whither’ in all of the contexts in which they are permitted to occur. The restriction as formulated by the Asturian Academy excludes aú ‘where = whither’ from interrogative PPs. The inability of aú ‘where = whither’ to combine with prepositions is easily explained as the spatial interrogative itself is the univerbation of an erstwhile PP. What we are not told is whether ú and ónde ~ ande can replace each other also in the WHENCE-construction for which the corpus text only gives examples involving ú, cf. (14). (14) (14.1)

(14.2)

Asturian – Source ¿D’ ú vienes homín? from P?/G? come:2SG man:DIM ‘Where do you come from, little man?’ ¿D’ ú llegues? from P?/G? arrive:2SG ‘Where do you come from?’

[LPP Asturian, 16]

[LPP Asturian, 53]

It is not too farfetched to assume that ú and ónde ~ ande are also interchangeable in the case of the spatial interrogative of Source. In the absence of textual proof, however, this assumption has no bearing on the prior analysis of the Asturian data. If the incremental a- is excluded from WHENCE-constructions, however, Asturian would provide evidence of an optional form of the paradigm in which WHERE = WHITHER and WHENCE are marked overtly since a- and d’ would contrast with each other and thus zero-marking fails to apply. What the Asturian Academy informs us about instead is the variation of two synonymous constructions which inquire about Place (Academia 2001: 233). Both of these constructions are also attested in the Asturian version of Le Petit Prince, cf. (15) with (12.2) above. (15)

Asturian – Place Los homes, ¿úlos? DET:M:PL man:PL P?/G?:3PL.M ‘The men, where are they?’

[LPP Asturian, 60]

The variation captured by the pair of examples (12.2) and (15) affects stative constructions with the copula tar ‘to be’. In interrogative clauses inquiring about Place, the use of the copula is optional. In clauses without copula, if the locatum is a lexical NP as los homes ‘the men’ in (12.2), the speaker has the free choice of ónde ~ ande and ú as spatial interrogative. However, if the locatum is

140 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe pronominal as the enclitic =los ‘they’ in (15), WHERE can only be represented by ú. These syntactic conditions prove that ónde ~ ande and ú are not the same on all of the parameters. There is a context in which only ú is admissible. This means that ú has the larger domain – and this larger domain might extend also over the WHENCE-construction to the exclusion of ónde ~ ande from the spatial interrogative of Source. If we take this additional information about Asturian into account, the paradigm of spatial interrogatives we have to postulate for this Ibero-Romance language looks different from the one that results from the analysis of the evidence found in the corpus text. The revised version of the Asturian paradigm is given in Table 100. Table 100: Asturian paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[(a)Q]where=whither ~ [P]where=whither

ú ~ ande ~ aú

Goal

[(a)Q]whither=whither ~ [P]where=whither

ú ~ ande ~ aú

Source

[d’ Q]whence

d’ú

In this version there is not only WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism but also overabundance. Note that all allomorphs of WHERE are syncretic with WHITHER and vice versa. The discussion of the archaic Italian spatial interrogatives in Section 2.2.2 above calls for caution in connection with instances of overabundance since some of the supposedly competing word-forms might be long since out of date. However, additional items are not always just stylistically marked relics of the past. The evidence from the Romanian translation of the sample text suggests that there is a bipartite paradigm with syncretic unde ‘where = whither’ and two synonymous suppletive spatial interrogatives of Source, namely dincotro ~ dincolo ‘whence’. There is thus overabundance in the cell of WHENCE. However, the cell of WHENCE is more crowded than the LPP-text makes us believe because there is a third cell-mate to host, namely de unde ‘whence’. This third alternative is retrievable from the DEX (1975: 267 and 996) where de unde ‘whence’ is introduced as regular prepositional form of unde ‘where’ and synonym of dincotro ‘whence’. In point of fact, the Moldavian version of Le Petit Prince only has de unde where the Romanian version has dincotro ‘whence’ and dincolo ‘whence’, cf. (16)–(17).

Micro-level variation in Romance | 141

(16) (16.1) (16.2)

(17) (17.1) (17.2)

Moldavian – Source De unde vii, copile? from P?/G? come:2SG child:VOC ‘Where do you come from, oh child?’ De unde vii? from P?/G? come:2SG ‘Where do you come from?’

[LPP Moldavian, 12] [LPP Moldavian, 46]

Romanian – Source Dincotro vii tu, prichindule? [LPP Romanian, 16] S? come.2SG you little_one:VOC ‘Where do you come from, o little one?’ Dincolo vii? [LPP Romanian, 56] S? (~ elsewhere) come.2SG ‘Where do you come from?’ (~ ‘Do you come from elsewhere?’)

The Romanian grammar by Beyrer et al. (1987: 239 and 341) seems to suggest that de unde ‘whence’ and dincotro ‘whence’ are indeed fully synonymous also in Romanian. Dincolo ‘whence’, however, is never mentioned as a spatial interrogative – its regular meaning being ‘elsewhere’. This is why we add an alternative translation in brackets for sentence (17.2). Table 101 shows how the Romanian paradigm of spatial interrogatives looks like after the above modifications have been taken into consideration. The uncertain status of the spatial interrogative of Source dincolo is acknowledged by way of bracketing the word-form. Table 101: Romanian paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where=whither

unde

Goal

[Q]where=whither

unde

Source

[de Q]whence ~ [d’ P1]whence (~ [d’ P2]whence)

de unde ~ dincotro (~ dincolo?)

As to the mismatches, the modifications do not change much since the pattern of WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism is unaffected by the alterations. Similarly, the existence of overabundance and suppletion is put at stake neither. Even if dincolo has to be cancelled from the paradigm, the addition of the PP de unde ‘whence’ makes up for this potential loss. At the same time, the spatial interrogative of Source dincotro ‘whence’ remains where it is supposed to be. In this way, a P-stem competes with the Q-stem in the cell of WHENCE. What one can say

142 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe at this point is that the confrontation of the LPP-borne data with those from the descriptive grammars tends to yield a DGB-variety whose paradigm of spatial interrogative is morphologically richer than that of the LPP-variety. This is of course trivial since it is the expected result. In the case of Sardinian, it is crucial to distinguish the major varieties Campidanese, Logudorese, and Nuorese to which the unified Limba Sarda has to be added. The translation of the sample text seems to reflect a kind of compromise variety based on Campidanese. The information on spatial interrogatives scattered over the extant literature is not fully conclusive. For Nuorese, Mensching (1994: 93–95) mentions the spatial interrogatives ube ~ inube ‘where’ and a ube ‘whither’. It is tempting to speculate that the corresponding WHENCEconstruction could be *de ube ‘whence’. Blasco Ferrer (1984: 113) mentions the syncretic aundi ‘where = whither’ for Campidanese. From his further explanations it seems plausible to assume that the corresponding spatial interrogative of Source *dundi ‘whence’ complements the paradigm. Within the linguistic space of the island of Sardinian, there is thus considerable variation. This impression is corroborated by Blasco Ferrer’s (1986: 171) comparison of the data from Logudorese and Campidanese reproduced in Tables 102–103. Table 102: Sardinian (Logodurese) paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[(in)Q]where

ue ~ inue

Goal

[a Q]whither

a ue

Source

[dae Q]whence

dae ue

The differences which mark the two varieties of Sardinian are striking. Logodurese reflects a system in which all three spatial relations are encoded differently and overtly. Zero-marking is possible only with WHERE because there is overabundance in this paradigmatic cell with one of the two allomorphs being identical to the naked Q-stem. Table 103: Sardinian (Campidanese) paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[a Q]where=whither ~ [a P1]where=whither ~ [a P2]where=whither ~ [P3]where=whither

a ubi ~ a undi ~ a inui ~ ancá

Micro-level variation in Romance | 143

Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Goal

[a Q]where=whither ~ [a P1]where=whither ~ [a P2]where=whither ~ [P3]where=whither

a ubi ~ a undi ~ a inui – ancá

Source

[de Q]whence ~ [de P1]whence ~ [de P2]whence

de ubi ~ de undi ~ de inui

In contrast, Campidanese is characterized by WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism and overabundance throughout the paradigm. Three of four options in the cells of WHERE and WHITHER are overtly marked. The fourth alternative ancá ‘where = whither’ can be considered a suppletive case of fused exponence. The Sardinian situation is thus extremely diversified internally so that it disallows us to generalize over “Sardinian” sweepingly. According to the normative recommendations, Catalan is indeed a language with WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism from whose paradigm overabundance and suppletion are absent. This is also what the LPP-variety looks like. However, Badia Margarit (1975: II, 9) discusses cases of variation. According to this author, there are three phenomena connected to variation. The first of those is easily explained as the coexistence of short and long alloforms the distribution of which is regulated by external sandhi. There is the syncretic on ‘where = whither’ which has a regular allomorphic realization as ont ‘where = whither’ if it is followed immediately by a vowel-initial word, cf. Scheme 7. {on}

→

[ont] /

__# V

Scheme 7: Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in Catalan.

Since the excrescent -t (which is never reflected in the written form) arises automatically by phonological rule, the variation of on ~ ont is predictable and of minor importance to our discussion because it does not alter the classification of Catalan. This is different with the next two observations by the grammarian of Catalan. He claims that very frequently the preposition a ‘at, to’ is added to the spatial interrogative on ‘where = whither’ – not only in interrogative clauses which inquire about the movement towards a Goal but also in static relations of Place: A on van? ~ On van? ‘Where do they go?’ vs. A on són? ~ On són? ‘Where are they?’ Badia Margarit (1975: II, 9) strongly discourages speakers of Catalan to employ prepositions in these cases. For speakers of Catalan who opt for employing the preposition in both WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions, the paradigm of spatial interrogatives changes only in as much as there is overabundance in two cells whereas there is none in the LPP-variety, cf. Table 104.

144 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Note that the employment of the preposition a ‘at, to’ in the constructions of where and whither creates a system which is reminiscent of one of the options described for Asturian above. As in the Asturian case, possible minimal pairs like a on ‘where = whither’ and d’on ‘whence’ may arise. Consequently, speakers who give preference to this option shape the paradigm of spatial interrogatives in such a way that zero-marking is banned from the paradigm. Those speakers, however, who restrict the use of the preposition a ‘at, to’ to constructions of WHITHER create a paradigm with three distinct constructions as opposed to only two distinct constructions in the LPP-variety. In this case, their variety of Catalan would resemble Spanish as to the internal structure of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Table 104: Catalan paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[(a) Q(t)]where(=whither)

on(t) ~ a on(t)

Goal

[(a) Q(t)](where=)whither

on(t) ~ a on(t)

Source

[d’Q(t)]whence

d’on(t)

Spanish makes a formal three-way distinction in the realm of spatial interrogatives and thus testifies to a pattern that is a minority solution within the Romance phylum. Consider the examples in (18). (18) (18.1)

(18.2)

(18.3)

Spanish [LPP Spanish, 19] Source ¿De dónde vienes, hombrecito? from P? come:2SG man:DIM ‘Where do you come from, little man?’ Place ¿Dónde queda «tu casa»? P? be_loacted:3SG your house ‘Where is your home?’ Goal ¿A-dónde quieres llevar a mi cordero? to-P? want:2SG take:INF ANIM.OBJ my sheep ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

In Spanish, the spatial relations are kept distinct in interrogative constructions. The basic component of the paradigm is the Place interrogative dónde ‘where’

Micro-level variation in Romance | 145

on which both the Goal interrogative adónde ‘whither’ and the Source interrogative de dónde ‘whence’ are based morphologically. Synchronically, the Place relation is zero-marked on the interrogative. In contrast, Goal and Source are encoded explicitly by additional morphological material on the interrogatives. Orthographically adónde ‘whither’ is usually considered a mono-word construction whereas de dónde ‘whence’ is treated as a multi-word syntagm. Nevertheless, both the Goal interrogative and the Source interrogative reflect the structure of regular Spanish prepositional phrases. There is neither syncretism nor suppletion. The paragraphs the Royal Spanish Academy devotes to the spatial interrogatives, however, tell us that the situation is not as simple as that (Bosque et al. 2009: 1651–1653). First of all, the orthographic multi-word construction a dónde ‘whither’ is considered to be a fully acceptable alternative to the mono-word construction adónde ‘whither’. Furthermore, the same source declares that ¿Dónde vas? ~ ¿Adónde vas? ‘Where do you go?’ are equally correct interrogative clauses. According to Bosque et al. (2009: 1652–1653), dónde ‘where’ and adónde ‘whither’ may freely replace each other as spatial interrogatives of Goal although there seems to be a preference for adónde ‘whither’ in combination with certain verbs such as conducir ‘to lead to’, encaminarse ‘to get going’, abocar ‘to approach’ and others. This means that we are facing overabundance in the cell of WHITHER with concomitant WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism, i.e. the Spanish DGB-variety differs from the Spanish LPP-variety in connection to two mismatches, cf. Table 105. Table 105: Spanish paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where(=whither)

donde

Goal

[(a) Q](where=)whither

donde ~ a donde

Source

[de Q]whence

de donde

The Spanish paradigm in Table 105 resembles the Catalan equivalent in Table 104 insofar as speakers have several options. They may either go for a paradigm with three formally distinct constructions or employ WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism. As to Portuguese, the situation is similar. The LPP-variety does not give evidence of syncretism. In contrast, Hundertmark-Santos Martins (1982: 416) assumes a markedly different paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Her version has WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism which manifests itself in the spatial interrogative

146 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe onde ‘where = whither’. At the same time, there is also overabundance in the cell of WHITHER because three constructions compete with each other, namely the syncretic onde ‘where = whither’ and aonde ~ para onde ‘whither’. The synonymy of the latter two is corroborated by the monolingual dictionary compiled by Almeida Costa & Sampaio e Melo (1979: 113). For the WHENCE-construction, Hundertmark-Santos Martins (1982: 416) mentions only donde ‘whence’. The DGB-variety of Portuguese differs from the LPP-variety of the same language in several aspects including the presence of a dimorphic mono-word construction for WHITHER where the LPP-variety only has multi-word constructions in the realm of the dynamic spatial relations. Table 106 summarizes these observations for Portuguese. Table 106: Portuguese paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where(=whither)

onde

Goal

[Q](where=)whither ~ [a Q]whither ~ [para Q]whither

onde ~ aonde ~ para onde

Source

[d(e) Q]whence

donde (~ de onde)

In sum, the DGB-varieties of the Ibero-Romance languages display a very strong tendency to typological hybridity. This hybridity manifests itself in the coexistence of maximally differentiated paradigms of the type Place ≠ Goal ≠ Source with the pattern (Place = Goal) ≠ Source. In point of fact, the DGB-varieties of many a Romance language are characterized by a relatively high degree of internal variation as opposed to the LPPvarieties. One comes across additional construction types of spatial interrogatives more often than not when it comes to checking the extant descriptive linguistic resources dealing with Romance languages. Typical examples are Friulian and Genoese. The LPP-varieties of both of these languages give evidence of WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism and a syncretic construction in the cell of the spatial interrogative of Source. However, the descriptive grammars – Zof (2008: 134) for Friulian and Tosco (1997: 226) for Genoese – introduce overabundance and sundry phenomena as shown in Table 107–108.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 147

Table 107: Friulian paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[(in)Q]where=whither

dulà ~ indulà

Goal

[(in)Q]where=whither

dulà ~ indulà

Source

[P]whence

dontri

Table 108: Genoese paradigm of spatial interrogatives (DGB-variety). Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q]where=whither=whence ~ [P]where=whither

donde ~ dove

Goal

[Q]where=whither=whence ~ [P]where=whither

donde ~ dove

Source

[Q]where=whither=whence ~ [de P]whence

donde ~ de dove

The Genoese situation is the more interesting of the two. Apart from the fact that all three of the cells of the paradigm witness overabundance there is also evidence of a pattern of syncretism that should not exist in Europe in the first place. One of the possibilities to organize the paradigm in Genoese is to employ donde ‘where = whither = whence’ indiscriminately for all three of the spatial categories. This corresponds to the pattern Place = Goal = Source. However, the examples provided by the descriptive grammar of Genoese show that the story is more complicated than it appears to be on superficial inspection, cf. (19). (19) (19.1)

(19.2)

Genoese Source De dove ti from P?/G? you ‘Where do you come from?’ Source Donde ti ne P?/G?/S? you LOC ‘Where do you come from?’

[Tosco 1997: 226] ne LOC

vegni? come:2SG

vegni? come:2SG

The two questions are synonymous and form a minimal pair. The interrogatives of Source de dove ‘whence’ and donde ‘where = whither = whence’ can replace each other at least in this context. One may argue that this is possible because the motion verb is accompanied by the so-called locative pronominal proclitic ne which is usually associated with an ablative-like meaning (though not in

148 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe each and every case) (Tosco 1997: 95–96). This might give us the idea that the Source meaning is already encoded by ne and thus need not be marked on the spatial interrogative. In this way, the use of the indistinct donde ‘where = whither = whence’ could be licensed. However, this hypothesis is not conclusive because the use of dove ‘where = whither’ without the ablative preposition de ‘from’ seems to be illicit in the context of questions about Source. If this is indeed true, the presence of ne is irrelevant for the choice of the spatial interrogative of Source. Since in the Genoese grammar, there are no further examples of the competition of the two constructions illustrated in (19), we cannot clarify this open question here and now. The Genoese solution is all the more remarkable since the vast majority of the Romance varieties always keep the spatial interrogative of Source formally distinct from the other members of the paradigm no matter what mismatches affect the expressions of Place and/or Goal. The unexpected constellation in Genoese calls for closer scrutiny – not only as to the facts of Genoese but also as to the other Romance varieties of northern Italy. Since this task requires the analysis of corpus data to which we do not have access yet, the solution of the problems raised by the Genoese data must be relegated to future studies. What has to be borne in mind nevertheless is that it cannot be excluded that a close reading of the grammars of regional varieties might reveal further deviations from the expected patterns of European languages. Discounting the intriguing Genoese puzzle what can be stated for the Romance DGB-varieties is, that independent of the modifications they cause as to the internal organization of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives they replicate those tendencies which we have observed for the above LPP-varieties. In general, WHENCE is encoded by a distinct construction which tends to be the most complex construction of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Syncretism is the prerogative of WHERE and WHITHER. There are no violations of the previously established patterns of markedness. Synchronically, the paradigms frequently witness a bipartition into WHERE and WHITHER on the one hand and WHENCE on the other. WHERE and WHITHER often function as attractors of each other whereas WHENCE seems to be largely unaffected by the interaction which happens between WHERE and WHITHER. It is time therefore to trace back at least some of the strands of the diachronic developments which have yielded the contemporary situation.

3.1.2.2 Romance spatial interrogatives in diachronic perspective The synchronic situation as described in the previous sections is interesting especially because Latin, the common ancestor of all contemporary varieties in

Micro-level variation in Romance | 149

the Romance branch of the Indo-European language family reflects a different pattern, namely that of Option I in Table 2 above. The Latin paradigm of spatial interrogatives is maximally distinctive as shown in Table 109 (Touratier 2013: 251–253). Table 109: Latin paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

Construction type

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q-ā]where ~ [P1]where

quā ~ ubi

Goal

[Q-ō] whither

quō

Source

[P2]whence

unde

Syncretism is absent from the Latin paradigm. There is overabundance in the cell of WHERE. In addition, there is suppletion with three stems distributed over four word-forms. The Q-stem is that of the interrogative quis ‘who, what’. The spatial interrogative of Place quā ‘where’ reflects the regular ablative feminine of the interrogative pronoun whereas the spatial interrogative of Goal quō ‘whither’ represents the ablative masculine or neuter of the same pronoun. The two P-stems are historically related to the Q-stem. This relation has been blurred via the reanalysis of the morpheme boundaries of the indefinite pronouns alicubi ‘anywhere’ and alicunde ‘from anywhere’: ali-cubi > alic-ubi and alicunde > alic-unde. The loss of the initial consonant obscured the morphological relationship of the members of the paradigm and contributed to the creation of two new independent P-stems. There is also a Latin version of Le Petit Prince. Of course, the translation cannot be the work of a native speaker of Latin. Its high artificiality notwithstanding, it is worthwhile glancing at the translations of three of the crucial sample sentences: (20) (20.1)

(20.2)

Latin Source Unde venis, puerule? S? come:2SG boy:DIM:VOC ‘Where do you come from, little boy?’ Goal Aut quo ovem meam asportare but G? sheep:ACC my:ACC.F take_away:INF ‘But where do you want to take my sheep?’

[LPP Latin, 17]

[LPP Latin, 17] vis? want:2SG

150 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (20.3)

Place Ubi sunt homines? P? be.3PL man:NOM.PL ‘Where are the men?’

[LPP Latin 62]

The use of the spatial interrogatives in (20) does not appear to deviate too far from what was natively spoken Latin in antiquity. The interrogatives quā ‘where’ and quō ‘whither’ have not survived into modern times. Table 110 helps visualizing the effect the loss of the erstwhile members of the paradigm could have had in terms of restructuring. Table 110: Changes in the Latin paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Spatial relation

before

Place

quā ~ ubi

Goal

quō

Source

unde

after ubi ? unde

Overabundance disappears from the paradigm just as the former Q-stem vanishes from the same paradigm. Suppletion as such is not abolished unless the two remaining word-forms ubi and unde are reinterpreted as spatial interrogatives which share a fictitious common stem *u-. The most significant result of the changes is the loss of the distinct spatial interrogative of Goal. The cell of WHITHER is virtually empty and needs to be filled to prevent the morphological mismatch of defectiveness from applying. One way to achieve this is to expand the domain of either ubi or unde such that it also covers the cell of WHITHER. To enlarge the domain of the one or the other, there are two options, namely (a) syncretism or (b) periphrasis (since morphological case ceased to be functional in the earliest period of the individual Romance languages). In the case of (a), the surviving spatial interrogative simply occupies two cells of the paradigm. The solution (b) requires that the spatial interrogative which replaces erstwhile quō ‘whither’ be accompanied by a special marker of directionality when it functions as the spatial interrogative of Goal. These two scenarios circumscribe exactly what has happened in the Romance phylum. The adverb exactly does not mean that the diachronic processes are generally predictable. Moreover, there is evidence of recursive changes of the systems of spatial interrogatives in a number of the Romance languages.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 151

From what we have learned so far about the internal relations of the categories under scrutiny, we might assume that the above diachronic scenarios (a) and (b) translate as follows. The Latin spatial interrogative of Place ubi ‘where’ takes over the functions of quō ‘whither’ either syncretically or as member of a periphrastic construction. This assumption makes sense because we already know two things. First of all, with the putative exception of Bologna Emiliano, Romance languages only allow for WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism. Secondly, if in a paradigm of spatial interrogatives of a given Romance language word-forms are formally derived from other members of the same paradigm WHENCE never serves as basis for the derivation synchronically speaking (cf. Section 3.1.1.3 above). Given that these rules hold also diachronically, we expect to find only two Romance solutions of the problem posed by the loss of Latin quō ‘whither’, viz. syncretic *ubi ‘where = whither’ and periphrastic *X + ubi ‘whither’. These solutions pop up frequently, indeed. However, there are also unexpected alternatives and competitors. Twenty-five of the modern Romance varieties have spatial interrogatives which go back etymologically to Latin ubi ‘where’. In all of these cases, the successor of the Latin spatial interrogative of Place is also employed in the construction which functions as expression of WHITHER, cf. Table 111. Boldface marks those segments which can be traced back to the chain of segments of Latin ubi ‘where’. The segments which are historically connected to Latin unde ‘whence’ are underlined. Grey shading is employed to identify those cells which do not host traces of Latin ubi ‘where’. The paradigms are presented in an order that is meant to reflect the complexity of the word-forms in terms of their diachrony. This supposedly differential diachronic complexity will be explained below. The Sardinian data are those of the LPP-variety. Table 111: Modern Romance varieties which continue Latin ubi ‘where’. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

French

où

où

d’où

Asturian

(a)ú ~ ande

(a)ú ~ ande

d’ú

Gardenese

ulá

ulá

da ulá

Badiota

olá

olá

da olá

Aromunian

iu

iu

di iu

Walloon

èwou

èwou

d’èwou

Walloon (Central)

èwou

èwou

d’èwou

152 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Valdotain

yaou

yaou

de yaou

Picard (Borain)

ayu

ayu

d’ayu

Rumantsch

nua

nua

danunder

Surmiran-Albula

noua

noua

danonder

Sardinian

inue

a nue

da nue

Italian

dove

dove

da dove

Genoese

dove ~ donde

dove ~ donde

de dove ~ donde

Bologna Emiliano

duv

duv ~ in duv

d’in duv

Picard

dùsque

dùsque

ed’dùsque

Aragonese

dó

ta dó

d’án

Bergamasco

‘nduè

‘nduè

de ‘nduè

Venetian

ndove

ndove

da ndove

Piemontese

anté ~ andoa

anté ~ doa

d’anté

Corsican

induva

induva

da induva ~ donde

Milanese

in doe

in doe

de doe

Neapolitan

addo‘

addo‘

‘a do‘

Friulian

dulà ~ indulà

dulà ~ indulà

dontri

Parmigiano

indo‘

indo‘

d’indo‘

In another twenty-three languages, however, the etymological continuator of Latin unde ‘whence’ shows up also (or in one case, exclusively) in the cells of WHERE and WHITHER, cf. Table 112. Boldface marks word-forms which contain traces of Latin ubi ‘where’. All segments which can be shown to connect historically to Latin unde ‘whence’ are underlined. Grey shading is used for cells which do not host a cognate of Latin unde ‘whence’. Table 112: Modern Romance varieties which continue Latin unde ‘whence’. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Genoese

dove ~ donde

dove ~ donde

de dove ~ donde

Catalan

on(t) ~ a on(t)

on(t) ~ a on(t)

d’on(t)

Valenciano

on

on

d’on

Languedocien

ont

ont

d‘ont

Limousin

onte

onte

d’onte

Micro-level variation in Romance | 153

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Eonavian

onde

onde

de onde

Sephardic

onde ~ ande

onde ~ ande

de ande

Piemontese

anté ~ andoa

anté ~ doa

d’anté

Provençal I

ounte

ounte

d’ounte

Gallurese Sardinian

undi

undi

da undi

Moldavian

unde

unde

de unde

Romanian

unde

unde

dincotro ~ dincolo

Asturian

ú ~ ande

ú ~ ande

d’ú

Sicilian

unni

unni

runni ~ di unni

Occitan (Piemonte)

nté

nté

da nté

Extremaduran

ondi

andi ~ p’aóndi

d’ondi ~ d’andi

Galician

onde

para onde ~ a onde

de onde

Portuguese

onde

onde ~ aonde ~ para onde

donde ~ de onde

Gascon

a on

on

d’on

Aranese

a on

tà on

d’a on

Spanish

dónde

dónde ~ adónde

de dónde

Provençal II

ounte ~ mounte

mounte

de mounte

Niçard

doun

doun

de doun

The two solutions have sizable shares of 49% and 53% for Latin unde ‘whence’ and Latin ubi ‘where’, respectively. Nine of the languages give evidence of both patterns. Two of them (Asturian and Piemontese) display overabundance with cognates of Latin ubi ‘where’ and Latin unde ‘whence’ in the cells of WHERE and WHITHER and thus are mentioned in both tables accordingly. Vallader proves too difficult to classify and is therefore excluded from the above tables. There are traces of Latin unde ‘whence’ in twenty-eight languages altogether (= 59.5% of the Romance languages). If the successor of the Latin spatial interrogative of Source is employed in the construction of WHITHER in a modern Romance variety it is always also employed in the construction of WHERE in the same language. From these observations, we may conclude that Latin ubi ‘where’ and unde ‘whence’ were equally good choices as fillers of the gap created by the loss of quō ‘whither’. This means that one of our predictions is not borne out by the facts since WHERE does not hold the monopoly for diffusion over the paradigm. The patterns found in the languages of Tables 111-112 are telling in a number of ways. If we equate the chains of segments which go back to Latin ubi ‘where’ with A and those which are inherited from Latin unde ‘whence’, we can identify

154 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe a small set of distribution patterns as shown in Table 113. The variable X is a place-holder for any stem other than the one that is identified by other variables in a given pattern. Table 113: Distribution patterns of etymological stems. Pattern

Absolute

Share

C-C-C

19

40.5%

A-A-A

17

36%

A-A-X

4

8.5%

A-A-A/X

1

2%

A/X-A/X-A

1

2%

A/X-A/X-AX

1

2%

A/X-A/X-X

1

2%

C-C-X

1

2%

C/X-C/X-X

1

2%

C/X-C/X-C

1

2%

Total

47

~100%

There is a strong tendency towards the creation of a common Q-stem for all members of the paradigm. Etymologically, this Q-stem may either be related to Latin ubi ‘where’ or Latin unde ‘whence’. Mixed patterns form a heterogeneous minority. From Table 113 three implications can be deduced:  [Goal = C]  [Place = C]  [Place = C]  [Goal = C]  [Source = A]  [Goal&Place = A] Going by the arguments put forward by Pantcheva (2010, 2011) and Lestrade (2010), the generalization of C over the entire paradigm of spatial interrogatives is unexpected (cf. Section 3.1.1.3). Strictly speaking it should never have occurred at all. The Romance data, however, testify to the recurrence of this process after the termination of the Vulgar Latin period. This process and sundry diachronic developments call for being inspected more closely. From Table 111 we learn that Latin ubi ‘where’ has survived into contemporary French as où ‘where = whither’ and Asturian ú ‘where = whither’. Its modern form gives evidence of far-reaching reductive phonological changes which have reduced the erstwhile disyllabic phonological chain of three segments to a single vowel. In the other twenty-one Romance languages in which Latin ubi ‘where’ has survived, the modern constructions contain additional

Micro-level variation in Romance | 155

phonological substance. This additional phonological substance has not arisen out of the blue. Those elements, which form a construction together with the relics of Latin ubi ‘where’, can be traced back to (erstwhile) function words. This means that in the course of the diachronic development these constructions have gained in complexity via renovation and reinforcement (Lehmann 1995: 20–24). As to Latin unde ‘whence’, Table 112 tells us that there are three languages (Aranese, Spanish, and Niçard) in which none of the word-forms of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives reflects the bare unde ‘whence’. In these languages, the modern constructions contain additional phonological material that was not there in Classical Latin. The vast majority of the languages in Table 112 display paradigms which host at least one spatial interrogative which gives no evidence of renovation and reinforcement, although reductive sound change has affected the heirs of Latin unde ‘whence’, too. This means that the Latin spatial interrogatives ubi ‘where’ and unde ‘whence’ have undergone relatively different developments morphosyntactically. The data in Tables 111–112 reveal that all of the modern constructions of WHENCE contain an ablative preposition or traces thereof. For those paradigms over which Latin ubi ‘where’ was generalized, the reinforcement is relatively easy to understand. The succession of possible stages in the development of the paradigms with a generalized Q-stem based on Latin ubi ‘where’ is presented in Tables 114–115. Table 114 reflects a so-called pull-chain process whereas Table 115 provides the alternative account of a push-chain. Grey shading marks those cells which host ubi. Table 114: Hypothetical chronology (pull-chain) of the generalization of Latin ubi ‘where’ and subsequent disambiguation of WHENCE. Stages

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

I

ubi ~ quā

quō

unde

II

ubi ~ quā

quō

unde

III

ubi

IV

ubi

ubi

unde

V

ubi

ubi

ubi ~ unde

VI

ubi

ubi

ubi

VII

ubi

ubi

de ubi

unde

156 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 115: Hypothetical chronology (push-chain) of the generalization of Latin ubi ‘where’ and subsequent disambiguation of WHENCE. Stages

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

I

ubi ~ quā

quō

unde

II

ubi ~ quā

ubi ~ quō

unde

III

ubi ~ quā

ubi ~ quō

ubi ~ unde

IV

ubi

ubi ~ quō

ubi ~ unde

V

ubi

ubi

ubi ~ unde

VI

ubi

ubi

ubi

VII

ubi

ubi

de ubi

The chronologies can be read hypothetically as follows.  Pull-chain effect: To fill the gap created by the loss of Latin quō ‘whither’, ubi ‘where’ takes over the functions of the obsolete member of the paradigm and thus WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism is created. Since this syncretic pattern is in line with supposedly language-independent constraints, there is no need to reintroduce a formal distinction of the two functions. On stage IV, the domain of *ubi ‘where = whither’ comprises two thirds of the paradigm. This prominence is a favorable condition for the further diffusion of *ubi ‘where = whither’ to the detriment of unde ‘whence’. The two word-forms compete with each other for the function of spatial interrogative of Source on stage V. *Ubi ‘where = whence’ has ousted unde ‘whence’ on stage VI which is characterized by the formal indistinction of the spatial categories. The syncretic pattern Place = Goal = Source is excluded from the linguistic landscape of Europe according to Creissels (2006). The renovation of the distinct WHENCE-construction by way of introducing the ablative preposition de ‘from’ gives rise to a syncretic pattern which is more in line with the areal-typological preferences of Europe. At the same time, the renovation affects WHENCE not just incidentally but because WHENCE seems to be particularly prone to being represented by the most complex construction of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives (cf. above). The pull-chain scenario, however, is an unlikely option since the putative gap on stage III does not make sense functionally. We have to suppose that there cannot have been a time in which speakers had no means to inquire about the Goal of a spatial situation.  Push-chain effect: In contrast to the pull-chain scenario, the push-chain scenario assumes that ubi ‘where’ intrudes upon the domain of quā ‘where’ and quō ‘whither’ such that the latter two are marginalized statistically step

Micro-level variation in Romance | 157

by step. Most probably, the direct competitor of ubi ‘where’ in cell of WHERE, quā ‘where’, fell victim to the growing dominance of ubi ‘where’ before the same happened to quō ‘whither’. Parallel to the ousting of the former Qstem, ubi ‘where’ also made inroads into the territory originally occupied by unde ‘whence’. After both quā ‘where’ and quō ‘whither’ had dropped from the paradigm, the situation became precarious also for unde ‘whence’ which then had to cede to *ubi ‘where = whither’. As in the pull-chain scenario a point is reached at which the distinctions are neutralized completely. This is when the renovation process is triggered in the cell of WHENCE (cf. above). The push-chain scenario has the advantage over the pull-chain scenario that the former does not postulate a gap at any point in the chronology. However, both of the scenarios must remain conjecture since we lack the philological evidence to prove any of the stages in Tables 114–115. Moreover, stage VI of both chronologies, i.e. the creation of a paradigm with three identical constructions, in all likelihood, has never existed in reality. Its inclusion in the chronologies is necessary for reasons of systematicity. What is additionally intriguing about the diachrony of Romance spatial interrogatives is that the omnipresence of a prepositional extension of the WHENCEconstruction includes all those spatial interrogatives which are based etymologically on Latin unde ‘where’. The historical predecessor of Romance spatial interrogatives of Source like Galician de onde ‘whence’ already incorporated semantically the ablative meaning which is made explicit by the preposition de ‘from’ in the contemporary Ibero-Romance language. We can assume that at some point in the past, the ablative meaning component of the continuator of Latin unde ‘whence’ must have been bleached to such an extent that a morphosyntactic reinforcement was called for. With reference to the early period of Old Provençal, Rohlfs (1968: 84) claims that “[o]n beruht auf unde, das im Vulgärlateinischen mit ubi verwechselt wurde, so daß der Begriff ‘von wo’ nun durch deunde ausgedrückt werden musste […].“ The author assumes that Provençal has inherited a problem from Vulgar Latin, namely the confusion of Latin ubi ‘where’ and Latin unde ‘whence’. Since Vulgar Latin is the common ancestor of all Romance languages, one may hypothesize that the supposed confusion was general on the early stages of the Romances languages. Accordingly, Rohlfs (1968: 84) mentions French and Spanish in passing as cases which parallel that of Provençal.20 The word-forms || 20 Mackenzie (1978: 143) mentions an Old French word-form ont which he translates with English where and whence. This looks like WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism. However, his sole exam-

158 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Rohlfs provides as pieces of evidence are French dont and Spanish donde. The context in which these word-forms are presented makes it clear that Rohlfs refers to Old French and Old Spanish, i.e. to periods in which the above wordforms were indeed used as spatial interrogatives of Source. Today neither of the two word-forms is admissible in this function any more. The word-forms as such still exist but fulfill different tasks. In modern French, dont ‘of which’ is employed as a partitive relative pronoun, i.e. it has lost its former connections to interrogativity and the spatial relations. In the contemporary language, Spanish donde ‘where = whither’ (cf. Table 105 above) can be used as spatial interrogative of Place and Goal, not, however, as spatial interrogative of Source. Further changes must have taken place to reorganize the early Romance systems of spatial interrogatives to yield the modern paradigms. Since we cannot adequately do justice to the bulk of the philological aspects in any detail in this study, we restrict our further observations to a selection of diachronically interesting phenomena of a small number of Romance languages. Therefore, whatever we say in the remainder of this section needs to be checked thoroughly on the basis of a more solid empirical basis. In the case of Old French (9th–14th century), for instance, the evidence is indicative of a binary paradigm of spatial interrogatives with où ‘where = whither’ (< Latin ubi ‘where’) and dont ‘whence’ (< reinforced Vulgar Latin de unde ‘whence’) as distinct constructions. This division of labor survived far into the Middle French period (1350–1610) as the examples in (21) show. These examples are taken from the literary classic Pantagruel by François Rabelais which dates back to 1532.21 All of the three questions are asked by the protagonist Pantagruel and addressed to his friend Panurge. (21) (21.1)

Middle French Source Dont venez vous? S? come:2PL you ‘Where do you come from?’

[Pantagruel 96]

|| ple is sur la voie par ont ils vont ‘on the path along which they are going’. Mackenzie (1978: 143) claims that in cases of this kind “the meaning [of ont] is clearly locative”, i.e. he assumes that ont has become the general Q-stem which serves as basis for the derivation of multi-word constructions like par ont ‘along which’. Since Mackenzie’s example does not illustrate a direct question, it falls outside the scope of this study. 21 Examples taken from primary sources other than Le Petit Prince are identified by a short title in square brackets (followed by the page number). The full bibliographic information on these additional primary sources is given in a separate list of sources at the end of this book.

Micro-level variation in Romance | 159

(21.2)

(21.3)

Goal Où allez vous? P?/G? go:2PL you ‘Where are you going?’ Place Ha, Panurge, où ha Panurge P?/G? ‘Ha, Panurge, where are you?’

[Pantagruel 96]

es-tu? be.2SG-you

[Pantagruel 268]

There is a distinct spatial interrogative of Source dont ‘whence’ which forms a paradigm with the syncretic où ‘where = whither’. This corresponds to stage IV in Table 114. For Old Romanian (16th century) a similar constellation can be assumed. On the basis of the data provided by Dimitrescu (1978: 339), it is possible to reconstruct a binary paradigm io ~ iou ‘where = whither’ (< Latin ubi ‘where’) ≠ unde ‘whence’ (< Latin unde ‘whence’). In her grammar of the Old Portuguese of the 14th century, Mattos e Silva (1984: 240–248) dedicates a section to the spatial interrogatives. Her corpus-based study yields another binary paradigm with syncretic hu ‘where = whither’ (< Latin ubi ‘where’) and onde ‘whence’ (< Latin unde ‘whence’). Interestingly these three systems have not survived into modern times (cf. below). The data of the older stages of the three languages are presented synoptically in Table 116. Table 116: Spatial interrogatives of older stages of Romance languages. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Old French

où

où

dont

Old Portuguese

hu

hu

onde

Old Romanian

iu ~ iou

iu ~ iou

unde

After all, given that these data are representative of the bulk of the older stages of Romance languages, there does not seem to be much evidence of the supposed confusion of Latin ubi ‘where’ and Latin unde ‘whence’. What has happened since the end of the Vulgar Latin period is that the early Romance successors of Latin ubi ‘where’ have established themselves also in the cell of WHITHER. That of WHENCE, however, does not appear to be affected by the diffusion of ubi ‘where’. In the three languages of Table 116, the paradigm is divided in two, viz. a syncretic spatial interrogative of WHERE-WHITHER contrasts with a distinct WHENCE-construction. Since two stems are employed, the paradigm attests to

160 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe suppletion. It is worthwhile noting that none of the contemporary varieties of the languages in Table 116 has preserved the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of the earlier periods. Mattos e Silva (1984: 241) emphasizes that, in her Old Portuguese corpus, there is no evidence of combinations of hu ‘where = whither’ and a preposition. She has not found examples of *a hu ‘whither’, *de hu ‘whence’ and *de onde ‘whence’. The author acknowledges, however, that in other texts not included in her corpus, there is the occasional example of d(h)u ‘whence’ (< de + hu) although onde ‘whence’ is attested in these texts, too. In any case, periphrastic replacements of onde ‘whence’ in the function of spatial interrogative of Source must have been relatively infrequent in the epoch under review. The infrequency of this phenomenon notwithstanding, one might take it for a sign which indicates that hu ‘where = whither’ was on the verge of being generalized as new Qstem throughout the paradigm. This is what happened in the case of French. The syncretic où ‘where = whither’ of Old French has developed into the Q-stem of the modern paradigm the WHENCE-construction of modern French being d’où ‘whence’. A similar development had been possible for Portuguese as well. However, the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of this Ibero-Romance language took a different course. In lieu of hu ‘where = whither’, it was onde ‘whence’ that was chosen as the new Q-stem, i.e. onde ‘whence’ drove out hu ‘whither = where’ from the paradigm. In Romanian, a similar process took place. The spatial interrogative of Source unde ‘whence’ has ousted the syncretic iu ~ iou ‘where = whither’ (whereas Romanian’s next of kin, Aromunian has generalized iu ‘where = whither’ to the detriment of unde ‘whence’ so that di iu ‘whence’ serves as WHENCE-construction in the Aromunian LPP-variety, cf. [11] above). These changes are surveyed in Table 117. Those word-forms of the older stages which have been lost are put in brackets. Table 117: Changes in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives in three Romance languages. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

French

où

où

d’où (dont)

Portuguese

(hu) onde

(hu) para onde

de onde ~ donde

Romanian

(iu ~ iou) unde

(iu ~ iou) unde

de unde ~ dincolo ~ dincotro

The developments the three languages underwent yield different results although Old French, Old Portuguese, and Old Romanian were very similar as to the organization of their paradigms of spatial interrogatives. There is generali-

Micro-level variation in Romance | 161

zation of the successor of Latin ubi ‘where’ in French whereas Portuguese and Romanian attest to the generalization of Latin unde ‘whence’. French and Romanian preserve WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism. In contrast, Portuguese abolishes syncretism. Portuguese and Romanian create overabundance in the cell of WHENCE. At the same time, Romanian gets rid of overabundance with WHERE and WHITHER. This differential behavior of three genetically closely related languages with almost identical structural properties at the beginning of the diachronic developments is practically unpredictable. Nevertheless, the three languages are in agreement as to WHENCE. In all three of the languages, the WHENCEconstruction involves an ablative preposition no matter whether the complement of this preposition is a reflex of Latin unde ‘whence’ or of Latin ubi ‘where’. As it seems, whatever happens diachronically, one characteristic trait of the paradigm has to be safeguarded – and that is the relative complexity of the WHENCE-construction. This observation leads us to another intriguing fact of the diachrony of a number of Romance languages. The intriguing fact we allude to is the recurrence of the generalization of the WHENCE-construction across the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. In their grammar of Venetian, Marcato & Ursini (1998: 389–393) make several statements which are relevant to the topic at hand. With reference to the spatial interrogative dove ‘where = whither’ in Italian and Venetian they observe that [c]ome conseguenza del sostituirsi nel latino ormai non più classico di DE UBI a UBI, è nata la forma dove (< d’ove); a partire dal XVI secolo, persa del tutto coscienza dell’originaria presenza della preposizione di nella locuzione, anche l’espressione d’ove (d’ove vieni?) è stata sostituita dalla ridondante di dove, che altro non fa se non duplicare la preposizione già incorporata stabilmente dall’avverbio. (Marcato & Ursini 1998: 389)22

According to this quote there once was a multi-word construction d’ove ‘whence’ (< de ‘from’ + ove ‘where = whither’) which functioned as spatial interrogative of Source in a binary paradigm with the syncretic ove ‘where = whither’. At a later stage, univerbation applied to turn the multi-word construction into a mono-word construction dove ‘whence’. Starting in the 16th century, this WHENCE-construction has developed gradually into the Q-stem of the paradigm. Dove ‘whence’ was reanalyzed and thus could replace erstwhile ove ‘where =

|| 22 Our translation: As a consequence of the replacement of UBI with DE UBI in no longer Classical Latin the form dove (< d’ove) emerged; starting with the 16th century when the awareness of the original presence of the preposition in this construction was lost completely, also the expression d’ove (d’ove vieni?) was replaced by the redundant di dove, which only duplicates the preposition which was already fully integrated in the adverb.

162 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe whither’. Parallel to the generalization of dove as Q-stem, the WHENCE-construction as such underwent renovation via reinforcement. The etymologically redundant preposition di ‘from’ was added to the Q-stem to yield the new WHENCEconstruction di dove ‘whence’. What happened to Latin unde ‘whence’ in the Venetian cluster of dialects? Marcato & Ursini (1998: 393) claim that the erstwhile Latin spatial interrogative of Source survives in several regional varieties in various parts of Italy. In each of these cases, the successors of Latin unde ‘whence’ have ousted Latin ubi ‘where’ from the paradigm of spatial interrogatives and thus have become the new Q-stem. The authors do not say so explicitly but it can be conjectured that the generalization of Latin unde ‘whence’ is accompanied by the renovation of the WHENCE-construction. We find evidence of this not only in the Italian context but in various parts of the Romance area. In our sample, there are seventeen Romance varieties which give evidence of a generalized successor of Latin unde ‘whence’ in combination with a reinforced WHENCE-construction, cf. Table 118. Table 118: Romance languages with Q-stem based on Latin unde ‘whence’ (reinforced WHENCEconstruction). Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Moldavian

unde

unde

de unde

Romanian

unde

unde

de unde ~ dincolo ~ dincotro

Gallurese Sardinian

undi

undi

da undi

Eonavian

onde

onde

de onde

Limousin

onte

onte

d’onte

Provençal I

ounte

ounte

d’ounte

Sicilian

unni

unni

runni ~ di unni

Sephardic

onde ~ ande

onde ~ ande

de ande

Piemontese

anté ~ andoa

anté ~ doa

d’anté

Extremaduran

ondi

andi ~ p’aóndi

d’ondi ~ d’andi

Galician

onde

para onde ~ a onde

de onde

Portuguese

onde

onde ~ aonde ~ para onde donde ~ de onde

Occitan (Piemonte)

nté

nté

da nté

Languedocien

ont

ont

d‘ont

Catalan

on

on

d’on

Valenciano

on

on

d’on

Gascon

a on

on

d’on

Micro-level variation in Romance | 163

This means that the process described by Marcato & Ursini (1998: 393) has been relatively wide-spread across the Romance phylum. It cannot be done away with as a diachronic accident. On top of that, the data in Table 119 are suggestive of additional complications. In the four languages mentioned in Table 119, the WHENCE-construction is doubly marked either diachronically or synchronically. Table 119: Doubly marked WHENCE in Romance languages (generalized Latin unde ‘whence’). Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Aranese

a on

tà on

d’a on

Provençal II

ounte ~ mounte

mounte

de mounte

Niçard

doun

doun

de doun

dónde

dónde ~ adónde

de dónde

Spanish

23

In all four of the languages, the Q-stem goes back to Latin unde ‘whence’. In contrast to the languages in Table 118 however, those of Table 119 are peculiar insofar as the whence-construction involves two prepositions or the remnants thereof. In every case, as expected, we find the ablative preposition de ~ d’ ‘from’. For the spatial interrogative of Source Provençal II de mounte ‘whence’, it is not easy to determine the origins of the initial bilabial nasal /m/. It might be the case that this /m/ is the relic of the general locative preposition *in ‘in, at, to’ (cf. below). In Aranese, the ablative preposition combines with the locative preposition a ‘in, at, on’ which also forms part of the WHERE-construction. In the case of Niçard and Spanish, the erstwhile ablative preposition de ‘from’ is also found in the constructions of WHERE and WHITHER. This means that after the first process of generalization of the successor of Latin unde ‘whence’ over the entire paradigm and the disambiguation of WHENCE via reinforcement had taken place the new WHENCE-construction once again was generalized over the paradigm such that a second round of renovation became necessary for the WHENCEconstruction. This is why Niçard de doun ‘whence’ and Spanish de donde ‘whence’ contain two reflexes of the ablative preposition de ‘from’. Multiple marking of WHENCE is not restricted to those cases in which Latin unde ‘whence’ has been generalized in the paradigm. There is ample evidence of the phenomena also with paradigms whose Q-stem can be traced back to Latin ubi ‘where’, cf. Table 120. || 23 For Spanish, cf. also Mackenzie (1978: 143).

164 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 120: Doubly marked WHENCE in Romance languages (generalized Latin ubi ‘where’). Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Sardinian

inue

a nue

da nue

Neapolitan

addo‘

addo‘

‘a do‘

Milanese

in doe

in doe

de doe

Bologna Emiliano

duv

duv ~ in duv

d’in duv

Corsican

induva

induva

da induva ~ donde

Parmigiano

indo‘

indo‘

d’indo‘

Venetian

ndove

ndove

da ndove

Bergamasco

‘nduè

‘nduè

de ‘nduè

Genoese

dove ~ donde

dove ~ donde

de dove ~ donde

Italian24

dove

dove

da dove

Liègeois

wice

wice

di d’wice

Picard

dùsque

dùsque

ed’dùsque

Marcato & Ursini (1998: 391) comment on the phenomenon of reinforced spatial interrogatives other than that of Source [p]er ‘dove’ nei dialetti si trovano spesso nessi formati da preposizioni diverse, e ciò contribuisce a rafforzare la percezione di una sostanziale differenza tra forme tutto sommato molto simili. Nel veneto, ad esempio, è molto frequente la locuzione con la preposizione ‘in’, in-dove, che troviamo anche nel bergamasco; nel campano la fusione avviene con ‘a’, come nel pugliese: addovə, addò.25

In Table 120, the two northern Italian varieties mentioned in the above quote from Marcato & Ursini (1998), Venetian and Bergamasco, conform perfectly to the pattern invoked by the authors. The same holds also for Bologna Emiliano, Corsican, and Parmigiano. In these five varieties spoken on Italian soil, the spatial interrogatives of WHERE and WHITHER are suggestive of diachronic layering. The first layer consists of the successor of Latin ubi ‘where’ alone. The second layer reflects the reinforced WHENCE-construction (i.e. the PP headed by de || 24 For Italian, cf. also Mackenzie (1978: 144). 25 Our translation: “For dove there are very often constructions formed by different prepositions in the dialects, and this contributes to strengthening the perception of a substantial difference of forms which are altogether very similar to each other. In Venetian for instance the construction with the preposition in is very frequent, as in in dove, which we find also in Bergamasco; in Neapolitan the fusion involves a, e.g. Pugliese addovə, addò.”

Micro-level variation in Romance | 165

‘from) which had diffused over the cells of WHERE and WHITHER. The third layer involves an additional reflex of the preposition in ‘in, at, on, to’. Accordingly, the contemporary WHENCE-construction gives evidence of a fourth layer. This can be illustrated with data taken from Corsican:  1st layer: (Latin ubi ‘where’ >) *uva ‘where’  2nd layer: d’ + uva ‘whence’  3rd layer: in + d’uva ‘where’  4th layer: da + ind’uva ‘whence’ Standard Italian, Genoese, Milanese, Neapolitan, and Sardinian testify to two or three diachronic layers. Equally interesting are the spatial interrogatives of Liègeois and Picard. Both these varieties have univerbated the French interrogative pattern [INTERR est-ce (que)]question. This can be demonstrated schematically, cf. Scheme 8. French

où

Liégeois

w-i-ce

est-ce

Scheme 8: Correspondences of French and Liègeois constructions.

On the basis of the syncretic wice ‘where = whither’ it seems plausible to predict that the Liègeois spatial interrogative of Source must be something like *d’wice ‘whence’. However, the attested WHENCE-construction is di d’wice ‘whence’. This attested construction contains two ablative prepositions. In contrast to the Italian cases mentioned in Table 120, the doubly marked WHENCE-construction of Liègeois does not form a paradigm with forms of WHERE and WHITHER which are reinforced themselves. Liègeois is also different from Picard. In this GalloRomance variety, the modern constructions have a diachronic development which resembles that of the above Romance varieties of Italy. The syncretic Picard dùsque ‘where = whither’ is based historically on French d’où est-ce que ‘whence’, cf. Scheme 9. French

Picard

d’

où

est-ce

que

d-ù-s-que

Scheme 9: Correspondences of French and Picard constructions.

166 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe The erstwhile WHENCE-construction must have diffused over the paradigm much in the same way as described above for Italian. In accordance to the Italian model, the WHENCE-construction was reinforced by way of adding a second ablative preposition to the construction: de + [d’ + ùsque]where=whither → [ed’dusque]whence. Scheme 10 summarizes the diachronic processes which are characteristic of the Romance spatial paradigms discussed above.

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Scheme 10: Circular processes in Romance paradigms.

There is an exchange of word-forms between WHERE and WHENCE. Q-stems seem to originate either with WHERE or with WHENCE to diffuse over the paradigm. The role of WHITHER is largely passive in the sense that this category is normally on the receiving end of the process. Owing to the compulsory presence of an ablative preposition in the WHENCE-constructions of the Romance language reviewed in this section, it is tempting to assume that the explicit marking of Source is a (Romance) language-independent property of the paradigmatic cell of WHENCE. Note that univerbated WHENCE-constructions like Friulian dontri, Romanian dincotro and dincolo, Rumantsch danunder, Surmiran-Albula danonder, and Vallader dingionder (all meaning ‘whence’) contain an initial voiced dental plosive /d/ which is a trace of the preposition de/di/da ‘from’. The case of Neapoletan ‘a do’ ‘whence’ is of similar kind since the preposition ‘a ‘from’ is the regular equivalent of Standard Italian da ‘from’ (Fierro 1989: 173). The historical excursus has to be cut short at this point because the continuation of the diachronically-minded exploration requires a broader empirical basis to which we do not have access. However, even this fragmentary account of the developments of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of the Romance languages suffices to demonstrate that the relative markedness of WHENCE is a property that tends to survive all changes which affect the paradigm. Counterexamples to this tendency are extremely rare. The constructions employed for WHENCE are almost always more complex than those of the other members of the paradigm even if the segmental chains are subject to radical changes or new Qstems arise. At the same time, the relative markedness of WHENCE does not preclude that the WHENCE-construction serves as the center of diffusion of a new Qstem, cf. Table 113 above. Moreover, the new WHENCE-derived Q-stem in the cells of WHERE and WHITHER is reinforced by additional prepositions – and this triggers

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 167

the renovation of the WHENCE-construction in accordance to the higher markedness of the spatial category of Source in contrast to the categories of Place and Source. Since these are questions of general importance for the topic of this investigation, their discussion is postponed until Chapters 5–6. Sections 3.2–3.5 will reveal whether the patterns observed in connection to the Romance languages are typical of this branch of the Indo-European languages or a commonality of the languages of Europe.

3.2 Micro-level variation in Germanic 3.2.1

Germanic LPP-varieties

3.2.1.1 Mismatches 3.2.1.1.1 Syncretism Our sample contains forty-two Germanic languages. Two of these – Afrikaans and Pennsylvania German – are not situated in Europe. Their inclusion in the Germanic sub-sample is unproblematic nevertheless because the two extraEuropean varieties confirm the general tendencies which dominate within the group of Germanic languages anyway. The most striking tendency is the clear preference of the Germanic languages for the maximally distinct paradigm of spatial interrogatives. With thirty-seven languages, a majority of 88% of the Germanic component of the sample opts for the paradigm with three formally distinct constructions, cf. Table 121. This leaves a minority of five languages or 12% for other solutions in which syncretism plays a role, cf. Table 122. In this table, the Germanic varieties are ordered according to the formal similarities their spatial interrogatives share. The exclamation mark between square brackets marks those spatial interrogatives which are represented by multi-word constructions in the translations of Le Petit Prince. We put single graphemes in brackets in those cases in which we cannot be sure whether or not the different orthographic renderings of a given spatial interrogative reflect instances of allomorphy. Since many of the languages discussed in this section are regional varieties which lack a normative tradition, it cannot be ruled out that different spellings of the same spatial interrogative are caused by the writer’s insecurity as to the correct form of the construction under review. Therefore, we do not classify these cases of orthographic uncertainty as examples of overabundance.

168 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 121: Maximally distinct paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Icelandic

hvar

hvert

hvaðan

13

Elfdalian

war

wert

weðą̊

16

Swedish

var

vart

var ifrån [!]

16

Luxembourgish

wou

wuer

wou hier [!]

16

Afrikaans

waar

waarnatoe

waar vandaan [!]

14

Dutch

waar

waar heen [!]

waar vandaan [!]

14

Limburgish (South)

woa

woa hin [!]

woa vandaan [!]

14

Frisian (Fering)

huar

huar hen [!]

huar fandaan [!]

16

Frisian (Sölring)

hur

hurhen

hurfan

16

Norwegian (Bokmål)

hvor

hvor hen [!]

hvor fra [!]

16

Drents

waor

waor hen [!]

waor vort [!]

16

Frisian (Frasch)

weer

weer haane [!]

weer jurt [!]

16

Frisian (Western)

wêr

wêr hinne [!]

wêr wei [!]

14

Low German (East Frisia)

wa

war hen [!]

wa(r) her [!]

20

Pennsylvania German

wu

wu anne [!]

wu h(a)er [!]

16

Alemannic

wo

wo hi(n) [!]

wo her [!]

16

Berlin German

wo

wo hin [!]

wo her [!]

16

German

wo

wo hin [!]

woher

18

Ruhr German

wo

wo hin [!]

wo her [!]

16

Upper Austrian German wo Saarlandish

wo

wo hi(n) [!]

wo her [!]

16

woohin

wo häär [!]

16

Tyrolean (Burggräfel)

wou

wo hin [!]

wou her [!]

12

Carinthian

wo

wo hin [!]

wo hea [!]

16

Plautdietsch

woa

woa han [!]

woa häa [!]

16

Alsatian

wo

wo àne [!]

wo har [!]

16

Bavarian

wo

wo hie [!]

wo her [!]

16

Hessian

wo

wo hie [!]

wo her [!]

16

Palatinate

wo

wo hie [!]

wo her [!]

16

Tyrolean (Northern)

wo

wo hi [!]

wo hea [!]

16

Viennese German

wo

wo hi [!]

wo her [!]

16

Lorrain Franconian

wu

wu hin [!]

vun wu [!]

14

Swiss German (Bern)

wo

wo häre [!]

vo wo [!]

14

Swabian

wo

wo na [!]

wo her [!]

16

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 169

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Franconian

wu

wu noo [!]

wu her [!]

16

Frisian (Eastern)

wier

wier wai [!]

wierhäär

16

Danish

hvor ~ hvor henne [!]

hvor hen [!]

hvor fra [!]

14

Low German (Holstein)

woneem ~ neem

woneem hen [!] ~ wo hen [!]

woneem vun weg [!]

16

Table 122: Germanic LPP-varieties with paradigm-internal syncretism. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Faroese

hvar

hvar

hvaðani

16

English

where where

where from [!]

12

Yiddish

vu

vu ~ vu ahin [!]

fun vanen [!]

10

Limburgish (North)

wo

wo na toe [!] ~ wo haer [!] wo vanaaf [!] ~ wo haer [!]

14

Kölsch

wo

wo her [!]

16

wo her [!]

On the whole, the Germanic languages behave markedly differently from the Romance languages. First of all, the majority of the Germanic languages prefer Option I of Table 2 whereas Option I is but a minority solution for the Romance languages. The typical Romance pattern is Option II (Place = Goal) ≠ Source. The pattern Place ≠ Goal ≠ Source is characteristic of the Germanic languages. Syncretism is clearly disfavored. It is exactly the other way round for the Romance languages. What is more, the little evidence there is of syncretism in the Germania comprises two different syncretic patterns. Before we scrutinize these patterns more closely, some basic statistics are called for. In Table 123, it is shown that the excess of attested constructions is much lower than that calculated for the Romance languages in Table 79 above. Table 123: Attested constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

sum

estimate

42

42

42

126

attested

44

45

43

132

increase

+5%

+7%

+2%

+5%

170 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe For each category there should be forty-two constructions. In terms of attested constructions, WHENCE and WHERE count a surplus of one and two constructions, respectively, whereas for WHITHER, there is an excess of three constructions. With just six additional constructions, overabundance cannot be a common property of the Germanic LPP-varieties. Furthermore, of a total of 132 attested constructions, there are only four constructions or 3% of the total which occur in more than one cell of a given paradigm. On this parameter too, Germanic languages and Romance languages go separate ways since the latter yield a share of 26% of all constructions which are multiply employed in a given paradigm. The Germanic languages in Table 122 testify to two distinct syncretic patterns. Three languages (English, Faroese, Yiddish) behave like the vast majority of the Romance language, meaning: they attest to WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism. This is a pattern which has nothing of a surprise about it. This is different with the second pattern illustrated by Limburgish (North) and Kölsch. In these cases, we are facing Option III of Table 2, i.e. the pattern Place ≠ (Goal = Source) with formal indistinction of the two dynamic spatial relations. The formal neutralization of the distinction of the two dynamic spatial relations comes unexpectedly. Creissels (2006: 22) states that he knows of “no evidence for the pattern ‘essive vs. allativeablative’”. The supposed absence of empirical evidence of this syncretic pattern feeds the theory of spatial relations exposed in Lestrade (2010: 93) who assumes that “Goal and Source are only the same if we completely neglect a change in configuration. That is, they can only be encoded by the same marker if Place is encoded by the same marker too”.This means that Goal-Source syncretism automatically translates into Place-Goal-Source syncretism. Option III should thus be excluded from the typology of syncretic patterns. Kölsch and Limburgish (North), however, cast doubt on the tenability of this assumption in its strict form. We will look at this and related cases more closely in Section 3.2.2 below.

3.2.1.1.2 Overabundance The four Germanic LPP-varieties which display multiply occupied cells in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives are surveyed in Table 124. It must be added at this point that the frequent variation of segmentally identical mono-word constructions and multi-word constructions (to be discussed below) as such is not considered to be a case of overabundance.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 171

Table 124: Germanic LPP-varieties which attest to overabundance. Language

WHERE

Danish

hvor ~ hvor henne [!] hvor hen [!]

Low German (Holstein)

woneem ~ neem

woneem hen [!] ~ wo hen [!] woneem vun [!]

Yiddish

vu

vu ~ vu ahin [!]

fun vanen [!]

wo na toe [!] ~ wo haer [!]

wo vanaaf [!] ~ wo haer [!]

WHITHER

Limburgish (North) wo

WHENCE

hvor fra [!]

The number of languages is too small to allow us to draw any conclusions. One notices that WHITHER is affected the most by overabundance in Table 124. This fact is reminiscent of the relative propensity of WHITHER to overabundance in the Romance LPP-varieties (cf. Section 3.1.1.1.2 above). Nevertheless, this phenomenon is by far too infrequent to constitute a recurrent pattern in Germanic. Just 9.5% of the Germanic LPP-varieties give evidence of overabundance. The statistics in Diagram 35 therefore has to be taken with a grain of salt (cf. Diagram 14 above).

whence 1 17%

where 2 33%

whither 3 50%

Diagram 35: Shares of spatial interrogatives of overabundance in Germanic LPP-varieties.

Six of 126 cells are occupied by two synonymous constructions. This is equivalent to a share of 5% of all cells. With 7% the percentage for the Romance LPPvarieties is considerably higher than that calculated for the Germanic LPPvarieties.

172 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 3.2.1.1.3 Suppletion Strong suppletion is absent from the paradigms of the Germanic LPP-varieties. There is evidence of weak suppletion in a very small number of cases. The five languages are listed in Table 125. Table 125: Weak suppletion in paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Germanic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Faroese

hvar

hvar

hvaðani

Icelandic

hvar

hvert

hvaðan

Elfdalian

war

wert

weðą̊

Yiddish

vu

vu ~ vu ahin

fun vanen

Luxembourgish

wou

wuer

wou hier

In Icelandic and Elfdalian, there is vowel alternation from /a/ to /e/. Additionally, the stem-final rhotic consonant /r/ is replaced by the voiced interdental fricative /ð/. These segmental alternations are not predictable on the basis of synchronically productive phonological rules. This is also true not only of Faroese hvaðani ‘whence’ but also of Luxembourgish wuer ‘whither’. In Faroese, the orthographic has no “phonetic value intervocalically” (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 20). The phonetic realization of hvaðani ‘whence’ is [khvę:anɪ], i.e. a vowel-alternation pattern of the Icelandic and Elfdalian kind applies. In Yiddish, the Q-stem vu ‘where = whither’ alternates with va(n)- in vanen ‘whence’ (< Middle High German wannen ‘whence’. The Luxembourgish word-form wuer ‘whither’ will concern us further below when we discuss the data provided by the DGBvarieties. The most probable historical connection of wuer ‘whither’ is with Old High German (h)wara ‘whither’ and Middle High German war ‘whither’. For the sake of the argument, we will discuss an (unlikely) alternative scenario below according to which that Luxembourgish wuer ‘whither’ might have developed from the univerbation of an erstwhile multi-word construction *wou hier ‘whither = whence’ (cf. Section 3.2.2). Faroese, Icelandic, and Elfdalian attest to weak suppletion inherited from the inflexional patterns of Old Norse, Old Icelandic, and Old Swedish. Luxembourgish provides the sole example of weak suppletion that originates from changes which affect the morphosyntactic structure of the construction. At the same time, our hypothesis presupposes that the syncretic pattern Place ≠ (Goal = Source) was more wide-spread among Germanic languages of the past.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 173

3.2.1.1.4 Periphrasis With periphrasis we enter uncertain territory, in a manner of speaking. In contrast to the relatively straightforward situation in Romance, the Germanic languages pose problems in connection with this parameter. To avoid lengthy discussions of too many side-issues, we resort to stipulating a distinction of periphrasis and multi-word construction which has much of an ad-hoc solution. In Section 2.2.4 above, no distinction of this kind has been mentioned since only clear cases are discussed there. Similarly, in Section 3.1.1.1.4 dedicated to periphrasis within the Romance component of the sample, it was not necessary to expound the problems of the notions under scrutiny because the evidence from Romance fits the description of periphrasis perfectly. The same cannot be said sweepingly about the Germanic data. The problems with the Germanic data arise from the fact that in many languages of this group, polymorphic spatial interrogatives allow for the directional marker to be detached from the host (i.e. normally the Q-stem) to wind up in clause-final position. Since stranding of the directional marker is optional in a variety of the languages under review, we shrink back from lumping together these cases with instances of compulsory discontinuous constructions in which Q-stem and directional marker never join to yield a mono-word construction. Given that the LPP-versions do not provide a sufficiently broad empirical basis on which to decide whether a phenomenon is obligatory or optional, we stipulate the following rules:  If throughout the sample text the construction of a given spatial interrogative is consistently of the mono-word kind, the construction is ruled out as an instance of periphrasis as well as of multi-word constructions for the LPPvariety.  If throughout the sample text the construction of a given spatial interrogative is consistently of the multi-word kind, the construction is considered to be an instance of periphrasis as well as of multi-word constructions for the LPP-variety.  If in the sample text a morphologically continuous construction and discontinuous construction which are both identical as to their component parts compete with each other, this competition is taken as evidence against periphrasis; at the same time, the possibility to detach the elements of the construction from each other counts as proof of the potential multi-word character of the construction.

174 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe These rules are meant to facilitate the analysis of the LPP-varieties. The discussion of the DGB-varieties will clarify some of the issues which remain problematic on account of the above stipulations. With these stipulations, we can set up Table 126. In this table, all instances of periphrastic constructions are assembled. Those constructions which meet the criteria exposed above as rules for the distinguishing periphrasis from optional multi-word constructions host cells which are shaded in grey. Multi-word constructions of all kinds are marked by an exclamation mark. Multi-word constructions which fail to qualify for the status of periphrasis appear in boldface. Table 126: (Anti-)periphrastic constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

English

where

where

where from [!]

Afrikaans

waar

waarnatoe

waar vandaan [!]

Saarlandish

wo

woohin

wo häär [!]

Yiddish

vu

vu ~ vu ahin [!]

fun vanen [!]

Lorrain Franconian

wu

wu hin [!]

vun wu [!]

Dutch

waar

waar heen [!]

waar vandaan [!]

Franconian

wu

wu noo [!]

wu her [!]

Tyrolean (Burggräfel)

wou

wo hin [!]

wou her [!]

Carinthian

wo

wo hin [!]

wo hea [!]

Tyrolean (Northern)

wo

wo hi [!]

wo hea [!]

Viennese German

wo

wo hi [!]

wo her [!]

Danish

hvor ~ hvor henne [!] hvor hen [!]

hvor fra [!]

Limburgish (South)

woa

woa hin [!]

woa vandaan [!]

Frisian (Fering)

huar

huar hen [!]

huar fandaan [!]

Norwegian (Bokmål)

hvor

hvor hen [!]

hvor fra [!]

Drents

waor

waor hen [!]

waor vort [!]

Frisian (Frasch)

weer

weer haane [!]

weer jurt [!]

Frisian (Western)

wêr

wêr hinne [!]

wêr wei [!]

Low German (East Frisia) wa

war hen [!]

wa(r) her [!]

Pennsylvania German

wu

wu anne [!]

wu h(a)er [!]

Alemannic

wo

wo hi(n) [!]

wo her [!]

Berlin German

wo

wo hin [!]

wo her [!]

Ruhr German

wo

wo hin [!]

wo her [!]

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 175

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Upper Austrian German

wo

wo hi(n) [!]

wo her [!]

Plautdietsch

woa

woa han [!]

woa häa [!]

Alsatian

wo

wo àne [!]

wo har [!]

Bavarian

wo

wo hie [!]

wo her [!]

Hessian

wo

wo hie [!]

wo her [!]

Palatinate

wo

wo hie [!]

wo her [!]

Swiss German (Bern)

wo

wo häre [!]

vo wo [!]

Low German (Holstein)

woneem ~ neem

woneem hen [!] ~ wo hen [!] woneem vun weg [!]

Limburgish (North)

wo

wo na toe [!] ~ wo haer [!]

wo vanaaf [!] ~ wo haer [!]

Kölsch

wo

wo her [!]

wo her [!]

Periphrasis is attested in thirty-three of the Germanic LPP-varieties. This is equivalent of a share of 71% of this sub-set of the sample. Of the thirty-five WHERE-constructions, only one comes in the shape of a multi-word construction, namely Danish hvor henne ‘where’. However, since all cells of the Danish paradigm host multi-word constructions this WHERE-construction is not an instance of periphrasis. The alternative hvor ‘where’ is an instance of anti-periphrasis. In contrast to the absence of proper periphrasis with WHERE, there is evidence of twenty-four cases of periphrasis with WHITHER and thirty-four cases of periphrasis with WHENCE, cf. Diagram 36. where 0 0% whither whence 34

24 41%

59%

Diagram 36: Shares of periphrastic spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties.

176 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe This means also that every WHENCE-construction in Table 126 is periphrastic whereas 67% of the thirty-six WHITHER-constructions in the same table are periphrastic, too. Furthermore, periphrasis on the side of WHITHER always implies that there is periphrasis also with WHENCE, cf. Scheme 11. periphrasiswhither



periphrasiswhence

Scheme 11: Implicational relation of periphrastic constructions.

As to the distinction of anti-periphrasis and proper periphrasis, it can be said that the mono-word constructions which represent WHERE are isolated in the paradigm in twenty-four cases. On the other hand, periphrastic WHENCE-constructions share the same fate in three languages (English, Afrikaans, and Saarlandish). In another seven languages, WHITHER allows optionally for multiword constructions so that it is difficult to determine whether we are dealing with periphrasis or anti-periphrasis. Diagram 37 summarizes these values (cf. Diagram 16 for the Romance languages). whither 0 0%

whence 3 11%

where 24 89%

Diagram 37: Shares of (anti-)periphrastic spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties.

In the context of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives, anti-periphrasis plays a major role in Germanic while it is of relatively little import to Romance languages. This difference between the two genetically defined groups of languages finds a relatively simple explanation in the fact that Romance languages overwhelmingly attest to WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism so that there is a 2-to-1

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 177

majority of mono-word constructions in the paradigm. Any periphrastic WHENCEconstruction is thus automatically representative of a minority solution, i.e. it testifies to periphrasis. In the Germanic case, it is the other way around. Since syncretism is generally scarce in the Germanic LPP-varieties, and since WHITHER as well as WHENCE tend to be expressed by multi-word constructions, mono-word WHERE-constructions are usually isolated in the paradigm and thus give evidence of anti-periphrasis. Periphrastic constructions are commonplace in Germanic paradigms of spatial interrogatives. Diagram 38 demonstrates that the percentage of periphrastic constructions is highest in the case of WHENCE. For this category, the share of periphrastic constructions is almost as high as 80%. As to WHITHER, the share of periphrastic constructions exceeds the 50%-mark by a wide margin. 50

45

44

43

40

34

30

24

20 10 0

0 where

whither attested

whence

periphrastic

Diagram 38: Share of periphrastic constructions across all constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties.

Discounting a number of details, what one can say is that the Germanic data yield a picture which is largely in conformity with the picture which results from the analysis of the Romance LPP-varieties, namely that WHENCE is particularly prone to being expressed by periphrastic constructions (cf. Section 3.1.1.1.4 above).

3.2.1.1.5 Fused exponence Fusion is marginal in the Germanic paradigms under scrutiny. As in the Romance cases, we interpret all instances of mono-word WHERE-constructions as

178 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe bare Q-stems, i.e. as examples of zero-marked Place. This practice does not leave much space for fused exponence. Arguably, fused exponence can be expected to co-occur with suppletion which in turn is a relatively infrequent phenomenon in this group of languages too. The first four examples in Table 127 are identical to four of the five languages presented in Table 125 above as examples of weak suppletion. The word-forms which might be considered to be something akin to portmanteau-morphs occupy the cells which are highlighted by grey shading. Their status is controversial because it remains to be established via (psycholinguistic) tests whether or not speakers of these languages analyze the word-forms as amorphous chunks or as complex units with an internal morpheme-boundary. Table 127: Fused exponence in Germanic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Faroese

hvar

hvar

hvaðani

Icelandic

hvar

hvert

hvaðan

Elfdalian

war

wert

weðą̊

Luxembourgish

wou

wuer

wou hier

Low German (Holstein)

woneem ~ neem

woneem hen ~ wo hen

woneem vun

The data from Low German (Holstein) are more interesting. In the WHERE-cell of this variety, there is overabundance. The long or full form of the spatial interrogative of Place woneem ‘where’ competes with the short form neem ‘where’. The latter form results from the optional aphaeresis of the initial syllable which is identical to the Q-stem. This reduction yields a word-form which lacks overt marking of interrogativity. Two interpretations are conceivable. One may argue that the short form neem ‘where’ is zero-marked for interrogativity because it retains but the general reference to space. Alternatively, neem ‘where’ could be understood as a portmanteau-morph in which interrogativity and spatial reference are fused. Since -neem occurs also in the WHITHER-construction woneem ‘whither’ and the WHENCE-construction woneem vun ‘whence’, it cannot be identified as marker of the spatial relation of Place. However, there is also the alternative WHITHER-construction wo hen ‘whither’ from which -neem is absent. On the basis of the general rarity of robust evidence of fused exponence in the paradigms of the Germanic LPP-varieties, the statistics in Diagram 39 must be read with caution.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 179

where 1 20% whence 3 60%

whither 1 20%

Diagram 39: Shares of spatial interrogatives of fused exponence in Germanic LPP-varieties.

The infrequency of the phenomenon observed with the Germanic LPP-varieties conforms to the rarity of fused exponence in the Romance LPP-varieties. Similar to the statistics in Diagram 17 above, there is a preference for WHENCE as the category which is affected by fused exponence.

3.2.1.1.6 Results The results of the foregoing subsections are summarized in Diagram 40. These results differ from those of the Romance LPP-varieties of Diagram 18 above. 100% 90%

2

3

1

80% 4

70% 60% 50%

5

3

3

30% 20% 10%

whither

24

40%

1 3

2

syncretism

overabundance

whence

where

3 1

0% suppletion

periphrasis

fused exponence

Diagram 40: Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in Germanic LPP-varieties.

180 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe What strikes the eye immediately is the comparatively low turnout of the Germanic LPP-varieties in terms of the number of mismatches. With a total of fiftyfive cases, the Germanic LPP-varieties cover a third of the 159 cases attested in the Romance LPP-varieties. This pronounced statistical difference characterizes the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of the Germanic LPP-varieties as tendentially more regular or closer to the canonical type. In contrast, the Romance LPP-varieties score lower on the parameters of canonicity. The relative scarcity of mismatches attested in the Germanic LPP-varieties has the side-effect that the statistics appear to be slightly skewed. This skew is obvious in Diagrams 40–41. 100%

1

1

90%

3

80%

3

70% 60%

fused exponence

3 24

50%

3 suppletion

40%

4 overabundance

30% 5

20% 10% 0%

periphrasis

1

2 2

3 where

syncretism

whither

whence

Diagram 41: Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in Germanic LPP-varieties.

In both diagrams, the statistical weight of anti-periphrasis makes itself felt. Were it not for this parameter, the two dynamic spatial relations of Goal and Source would clearly outnumber the static relation of Place in terms of the number of mismatches. WHENCE is also the sole spatial interrogative which partakes in each of the five categories of mismatches. Note that periphrasis and

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 181

anti-periphrasis are responsible for more than half of all mismatches. None of the other four mismatches lays claim to a share that exceeds 25%. The Romance LPP-varieties clearly favor syncretism (with 51%) over (anti-)periphrasis (with 24.5%) as Diagram 19 above suggests. What can be generalized on the above basis is that if WHERE or WHITHER are affected by mismatches, the same kind of mismatch also affects WHENCE. This is an implication which does not hold for individual languages but across the genetically defined group of languages. Additionally, it can be said that there is  a 50% probability that periphrasis applies,  a 100% certainty that WHITHER is not involved if we are dealing with periphrasis, and  a probability of almost 90% that WHERE is involved if we are dealing with periphrasis. The combinations of pairs of mismatches in one and the same paradigm do not come in great amounts. Table 128 shows that there are considerably less combinations of this kind in the Germanic LPP-varieties than there are in the Romance LPP-varieties as surveyed in Table 71 above. Table 128: Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm in Germanic LPP-varieties. Syncretism Overabundance Suppletion Periphrasis Fused sum exponence syncretism

2

overabundance 2

1 1

1

1

5

3

1

7

1

4

7

suppletion

1

1

periphrasis

1

3

1

fused exponence

1

1

4

2

Total

5

7

7

7

2

7 8

8

34

None of the mismatches stands out from the others. The sums and totals for the five categories are relatively close to one another. The low values in the above table are indicative of a general avoidance of the accumulation of mismatches in a given paradigm. Germanic LPP-varieties clearly disfavor the occurrence of more than one mismatch per paradigm. In contrast, Romance LPP-varieties are by far less restrictive as to the number of mismatches, cf. Section 3.1.1.1.6 above.

182 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 3.2.1.2 Constructional complexity 3.2.1.2.1 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions The problems which are associated with the distinction of periphrastic constructions and multi-word constructions have been discussed in Section 3.2.1.1.4 above. For this section, however, the distinction of the two types of constructions is irrelevant. The question that interests us here is that of whether or not a spatial interrogative may or may not be represented by a discontinuous construction which involves at least two separate syntactic words. It is of no avail whether the construction is properly periphrastic or has to be classified differently. Table 129 presents the full list of those Germanic LPP-varieties which meet the criterion of expressing, at least once, one of the categories via a construction that consists of two or more words in the sample text. In point of fact, this table is an extended version of Table 126. In contrast to the latter, Table 129 also hosts German, Swedish, and Swabian. Grey shading is employed for those cells which host a multi-word construction. In the case of overabundance which involves mono-word and multi-word constructions in one and the same cell, the multiword construction is marked by boldface. Table 129: Multi-word constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

German

wo

wo hin

woher

Swedish

var

vart

var ifrån

English

where

where

where from

Afrikaans

waar

waarnatoe

waar vandaan

Luxembourgish

wou

wuer

wou hier

Saarlandish

wo

woohin

wo häär

Yiddish

vu

vu ~ vu ahin

fun vanen

Swabian

wo

wo na

wo her

Lorrain Franconian

wu

wu hin

vun wu

Dutch

waar

waar heen

waar vandaan

Franconian

wu

wu noo

wu her

Tyrolean (Burggräfel)

wou

wo hin

wou her

Carinthian

wo

wo hin

wo hea

Tyrolean (Northern)

wo

wo hi

wo hea

Viennese German

wo

wo hi

wo her

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 183

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Limburgish (South)

woa

woa hin

woa vandaan

Frisian (Fering)

huar

huar hen

huar fandaan

Norwegian (Bokmål)

hvor

hvor hen

hvor fra

Drents

waor

waor hen

waor vort

Frisian (Frasch)

weer

weer haane

weer jurt

Frisian (Western)

wêr

wêr hinne

wêr wei

Low German (East Frisia)

wa

war hen

wa(r) her

Pennsylvania German

wu

wu anne

wu h(a)er

Alemannic

wo

wo hi(n)

wo her

Berlin German

wo

wo hin

wo her

Ruhr German

wo

wo hin

wo her

Upper Austrian German

wo

wo hi(n)

wo her

Plautdietsch

woa

woa han

woa häa

Alsatian

wo

wo àne

wo har

Bavarian

wo

wo hie

wo her

Hessian

wo

wo hie

wo her

Palatinate

wo

wo hie

wo her

Swiss German(Bern)

wo

wo häre

vo wo

Low German(Holstein)

woneem ~ neem

woneem hen~ wo hen

woneem vun weg

Limburgish (North)

wo

wo na toe ~ wo haer

wo vanaaf ~ wo haer

Kölsch

wo

wo her

wo her

Danish

hvor ~ hvor henne

hvor hen

hvor fra

There are thirty-seven LPP-varieties which give evidence of multi-word constructions. The occurrence of multi-word constructions is thus a majority feature. 88% of all Germanic LPP-varieties share this feature. This percentage is almost identical to that of the Romance LPP-varieties which yield a share of 87% on this parameter. Thirty-six of the thirty-seven languages of Table 129 display multi-word constructions with WHENCE, thirty-two languages have multi-word constructions with WHITHER, but only one Germanic LPP-variety allows for a multi-word construction with WHERE, namely Danish. German is the only example of a Germanic LPP-variety that testifies to multi-word WHITHER in the absence of evidence of multi-word WHENCE.

184 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe There are altogether seventy-two multi-word constructions which distribute almost equally over the categories of WHITHER and WHENCE with multi-word WHERE occurring as a singularity, cf. Diagram 42. where 1

whence

2%

37 51% whither 34 47%

Diagram 42: Skewed distribution of multi-word constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties.

The vast majority of all WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of the Germanic LPP-varieties come in the shape of multi-word constructions, cf. Diagram 43. 50

45

44

40

43 34

37

30 20 10

1

0 where

whither total

whence

share

Diagram 43: Share of multi-word constructions across all constructions per spatial interrogative in Germanic LPP-varieties.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 185

In the case of WHENCE, the Germanic LPP-varieties and the Romance LPP-varieties display parallel behavior. This is strikingly different as to WHITHER. According to Table 95, only 17% of the Romance LPP-varieties have multi-word constructions for WHITHER whereas three quarters of the Germanic LPP-varieties employ multiword constructions to represent WHITHER. The frequent representation of WHITHER by multi-word constructions contributes to the huge share this construction type has of the total of all constructions. More than half of all constructions go to the credit of multi-word constructions. Romance LPP-varieties restrict the share of multi-word constructions to slightly more than a third of all cases. As mentioned above, German provides the sole example of a Germanic LPPvariety which violates the implication in Scheme 12 (cf. Scheme 6 above). mono-word WHERE

 multi-word WHITHER



multi-word WHENCE

Scheme 12: Implication of multi-word constructions.

The implication is thus demoted to the status of a very strong preference or statistical implication. The combinations of mono-word constructions and multi-word-constructions of different spatial categories in a given paradigm do not yield any statistically surprising results. None of the dynamic spatial relations gives ever rise to a construction that contains less words than that of WHERE. Since 98% of all WHERE-constructions are mono-word constructions and the vast majority of the other constructions are multi-word constructions, the outcome is predictable for Tables 130–131. Table 130: Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

Sum

mono-word

multi-word

mono-word

10

37

47

multi-word

0

1

1

Total

10

38

48

186 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 131: Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

mono-word

multi-word

mono-word

6

38

44

multi-word

0

1

1

Total

6

39

45

In terms of the number of words, WHERE and WHITHER display the same degree of complexity in eleven combinations whereas the same holds for combinations of WHERE and WHENCE in seven instances. Normally – and that means in 84% of all combinations – the spatial interrogatives of Goal and/or Source exceed the number of words that is required for expressing WHERE. For the combinations of WHITHER and WHENCE, it is of interest to subdivide the category of multi-word constructions into binary and ternary constructions, cf. Table 132. Table 132: Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

mono-word

binary

ternary

mono-word

4

6

0

10

binary

2

31

2

35

ternary

0

2

0

2

Total

6

39

2

47

In thirty-five out of forty-seven cases, WHITHER and WHENCE are of equal complexity, i.e. in almost 75% of all combinations, the number of word is not distinctive of the constructions. In eight cases (= 17%), the construction of WHENCE counts one word in excess. In four cases (= 8%), it is the WHITHER-construction which is more complex. The high incidence of WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism in the Romance LPP-varieties and the almost complete absence of this pattern from the Germanic LPP-varieties are responsible for the markedly different behavior of the two sub-families in the realm of the combinations of construction types. In the Romance set of languages, WHERE and WHITHER are of the same length relatively

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 187

frequently whereas equal length of WHITHER and WHENCE is rarely attested, cf. Section 3.1.1.2.1. The average numbers of words of the constructions of the three spatial interrogatives are given in Table 133. With the exception of the value calculated for WHITHER, the Germanic averages closely resemble those of the Romance LPPvarieties, cf. Table 76 above. Table 133: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of words per construction) in Germanic LPP-varieties.

words

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.0

1.7

1.9

1.5

Unsurprisingly the conclusion of this section is similar to that of Section 3.1.1.2.1. On the parameter of mono-word constructions vs. multi-wordconstructions, WHERE is given the score of ‘0’, WHITHER that of ‘1’, and WHENCE that of ‘2’. Similar to the Romance results, this result meets our expectations. It is tempting therefore to speculate that the remaining parameters will yield similarly consistent results.

3.2.1.2.2 Morphs The preponderance of multi-word constructions addressed in the previous subsection makes it plausible to assume that polymorphism must play an important role in the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Germanic LPP-varieties. Polymorphism is indeed typical of WHITHER and WHENCE as the survey in Table 134 demonstrates. Those cells which host a polymorphic construction are marked by grey shading. In case of overabundance with a monomorphic alloform in the same cell, the polymorphic construction is printed in bold additionally. Table 134: Polymorphic spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Icelandic

hvar

hvert

hvaðan

Elfdalian

war

wert

weðą̊

English

where

where

where from

Luxembourgish

wou

wuer

wou hier

188 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Yiddish

vu

vu ~ vu ahin

fun vanen

German

wo

wo hin

woher

Swedish

var

vart

var ifrån

Frisian (Sölring)

hur

hurhen

hurfan

Afrikaans

waar

waarnatoe

waar vandaan

Saarlandish

wo

woohin

wo häär

Swabian

wo

wo na

wo her

Lorrain Franconian

wu

wu hin

vun wu

Dutch

waar

waar heen

waar vandaan

Franconian

wu

wu noo

wu her

Tyrolean (Burggräfel)

wou

wo hin

wou her

Carinthian

wo

wo hin

wo hea

Tyrolean (Northern)

wo

wo hi

wo hea

Viennese German

wo

wo hi

wo her

Limburgish (South)

woa

woa hin

woa vandaan

Frisian (Fering)

huar

huar hen

huar fandaan

Norwegian (Bokmål)

hvor

hvor hen

hvor fra

Drents

waor

waor hen

waor vort

Frisian (Frasch)

weer

weer haane

weer jurt

Frisian (Western)

wêr

wêr hinne

wêr wei

Low German(East Frisia)

wa

war hen

wa(r) her

Pennsylvania German

wu

wu anne

wu h(a)er

Alemannic

wo

wo hi(n)

wo her

Berlin German

wo

wo hin

wo her

Ruhr German

wo

wo hin

wo her

Upper Austrian German

wo

wo hi(n)

wo her

Plautdietsch

woa

woa han

woa häa

Alsatian

wo

wo àne

wo har

Bavarian

wo

wo hie

wo her

Hessian

wo

wo hie

wo her

Palatinate

wo

wo hie

wo her

Swiss German (Bern)

wo

wo häre

vo wo

Limburgish (North)

wo

wo na toe ~ wo haer

wo vanaaf ~ wo haer

Kölsch

wo

wo her

wo her

Low German (Holstein)

woneem ~ neem

woneem hen ~ wo hen woneem vun weg

Danish

hvor ~ hvor henne

hvor hen

hvor fra

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 189

As a matter of fact, the languages mentioned in Table 129 are properly included in the set formed by those languages which are presented in Table 134. The latter table contains forty languages, i.e. 95% of all Germanic LPP-varieties host at least one polymorphic construction in their paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Low German (Holstein) and Danish are special in the sense that these language attest to polymorphism in all cells of the paradigm. None of the other Germanic LPP-varieties witnesses polymorphism with WHERE. Diagram 44 shows that WHITHER and WHENCE are almost equally prone to being expressed by polymorphic constructions whereas WHERE hardly ever needs more than a single morph to yield a spatial interrogative of Place.

where 2

whence

3%

39 48%

whither 40 49%

Diagram 44: Shares the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of polymorphic constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties.

The bulk of the polymorphic constructions stems from those spatial interrogatives which inquire about dynamic spatial relations. In both cases, i.e. WHITHER and WHENCE, about 90% of all constructions employed for the categories at hand are polymorphic. As to WHERE, the relation is inverted because in 95.5% of all spatial interrogatives of Place, we are dealing with monomorphic constructions, cf. Diagram 45. There are fifty-one monomorphic constructions in total of which forty-two or 82% go to the credit of WHERE. The two dynamic spatial relations have almost identical shares of 9% each.

190 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

50

45

44

40

43

40

39

30 20 10

2

0 where

whither total

whence

share

Diagram 45: Share of polymorphic constructions across all constructions per spatial interrogative in Germanic LPP-varieties.

The maximum length in terms of the number of morphs which form a construction is four. Monomorphicity associates with WHERE. In contrast, polymorphicity is the privilege of the dynamic spatial relations. Beyond dimorphicity, the probability grows that a polymorphic construction serves to express WHENCE, cf. Diagrams 46–47. 100% 90% 80%

4 5 31

70% 60% 50% 40%

whence

7 1 42

30%

36

20%

where

4

10%

whither

2

0% monomorphic

dimorphic

trimorphic

tetramorphic

Diagram 46: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Germanic LPP-varieties.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 191

100% 90%

2

1

4

7

80%

tetramorphic

70% 60% 50% 40%

trimorphic

36

42

31 dimorphic

30% 20% 10%

4

whither

whence

0% where

monomorphic

5

Diagram 47: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Germanic LPP-varieties.

Interestingly, the most complex of all attested constructions is used for the expression of WHENCE not only in the Germanic LPP-varieties but also in the Romance LPP-varieties as the discussion in Section 3.1.1.2.2 above shows. The combinations of WHERE-constructions on those of the dynamic spatial relation in a given paradigm do not add much to what we know already. Tables 135-136 provide just another perspective on the same constellation of facts. The gist of what the values tell us is that no construction ever counts less morphs than that of WHERE. Equal length in terms of the number of morphs is statistically negligible for the combinations which involve WHERE. Table 135: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

Sum

monomorphic

polymorphic

monomorphic

5

40

45

polymorphic

0

3

3

Total

5

43

48

192 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 136: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

monomorphic

polymorphic

monomorphic

4

39

43

polymorphic

0

2

2

Total

4

41

45

Slightly more interesting are the results in the case of combinations of WHITHERconstructions and WHENCE-constructions. For these categories, it is worthwhile to subdivide the criterion of polymorphicity further, cf. Table 137. Table 137: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

monomorphic

dimorphic

trimorphic

tetramorphic

monomorphic

2

2

1

0

5

dimorphic

2

29

5

1

37

trimorphic

0

1

3

1

5

Total

4

32

9

2

47

In thirty-four out of forty-seven pairs of WHITHER and WHENCE, the constructions of the spatial interrogatives of Goal and Source have the same length. This means that in 72.5% of all combinations involving these two categories, they cannot be told apart by way of counting the morphs. Of the thirteen cases in which different length applies, ten (= 21.5%) show WHENCE to be represented by the more complex construction. The remaining three cases (= 6%) attest to the opposite, namely a WHITHER-construction which is more complex than that of WHENCE. Compared to WHERE, both WHITHER and WHENCE give very clear evidence of being marked since the spatial interrogatives of the two dynamic relations are normally more complex than the spatial interrogative of Place (on the parameter of the number of morphs). This difference is also evident from the average number of morphs of the categories under scrutiny, cf. Table 138.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 193

Table 138: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphs per construction) in Germanic LPP-varieties.

morphs

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.0

2.0

2.1

1.7

In contrast to the averages calculated for the Romance LPP-varieties in Table 106 above, we notice a realignment of WHITHER. In the Romance case, the average of WHITHER (1.2) is relatively close to that of WHERE (1.1) and at a distance from that of WHENCE (2.0). The Germanic LPP-varieties yield a different result. With averages of 2.0 and 2.1 morphs per WHITHER-construction and WHENCEconstruction, respectively, the spatial interrogatives of the dynamic Goal and Source display equal complexity – a complexity which is markedly higher than that of WHERE (1.0). On this basis, it might be argued that both WHITHER and WHENCE should be given a score of ‘2’. However, there is additional evidence (as e.g. the big share WHENCE has of constructions whose complexity exceeds that of dimorphic constructions) which is indicative of the inequality of WHITHER and WHENCE. The latter category tends to display more of those properties which are typical signs of a higher degree of complexity. Therefore, the by now usual scores are assigned, namely ‘0’ for WHERE, ‘1’ for WHITHER, and ‘2’ for WHENCE with the addendum that this time it has been a very close run between WHITHER and WHENCE as to which of the two is entitled to the high score.

3.2.1.2.3 Morphemes The discussion of morphemes can be abridged to avoid too much repetition. It is clear from the two preceding subsections that polymorphemic constructions must abound in the Germanic LPP-varieties. This assumption is corroborated by the facts. In Table 139, we present the three cases of “unexpected” monomorphemic constructions. These constructions are found in the cells which are shaded in grey. In the case of Yiddish, the construction under review is additionally highlighted in boldface. There is no need to elaborate on the fact that forty-two of forty-three WHEREconstructions are monomorphemic. Similarly unsurprising is the fact that all of the forty-three WHENCE-constructions are polymorphemic. In point of fact, all but three of the WHITHER-constructions are polymorphemic too.

194 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 139: Monomorphemic WHITHER-constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Faroese

hvar

hvar

hvaðani

English

where

where

where from

Yiddish

vu

vu ~ vu ahin

fun vanen

The three exceptional constructions are connected to WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism, i.e. the typical monomorphemic character of the spatial interrogative of Place is replicated by the syncretic spatial interrogative of Goal. Polymorphemic constructions are overwhelmingly dimorphemic. Low German (Holstein) woneem hen ‘whither’ and woneem vun weg ‘whence’ are the sole examples of trimorphemic constructions. The Low German (Holstein) WHENCE-construction consists of four morphs {wo}1-{neem}2 {vun}3 {weg}4 which correspond to three morphemes {Q}1{space}2 {Source}3+4. There is no evidence of constructions which go beyond trimorphemicity. The distribution of the different constructions is displayed in Diagrams 48– 49. Monomorphemicity and polymorphemicity are more or less in complementary distribution. The former has its stronghold with WHERE while dimorphemic and trimorphemic constructions associate almost exclusively with WHITHER and WHENCE. Slightly less than 100% of all monomorphemic constructions express WHERE. On the other hand, almost 100% of all polymorphemic constructions express either WHITHER or WHENCE. Only in the case of WHITHER do we find a small share of monomorphemic constructions – otherwise the dynamic spatial relations avoid monomorphemic constructions under interrogation. 100%

3

80%

42

1 whence

60% 40%

42

whither

41

20%

1

where

2

0% monomorphemic

dimorphemic

trimorphemic

Diagram 48: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphemes in Germanic LPP-varieties.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 195

100%

1

2

1

80% trimorphemic

60%

41

42

40%

42

dimorphemic

monomorphemic

20% 3

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 49: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphemes in Germanic LPP-varieties.

Since all WHENCE-constructions are polymorphemic, it is not necessary to check the combinations of WHERE and WHENCE nor those of WHITHER and WHENCE. This situation is reminiscent of that observed with the Romance LPP-varieties in Section 3.1.1.2.3 above. It suffices to glance at Table 140 which captures the combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions. Table 140: Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

Sum

monomorphemic

polymorphemic

monomorphemic

3

42

polymorphemic

0

3

3

Total

3

45

48

45

The results are unspectacular. Owing to the existence of only two polymorphemic WHERE-constructions, there are not too many chances for WHITHERconstructions to count fewer morphemes than the corresponding WHEREconstruction in the same paradigm. The two dimorphemic spatial interrogatives of Place belong to paradigms in which the cell of WHITHER is affected by overabundance. Thus, Low German (Holstein) woneem ‘where’ must be checked against woneem hen ‘whither’ and wo hen ‘whither’ while Danish hvor henne

196 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe ‘where’ has to be checked against hvor hen ‘whither’ and hvor fra ‘whence’. In none of these cases is the WHITHER-construction less complex than the WHEREconstruction in terms of the number of morphemes. The averages computed for the number of morphemes are similar to those given for the number of morphs (cf. Table 138 above). Table 141 paints the same picture as usual – with WHERE occupying the low end of the scale and WHENCE being positioned on the opposite extreme. Table 141: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphemes per construction) in Germanic LPP-varieties.

morphs

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.0

1.9

2.0

1.7

In accordance to the usual practice, the low average of WHERE justifies the score of ‘0’ whereas WHITHER and WHENCE are given ‘1’ and ‘2’, respectively. The distance between WHITHER and WHENCE is 0.1 and thus as short as that on the parameter of the number of morphs. As to the Romance LPP-varieties, Table 113 above also yields a difference of only 0.1 – but this time the categories of WHERE and WHITHER are involved.

3.2.1.2.4 Zero-marking The crucial bits of information have already been given in the foregoing subsections. It is known that WHERE-constructions are overwhelmingly monomorphic and monomorphemic. This means that of the two categories which are involved only one is expressed overtly. Since the WHERE-constructions usually also function as the Q-stem in a given paradigm of spatial interrogatives, it is clear that interrogativity is overtly expressed whereas the spatial relation of Place is not represented by any material exponent. This also holds for the exceptionally complex Low German (Holstein) woneem ‘where’ which is dimorphic and dimorphemic because in our analysis -neem is a morpheme which derives spatial interrogatives from the general interrogative stem wo-. Danish hvor henne ‘where’ is different though because the optional directional morpheme henne forms a triplet with the obligatory directionality markers hen ‘hither’ and fra ‘from’ of the WHITHER-construction and the WHENCE-construction, respectively. Danish hvor henne ‘where’ therefore constitutes a unique case of overt marking

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 197

of Place on a spatial interrogative of Place within the set of Germanic LPPvarieties. In the above, ample evidence has been provided of the polymorphic and polymorphemic character of the spatial interrogatives of Goal and Source. Zeromarking is completely barred with WHENCE. WHITHER allows for being zeromarked only in those cases in which WHERE-WHITHER-syncretism applies. Accordingly, Table 142 is an exact replica of Table 139 above. Grey shading is used for those cells which host a zero-marked WHITHER. Yiddish vu ‘where = whither’ in the function of spatial interrogative of Goal comes in boldface to distinguish it additionally from the synonymous polymorphic vu ahin ‘whither’. Table 142: Zero-marked WHITHER-constructions in Germanic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Faroese

hvar

hvar

hvaðani

English

where

where

where from

Yiddish

vu

vu ~ vu ahin

fun vanen

Since there is a huge overlap of monomorphicity, monomorphemicity, and zeromarking, the statistics in this subsection are very similar to those presented in the Sections 3.2.1.2.2–3.2.1.2.3. It is therefore advisable to keep this section as short as possible. Diagrams 50–51 show the distribution of zero-marked and overtly marked constructions. No Germanic LPP-variety lacks zero-marking. There is only one WHERE-construction that marks Place overtly. No spatial interrogative of Source is ever affected by zero-marking. WHERE and WHENCE occupy the two extremes of the scale with each of them monopolizing different types of construction. In the vast majority of the cases, WHITHER behaves like WHENCE. However, there is a very small set of exceptions to this rule. The three instances of zero-marking of WHITHER are insufficient though to challenge the strong position of WHERE as the category that is zero-marked by default. Thus, in contrast to the situation in the Romance LPP-varieties, only WHERE deserves the score of ‘0’ whereas both WHITHER and WHENCE are given the score of ‘1’.

198 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 100%

3

80%

43 whence

60% 43

40%

whither

where

42

20%

1

0% zero-marking

overt marking

Diagram 50: Distribution of spatial interrogatives across zero-marking and overt marking in Germanic LPP varieties.

100%

1

80% 60% 40%

42

43

43

20% 3

0% where

whither zero-marking

whence

overt marking

Diagram 51: Distribution of zero-marking and overt marking across spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties.

3.2.1.2.5 Syllables As to determining the number of syllables of a given construction, the following convention has been stipulated. All distinct vocalizations of the etymological

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 199

final rhotic of the Q-stem are considered to be syllabic. This means, for instance, that the RP version of English where is classified as disyllabic: [hwɛ.ə]. Admittedly, this stipulation might cut across phonetic diphthongs in a number of cases which otherwise could also be analyzed as monosyllables. However, this problem does not affect the differences which exist between the members of a given paradigm. With this proviso, it is possible to identify thirty-seven cases of pairs of constructions which yield identical numbers of syllables, cf. Table 143. Those cells which host constructions with the same number of syllables are shaded grey. If there are multiple cases of identical size, the pairs of constructions are distinguished by boldface and underlining. Boldface is also employed if overabundance applies in a given cell. The languages are presented in the following order. The cases which involve WHERE are given at the top-end of Table 143. Those which involve WHENCE occupy the remainder of the table. Table 143: Spatial interrogatives with identical number of syllables in Germanic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Icelandic

1

1

2

Elfdalian

1

1

2

Swedish

1

1

3

Faroese

1

1

3

English

2

2

3

Low German(Holstein)

2~1

3~2

4

Yiddish

1

1~3

3

Danish

1~3

2

2

Luxembourgish

1

2

2

Frisian (Sölring)

1

2

2

Norwegian (Bokmål)

1

2

2

Low German(East Frisia)

1

2

2

Alemannic

1

2

2

Berlin German

1

2

2

German

1

2

2

Ruhr German

1

2

2

Upper Austrian German

1

2

2

Saarlandish

1

2

2

Tyrolean (Burggräfel)

1

2

2

200 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Bavarian

1

2

2

Hessian

1

2

2

Palatinate

1

2

2

Viennese German

1

2

2

Lorrain Franconian

1

2

2

Swabian

1

2

2

Franconian

1

2

2

Kölsch

1

2

2

Limburgish (North)

1

3~2

3~2

Afrikaans

1

3

3

Drents

2

3

3

Frisian (Eastern)

2

3

3

There is no paradigm in which all three of the spatial interrogatives are represented by constructions of identical size in terms of the number of syllables. Moreover, in no language do WHERE and WHENCE display equality on this parameter. In each of the thirty-seven cases, WHITHER is involved. The distribution is thus uneven. The upper limit in terms of the number of syllables is four. All tetrasyllabic constructions involve WHENCE. There is a clear divide that separates WHERE from the spatial interrogatives of Goal and Source. The latter are predominantly associated with polysyllabicity while the spatial interrogatives of Place are overwhelmingly monosyllabic. Diagrams 52–53 emphasize this difference of static and dynamic spatial relations. The realm of monosyllabicity belongs to WHERE. With a share of 86% of all monosyllabic constructions, WHERE has no competitor in this category. Similarly, 86.5% of all WHERE-constructions are monosyllabic. No WHERE-construction counts more than three syllables with a single trisyllabic WHERE-construction being attested. Both WHITHER and WHENCE are strongest in the category of disyllabic constructions. This similarity notwithstanding, there are also differences which show that WHITHER occupies a middle position between WHERE and WHENCE. First of all, WHITHER also partakes in monosyllabicity albeit on a minor scale whereas WHENCE has no share of this category at all. Secondly, the upper limit for WHITHER-constructions is three syllables while WHENCE gives evidence also of a small number of tetrasyllabic constructions.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 201

100%

6

80%

10

29

whence

60% 40%

4

38

20% 0% monosyllabic

25

14

5

1

disyllabic

trisyllabic

whither where

tetrasyllabic

Diagram 52: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Germanic LPP-varieties. 100%

1 5

80%

4 14

10

60% 40%

tetrasyllabic trisyllabic

38

25

29

20%

disyllabic monosyllabic

6

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 53: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Germanic LPP-varieties.

As to the combinability of constructions of different size in one and the same paradigm, Table 144 reveals that the constructions of WHERE and WHITHER count the same number of syllables in seven cases, i.e. in 14.5% of all binary combinations involving both categories. Since there is exactly one case (= 2%) which attests to a trisyllabic spatial interrogative of Place in contrast to a disyllabic spatial interrogative of Goal, in 83.5% of all combinations, the WHITHERconstruction exceeds in size that of WHERE by at least a syllable.

202 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 144: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

σ

σσ

σσσ

σ

6

25

10

41

σσ

0

1

5

6

σσσ

0

1

0

1

Total

6

27

15

48

For the combinations of WHERE and WHENCE, the results yield a very clear picture. There is no case of equal size. Once WHERE exceeds WHENCE by a syllable. This means that in 98% of all binary combinations of WHERE and WHENCE, the spatial interrogative of Source is represented by the more complex construction of the two, cf. Table 145. Table 145: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

σσ

σσσ

σσσσ

σ

29

8

2

39

σσ

0

2

3

5

σσσ

1

0

0

1

Total

30

10

5

45

The situation is less straightforward for combinations of WHITHER and WHENCE as the values in Table 146 are showing. Table 146: Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

σσ

σσσ

σσσσ

σ

3

3

0

6

σσ

21

4

1

26

σσσ

6

5

4

15

Total

30

12

5

47

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 203

Twenty-six combinations involve constructions of identical size. This number of cases equals 55% of all binary combinations of WHITHER and WHENCE. There is thus a relatively sizable share of combinations in which the two constructions differ as to the number of syllables. In fifteen cases (= 32%), the WHENCEconstruction is more sizable than the WHITHER-construction. There are six constructions (= 13%) which give evidence of WHITHER-constructions that exceeds the size of the corresponding WHENCE-construction of the same paradigm. The average number of syllables of spatial interrogatives of the Germanic LPP-varieties is 1.9 syllables. It is worth noting that both WHITHER and WHENCE exceed the average. Their average sizes are identical. The distance between the averages of WHERE and those of WHITHER and WHENCE is more than a syllable, cf. Table 147. Table 147: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of syllables per construction) in Germanic LPP-varieties.

syllables

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.1

2.4

2.4

1.9

The gap that separates the spatial interrogative of Place from those of Goal and Source is huge in comparison to the averages computed for the Romance LPPvarieties in Table 124 above. There is no other way than giving WHERE the score of ‘0’. As so often before, WHITHER is entitled to the score ‘1’ and WHENCE to that of ‘2’.

3.2.1.2.6 Segments The above observations are corroborated largely by the phenomena to be observed in the realm of the segmental complexity of the phonological chains which constitute the constructions of spatial interrogatives. Table 148 comprises all those paradigms in which the three categories under review are represented by constructions which differ in size as to the number of segments they contain. Grey shading marks a) those two cells which host a WHITHER-construction that is more complex segmentally than the corresponding WHENCE-construction of the same paradigm, and b) the unique cases which involves a WHERE-construction that counts more segments than the WHITHER-construction of the same paradigm.

204 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe In the case of overabundance, boldface singles out the construction which conforms to the pattern WHERE < WHITHER < WHENCE. In Table 148, the length of the constructions is presented in the shape of numerical values. Table 148: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives which host three constructions of different size in terms of segments (Germanic LPP-varieties). Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Swabian

2

4

5

Viennese German

2

4

5

Tyrolean (Northern)

2

4

5

Pennsylvania German

2

5

6

Swiss German (Bern)

2

6

4

Yiddish

2

2~6

8

Limburgish (North)

2

6~6

8~6

Elfdalian

3

4

5

Luxembourgish

3

4

7

Swedish

3

4

8

Tyrolean (Burggräfel)

3

5

6

Limburgish (South)

3

6

10

Icelandic

4

5

6

Frisian (Eastern)

4

7

8

Drents

4

7

8

Dutch

4

7

11

Frisian (Fering)

4

7

11

Frisian (Western)

4

8

7

Afrikaans

4

8

11

Frisian (Frasch)

4

10

8

Low German (Holstein)

6~4

9~5

12

There are a total of twenty-one languages which attest to three segmentally unequally complex constructions. This is exactly one half of the Germanic LPPvarieties. Owing to overabundance, two of the languages in Table 148 (Yiddish and Limburgish [North]) reflect two different patterns. On the one hand, they allow for three constructions whose phonological chains comprise different numbers of segments. Alternatively, two cells of their paradigms host construc-

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 205

tions of equal segmental complexity. The latter pattern is found in twenty-three of the Germanic LPP-varieties, i.e. it is attested in about 55% of these varieties. No paradigm consists of three constructions of identical numbers of segments. The size of the segmental chains ranges from the lower limit of two segments to the maximum of twelve segments. All of the constructions with eight or more segments represent dynamic spatial relations whereas no construction with less than four segments expresses WHENCE. The most complex constructions with eleven and twelve segments are associated exclusively with WHENCE. As to WHERE, the core ranges from two segments to four segments. That of WHITHER ranges from four segments to eight segments whereas WHENCE-constructions start at a length of five segments to reach far beyond the size of eight segments. Diagrams 54–55 show that the domains of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE have different foci. These statistical data serve to underpin the original hypothesis that WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE form a triplet of categories which has a hierarchical order internally. This order reserves the position of the relatively unmarked category for WHERE. At the opposing end of the scale there is the proper place of WHENCE. WHITHER, however, is situated in the space between the two extremes. 100% 90%

1

1 2

80%

8

70%

17

11

1 7

60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

22

9

1

4 11

17

11

10% 1

0%

where

3

1

1 1

whither

2

whence

Diagram 54: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Germanic LPP-varieties.

206 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 100%

12 segments

90%

11 segments

80%

10 segments

70%

9 segments

60%

8 segments

50%

7 segments

40%

6 segments

30%

5 segments

20%

4 segments

10%

3 segments

0%

where

whither

whence

12 segments

0

0

1

11 segments

0

0

3

10 segments

0

1

1

9 segments

0

1

0

8 segments

0

2

7

7 segments

1

4

2

6 segments

1

11

11

5 segments

0

17

17

4 segments

11

8

1

3 segments

9

0

0

2 segments

22

1

0

2 segments

Diagram 55: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in Germanic LPP-varieties.

The binary combinations of WHERE-constructions and yield the expected results, cf. Table 149.

WHITHER-constructions

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 207

Table 149: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions of different segmental size in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2

1

2

15

6

0

0

0

0

3

0

3

1

5

0

0

0

0

9

4

0

2

2

0

4

2

1

0

11

6

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

2

7

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

Total

1

7

19

12

4

2

2

0

47

24

There are only four cases, in which WHITHER fails to be expressed with more segments than there are in the corresponding WHERE-construction. In three of these cases, equal length applies. This leaves a majority of 91% of all combinations which consist of a relatively complex WHITHER-construction in opposition to a relatively simple WHERE-construction. For combinations of WHERE and WHENCE, the turnout is absolutely unequivocal, cf. Table 150. Except the Danish pair of word-forms hvor henne ‘where’ (with seven segments) and hvor fra ‘whence’ (with six segments), all binary combinations of the two categories follow them same pattern. In 97% of all cases, the spatial interrogative of Source is expressed by a construction which involves more segmental material than the construction of the spatial interrogative of Place. There is no combination of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of identical number of segments. Table 150: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHERE

2

Sum

WHENCE

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

1

16

4

0

2

0

0

0

23

3

0

1

5

1

1

1

0

0

9

4

0

0

2

1

4

0

3

1

11

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

7

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

Total

1

17

12

2

7

1

3

2

45

208 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe In contrast, the relationship of WITHER and WHENCE is somewhat variegated. Table 151 shows that there are twenty-five cases in which the two categories come with equally complex constructions (= twenty-one cases) or in which the WHENCE-construction is shorter than the WHITHER-construction (= four cases). In the remaining 47% of all WHITHER-WHENCE combinations, it is the WHENCEconstruction which is segmentally more complex. Table 151: Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Germanic LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

4

0

4

1

1

2

0

0

0

8

5

0

13

3

0

0

0

0

0

16

6

1

0

8

0

3

1

0

0

13

7

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

0

4

8

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

2

9

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

10

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

Total

1

18

12

2

9

1

3

1

47

The average size of the constructions across the three categories is 4.8 segments. The two dynamic spatial relations of Goal and Source display values, which exceed the general average by wide margins, cf. Table 152. Table 152: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of segments per construction) in Germanic LPP-varieties.

segments

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

2.4

5.5

6.5

4.8

It is worth noting that the average size of WHITHER is more than twice as complex as that of WHERE. The average calculated for WHENCE exceeds that of WHERE by a ratio of 2.7-to-1. These observations lead to the following scores: WHERE = ‘0’, WHITHER = ‘1’, and WHENCE = ‘2’.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 209

3.2.1.2.7 Results in the realm of complexity Table 153 summarizes the scores of the previous six subsections. The picture painted in this way is almost the same as that of Table 134 which reflects the situation in the Romance LPP-varieties. Table 153: Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in Germanic LPP-varieties. Level

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

words

0

1

2

morphs

0

1

2

morphemes

0

1

2

zero-marking

0

1

1

syllables

0

1

2

segments

0

1

2

Total

0

6

11

The Germanic LPP-varieties differ from the Romance LPP-varieties only on the parameter of zero-marking. In the Romance languages, WHERE and WHITHER are given the score of ‘0’ while in the Germanic LPP-varieties, WHITHER and WHENCE share the score of ‘1’. This differential behavior of the two groups of languages reflects the divergent leanings of WHITHER. In the Romance languages, WHITHER yields values which are closer to those of WHERE than they are to those of WHENCE. In the case of the Germanic LPP-varieties, however, WHITHER resembles WHENCE in many statistical respects. These minor differences notwithstanding, the general picture is the same for both Romance and Germanic. This is so because WHITHER remains an intermediate category in both cases. Accordingly, Diagram 56 looks only marginally different from Diagram 10 above. More generally, the Germanic LPP-varieties follow the lead of the Romance LPP-varieties insofar as both groups of languages conform largely to the predicted state-of-affairs. The unmarked status of WHERE finds corroboration by the data taken from the Germanic LPP-varieties. The corroboration also applies to the marked status of WHENCE.

210 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 where

whither

whence

Diagram 56: Scores of complexity of Germanic LPP-varieties.

3.2.1.3 Derivation (synchronic analysis) It is not necessary to elaborate on the issue of synchronic derivational patterns for the Germanic LPP-varieties because in all but one of the cases the pattern A/Ax/Ay applies. The one exception to this is Danish whose optional directional morpheme henne in the WHERE-construction does not fully conform to this pattern. This problem notwithstanding, even in Danish all three constructions share a common Q-stem which is identical to one of the possible expressions of WHERE. This means that the spatial interrogatives of Goal and Source are regularly derived from the spatial interrogative of Place. In the vast majority of the cases, the derivation of WHITHER and WHENCE involves distinct directional markers. This is what Scheme 13 is meant to capture.

WHERE

+

X

→

WHITHER

Y

→

WHENCE

Scheme 13: Synchronic derivational patterns.

The homogeneity of the Germanic LPP-varieties on this parameter is strikingly different from the relatively high degree of heterogeneity of the Romance LPPvarieties which give evidence of as many as nine different patterns. The general agreement of Germanic and Romance LPP-varieties as to the markedness relations which characterize the paradigms of spatial interrogatives thus does not preclude that the languages of the two groups behave markedly differently from each other on particular parameters.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 211

3.2.2

About qualities

This section is divided in two. The first subsection revolves around those questions which are connected directly and indirectly to syncretism. Since this is a topic which deserves to be discussed in some detail, space restrictions do not allow us to elaborate on each of the remaining issues to the same extent. Therefore, the second subsection will touch upon a selection of problems which seem to be especially worthwhile addressing. A number of further questions which are raised by the Germanic data must be skipped in order to keep the text within reasonable bounds. They will be tackled in separate studies in the future.

3.2.2.1 An unexpected pattern of syncretism On the one hand, the Germanic LPP-varieties differ from their Romance counterparts because they have a clear leaning towards keeping all three spatial relations formally distinct under interrogation while Romance languages are characterized by a preference for Place-Goal syncretism. What constitutes an additional mark of difference is the indistinction of the two dynamic spatial relations in a small number of the Germanic languages. Goal-Source syncretism comes under the guise of WHITHER-WHENCE-syncretism in the examples taken from the Kölsch translation of the sample text in (22). Kölsch is the regional variety of German spoken in Cologne and its immediate environs. (22) (22.1)

(22.2)

(22.3)

Kölsch Source klei Wo küss de her do P? come.2SG you DIR you little ‘Where do you come from, you little man?’ Place Wo bes de doheim? you at_home P? be.2SG ‘Where are you at home?’ Goal Wo wells do mi Schof P? want:2SG you my sheep ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

[LPP Kölsch, 16] Käälche? guy:DIM

her-bränge? DIR-take.INF

The mobile directional morpheme her ‘(identified by underlining in the examples) is etymologically identical with Standard German introversive her, i.e. one expects it to occur in constructions which encode Source. However, in the Kölsch version of Le Petit Prince, her is used indiscriminately for Source and

212 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Goal, cf. (23)–(24) for confirmation. This is why it is glossed as directionally unspecific. (23)

(24) (24.1)

(24.2)

Kölsch – Source Wo küss de P? come.2SG you ‘Where do you come from?’ Kölsch – Goal Question Wo soll et P? shall it ‘But where shall it go?’ Answer Irjend-wo-her any-where-DIR ‘Anywhere…’

her?

[LPP Kölsch, 53]

DIR

[LPP Kölsch, 16] dann then

her-laufe? DIR-run.INF

The employment of her in Goal and Source function is consistent throughout the source text. According to the extant literature, the formal identity of the two dynamic spatial relations should not be there, in the first place (cf. the final paragraph of Section 3.2.1.1.1 above). There are claims that no European language testifies to this syncretic pattern (Creissels 2006: 22) and that the dynamic spatial relations can be formally the same only if the syncretic pattern V Place = Goal = Source applies (Lestrade 2010: 93). Since the above examples show that the encoding of WHERE is distinct from that of WHITHER = WHENCE, both hypotheses are violated against by the Kölsch data. However, as soon as we look beyond the LPP-corpus, the situation starts to change. In the Kölsch grammar by Tiling-Herrwegen (2002: 208–209) wohin ‘whither’ and woher ‘whence’ are kept apart strictly. The grammar even claims that wo ‘where’ may be used also for the purpose of inquiring about Goal as well. The latter pattern is not attested in the sample text though, nor is the distinct spatial interrogative of Goal wohin ‘whither’. With the formal differentiation of wohin ‘whither’ ≠ woher ‘whence’, the Kölsch described in the grammar looks suspiciously similar to the German standard. According to the Kölsch native speaker linguist Werner Drossard (p.c.), the Kölsch translation of Le Petit Prince is closer to the speech habits of the previous generations of speakers who spoke the rural variety Landkölsch (= Country Kölsch) as opposed to the urban variety Stadtkölsch (= City Kölsch). Thus, the Kölsch version of the sample text reflects the properties of Landkölsch as of the 1950s whereas the Kölsch grammar of the early 21st century describes Stadtkölsch. Owing to the normative

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 213

pressure of standard German, the erstwhile WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism has been superseded by the maximally distinct Option I of the standard language. As far as the accessible information goes, the above traits of the Landkölsch spatial interrogatives have vanished largely from active language practice but are still remembered and understood by contemporary speakers of the variety. We are facing two distinct varieties of Kölsch which are separated from each other on the time axis as well as on the spatial axis and the social axis. Their formal differences are captured by Table 154. Table 154: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Kölsch. Spatial relation

Landkölsch (1950s)

Stadtkölsch

Place

wo

wo

Goal

wo her [!]

wo ~ wo hin [!]

Source

wo her [!]

wo her [!]

Where the erstwhile paradigm of the Landkölsch variety of the 1950s had WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism, the modern Stadtkölsch variety disallows the formal indistinction of the two dynamic spatial relations. In lieu of WHITHER=WHENCEsyncretism, Stadtkölsch is said to tolerate WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism which is accompanied by overabundance in the case of the spatial interrogative of Goal. The patterns reflected by the Stadtkölsch variety are unproblematic since they conform to patterns which dominate in the Romance and Germanic languages of the sample. The unexpected syncretic pattern of Landkölsch is on the verge of extinction. The solutions of the Stadtkölsch variety are in line with the general predictions. Stadtkölsch has been marginalizing Landkölsch for a long time so that the latter variety is probably destined to cease to exist before long. One might be tempted to take these developments as additional evidence of the ephemeral nature of a phenomenon which is not only underrepresented in the Germanic languages but also excluded by theoreticians from the set of “natural” formats of paradigms of spatial relations. On closer inspection, however, the putative insignificance of the problem posed by Landkölsch can be challenged (at least to some extent) because there is evidence of an erstwhile more extended area in which WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism occurred. First of all, the unexpected syncretic pattern Place ≠ (Goal = Source) is attested in another Germanic LPP-variety, namely in the northern variety of Limburgish which in turn is closely related to the Rhenish varieties of German

214 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe to which Kölsch belongs too. In Limburgish (North) overabundance is involved additionally. The examples in (25) show that WHITHER and WHENCE can be distinguished by formal means. (25) (25.1)

(25.2)

(25.3)

Limburgish (North) [LPP Limburgish (North), 14] Source Wo kums doe den haer, mien klein menke? my little man:DIM P? come:2SG you then DIR ‘But where do you come from, my little man?’ Place Wo woeëns doe? P? live:2SG you ‘Where do you live?’ Goal Wo bringse mien sjaop nao toe? my sheep towards to P? take:2SG:you ‘Where do you take my sheep?’

The directional of Source is the detachable haer ‘hither’ whereas the directional of Goal is the equally detachable nao toe ‘to’. The latter, however, can be replaced by haer as the examples in (26) show. These examples can be compared directly to those of Kölsch in (24) above. (26) (26.1)

(26.2)

Limburgish (North) Question Mer wo mót ‘r but P? must it ‘But where should it go?’ Answer Örges haer. DIR any ‘Anywhere…’

[LPP Limburgish (North), 16] den then

haer-loupe?

DIR-run:INF

In the northern Limburgish case, the overabundance with Goal is the effect of the influence exerted by the surrounding Dutch varieties. In this way, wo nao toe ‘whither’ has entered the system of the basically Rhenish variety of Limburgish (North). Limburgish (North) has come to resemble its Dutch neighbors more closely. Nevertheless, it has retained some elements it shares for instance with Kölsch, namely the possibility to neutralize the WHITHER = WHENCE distinction by way of generalizing the erstwhile extroversive haer. In Table 155, the two Limburgish LPP-varieties – Northern and Southern – are compared to the Dutch LPP-variety.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 215

Table 155: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Limburgish. Spatial relation

Limburgish (North)

Limburgish (South)

Dutch

Place

wo

woa

waar

Goal

wo haer [!] ~ wo na toe [!]

woa hin [!]

waar heen [!]

Source

wo haer [!] ~ wo vanaaf [!]

woa vandaan [!]

waar vandaan [!]

It is clear that Limburgish (South) replicates the Dutch paradigm without producing absolutely identical word-forms. In contrast, Limburgish (North) only partly resembles Limburgish (South) and Dutch, namely only as to the alternative constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE. The syncretic wo haer ‘whither = whence’, on the other hand, links Limburgish (North) to Landkölsch. We assume that, historically, the indistinction of the two dynamic spatial relations precedes the introduction of distinct constructions for WHITHER and WHENCE according to the Dutch model. Chances are that, at an earlier stage, WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism was a common feature of the Germanic varieties spoken on the left bank of the Rhine. Potential evidence in support of this hypothesis stems from the Luxembourgish LPP-variety if we interpret Luxembourgish wuer ‘whither’ as a univerbation of erstwhile multi-word *wou hier ‘whither’ in lieu of tracing its origins back to the WHITHER-constructions of Old High German and Middle High German which were (h)wara ‘whither’ and war ‘whither’, respectively. We emphasize that the continuation of the inherited WHITHER-construction is by far the most likely solution. Nevertheless, we are going to test the hypothesis that Luxembourgish reflects a prior case of WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism. The evidence is somewhat obscured since the crucial word-form does not exist in the DGBvariety of the same language. The sample sentences in the Luxembourgish translation of Le Petit Prince are given in (27). (27) (27.1)

(27.2)

Luxembourgish [LPP Luxembourgish, 16] Source Wou-hier kënns de dann, klenge Männchen? P?-INTRO come:2SG you then little man:DIM ‘Now where do you come from, little man?’ Place Wou ass dat bei dir doheem? P? be.3SG that at you.DAT at_home ‘Where is this “at home” of yours?’

216 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (27.3)

Goal Wuer wëlls de däi Schof da G? want:2SG you your sheep there ‘Where do you want to take your sheep?’

mathuelen? with:take:INF

There is a triplet of formally distinct spatial interrogatives. The two dynamic spatial relations are clearly distinguished: wuer ‘whither’ ≠ wouhier ‘whence’. Morphologically, the WHENCE-construction is fully transparent. It is a combination of the Q-stem wou ‘where’ (which is identical with the WHERE-construction) and the introversive directional hier, a cognate of standard German her, Kölsch her, and Limburgish (North) haer. The word-form wuer ‘whither’ is unique in the Germanic section of our sample. We assume that it is a contraction of wouhier, i.e. there previously was WHITHER-WHENCE-syncretism in accordance to the patterns found in Kölsch and Limburgish (North). However, the position of wuer ‘whither’ in the system of Luxembourgish spatial interrogatives seems to be precarious, cf. (28). (28) (28.1)

(28.2)

Luxembourgish Question A wuer soll et but G? shall it ‘But where shall it go?’ Answer Iergendanzwousch hin. anywhere EXTRO ‘Anywhere…’

[LPP Luxembourgish, 18] da there

lafen? run:INF

In the Luxembourgish version of Le Petit Prince, the Goal interrogative is always wuer ‘whither’. The answer in (28.2) shows, however, that the extroversive directional morpheme hin can be used outside of the context of direct questions. Given that the diachronic interpretation of wuer ‘whither’ as univerbation and subsequent contraction of *wou hier ‘whither = whence’ is correct, we can state that there is a third Germanic language which reflects a former WHITHER=WHENCEsyncretism. This interpretation suffers from the complete lack of evidence of WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in the standard variety of Luxembourgish. The EnglishLuxembourgish dictionary by Christophory (1982: 241) does not mention wuer ‘whither’ at all. In its place, we find wouhin ‘whither’ which is also the Goal interrogative given in Schanen (2004: 203) who additionally mentions the long form wouhinner ‘whither’. On the same page of the grammatical sketch, the author states that

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 217

[p]our les adverbes spatiaux […], il faut bien distinguer les deux relations locative […] et directive […], parfois aussi la relation de provenance (wouhier? Vu wou? d’où) et de passage (wouduerch? Wouriwwer? par où). Le français ne distingue pas souvent formellement wou? (locatif: où) et wouhin? (directif: vers où): il faut donc insister particulièrement sur ce point.

The Luxembourgish paradigm of spatial interrogatives which can be reconstructed on this basis looks very much like that of Standard German. This seems to be a relatively recent development since in Luxembourgish literature published before the 1980s, the evidence of wouhin ‘whither’ is scarce. In the updated normative grammar of Luxembourgish, the paragraph quoted above comes in a slightly different shape. For the issue at hand, the final two sentences of the new version are of special interest and therefore are quoted here in full: Le français ne distingue pas souvent par la forme les deux relations locative et directive (question: wou? où ↔ question: wouhin? wuerhin? où = vers où). Il faut donc, en luxembourgeois, insister particulièrement sur ce point. (Schanen & Zimmer 2012: 197)

The authors introduce a new spatial interrogative of Goal, namely wuerhin ‘whither’, which is said to coexist with wouhin ‘whither’. In the supposedly exhaustive list of spatial adverbs the authors provide (Schanen & Zimmer 2012: 198), the set of spatial interrogatives is dutifully registered. However, in lieu of the absent wuerhin ‘whither’ we find wuer ‘whither’ as alloform of wouhin ~ wouhinner ‘whither’. Since wouhin ‘whither’ is always mentioned first it seems that this WHITHER-construction is considered to be the primary (or normatively recommendable) option. Clearly, the word-form wuerhin ‘whither’ is patterned on the model of wouhin ‘whither’ with wuerhin ‘whither’ being marked for directionality twice as wuer ‘wither’ alone is already indicative of Goal so that the extroversive directional morpheme hin can be understood as a reinforcement. In the extant Luxembourgish literature, in lieu of contemporary wuerhin ‘whither’, we find numerous examples of wuer ‘whither’. Evidence of wouhin ‘whither’ becomes more numerous only in the most recent literary products. The reminiscences of Adel Weis, for instance, originally published in 1977, paint a picture of Luxembourg society in the first half of the 20th century. In this typical genre of early literary Luxembourgish, there is not a single attestation of wouhin ‘whither’. The spatial interrogative of Goal comes exclusively in the shape of wuer ‘whither’, cf. (29). (29) (29.1)

Luxembourgish – Goal Aha, denkt de Pätter, hie setzt sech. aha think:3SG DET Peter he sit:3SG REFL Mä wuer? but G? ‘Aha, Peter thinks, he is going to sit. But where?’

[Vaubang 25]

218 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (29.2)

(29.3)

A wuer geet d’ Rees hin, wann ech [Vaubang 155] and G? go:3SG DET journey EXTRO if I fron daarf? ask:INF may ‘And where does the journey go, if I may ask?’ Wuer sinn ons schéi Lidder hi-komm? [Vaubang 172] G? be:3PL our beautiful song:PL EXTRO-come ‘Where have our beautiful songs gone?’

As far as can be ascertained on the basis of the textual evidence found in the source Vaubang, from questions with wuer ‘whither’, the extroversive hi(n) ‘hither’ is absent only occasionally. In the Luxembourgish translation of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series (dating back to 2009), both wuer ‘whither’ and wou hin ‘whither’ are attested as spatial interrogatives of Goal, cf. Table 156. The page numbers refer to the Luxembourgish version. Boldface identifies the components of the WHITHERconstruction. Underlining is used additionally for the directional morpheme hi(n) ‘hither’ (often written in the text under review). Table 156: Spatial interrogatives of Goal in the Luxembourgish translation of Harry Potter, vol. 1. Luxembourgish

English

Page

wou hin

…wou ass d’Scheif hinn?

‘…where did the glass go?’

37

wou hin

Also wou soll ech dech histiechen?

‘So where shall I put you?’

140

wuer

…wuer si se gaangen?

‘…where did they go?‘

183

wuer

Wuer sollt hie goen?

‘Where should he go?‘

231

wuer

Wuer gees de?

‘Where‘re you going?’

299

WHITHER

The frequency of the two competing constructions being almost the same in the Luxembourgish version of Harry Potter I, it seems to be a close run between wuer and wou hin as to which of the two will eventually become the only admissible spatial interrogative of Goal. In the most recent Luxembourgish literary products, however, wouhin ‘whither’ has ousted the erstwhile competitor wuer ‘whither’ completely. In Tullio Forgiarini’s novel Amok, for instance, the spatial interrogative of Goal is always wouhin ‘whither’ (occasionally in its truncated form wouhi ‘whither’) as in the short dialogue illustrated in (30).

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 219

(30)

Luxembourgish – Goal [Amok 99] Gi mer elo? – Wouhin? – An d’ Phantasialand! go we now G? in DET Phantasialand Wouhi soss? G? else ‘Do we get going now? – Where? – To the Phantasialand! Where else?’

It cannot be ruled out that we are witnessing again the impact standard German has been exerting on regional varieties of German and minor Germanic languages of its neighborhood. The absence of any evidence of Goal-Source syncretism in the extant descriptive linguistic material on Luxembourgish can be compared to the absence of the same phenomenon in modern grammars of Kölsch. Table 157 contrasts the somewhat older and by now anachronistic paradigm of the Luxembourgish LPP-variety not only with the spatial interrogatives assumed by the normative grammar and documented by modern literary Luxembourgish prose but also with an intermediate variety as represented by the practice in the Luxembourgish Harry-Potter translation. In the Harry-Potter translation as well as in the source Vaubang, there is only a single example of a WHENCE-construction. It is therefore impossible to make any statements as to the probability of overabundance in the cell of WHENCE. Table 157: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three potential varieties of Luxembourgish. Spatial relation

Luxembourgish (Vaubang)

Luxembourgish (Harry Potter)

Luxembourgish (norm as of 2012)

Place

wou

wou

wou

Goal

wuer

wuer ~ wou hi(n) [!]

wuer ~ wuer hin [!] ~ wou hi(n) [!] ~ wou hinner [!]

Source

wou hier [!]

vu wou [!]

wou hier [!] ~ vu wou [!]

For Kölsch and Luxembourgish alike, it is the language practice of old that connects directly or indirectly to the syncretic pattern Place ≠ (Goal = Source). This practice is clearly outdated in the Kölsch case. In contrast, the remnants of the incriminated syncretic pattern (i.e. the spatial interrogative wuer ‘whither’) have not been eradicated completely yet from the Luxembourgish grammatical system. As to the possibility that this syncretic pattern was more wide-spread in days gone by, the last piece of evidence provided by a Germanic LPP-variety stems from the Swiss German version of Le Petit Prince, cf. (31).

220 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (31) (31.1)

(31.2)

(31.3)

Swiss German (Bern) Source [LPP Swiss German (Bern), 14] Vo wu chunnsch de du, chlyne Ma? from P? come:2SG then you little man ‘Where do you come from, little man?’ Place [LPP Swiss German (Bern), 60] Wo sy d Mönsche? P? be.3PL DET man:PL ‘Where are the men?’ Goal [LPP Swiss German (Bern), 14] Wo häre wosch du mys Schaf mitnäh? P? DIR want:2SG you my:NT sheep take_along ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

The paradigm of spatial interrogatives consists of three distinct constructions. Synchronically, there is no syncretism of WHITHER and WHENCE. However, the directional particle häre which combines with the Q-stem to yield the dimorphic spatial interrogative of Goal is again a cognate of the German introversive directional morpheme her ‘hither’ and is etymologically related to the directionally ambiguous Landkölsch her and Limburgish (North) haer. Swiss German (Bern) häre is employed in contexts in which Standard German would use the extroversive hin ‘hence’. The examples in (32) show that this usage is consistent in the Swiss German translation of the sample text. (32) (32.1)

(32.2)

Swiss German (Bern) [LPP Swiss German (Bern), 14] Question U wo, bitte, söttis häre loufe? and P? please should:it DIR run:INF ‘And, please, where should it go?’ Answer Irgendwo häre. Anywhere DIR ‘Anywhere.’

This phenomenon seems to be typical of the Swiss German variety of Bern because Stich (2001: 192) provides summary information about the spatial interrogatives of the Swiss German varieties of Zurich and Luzern both of which follow the pattern of Standard German. The practical language course of Bärndütsch (= Swiss German [Bern]) by Pinheiro-Weber (2010: 58) presents two WHITHER-constructions of which wohi ‘whither’ is clearly rated as the primary

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 221

option since the synonymous wohäre ‘whither’ is also added in brackets, cf. (33). The directional morpheme häre is mobile as shown in (34). (33) (33.1)

(33.2)

(34)

Swiss German (Bern) – Goal [Pinheiro-Weber 2010: 58] wohi Wohi fahre mer morn? G? drive.PL we tomorrow ‘Where do we go tomorrow?’ wohäre Wohäre fahre mer morn? G? drive.PL we tomorrow ‘Where do we go tomorrow?’ Swiss German (Bern) – Goal [Pinheiro-Weber 2010: 93] U wo wettsch de häre zügle? and P? want:2SG you DIR move.INF ‘And where do you want to move?’

In the glossary to the language course, wohäre ‘whence’ is not included nor do we find any mention of wohi ‘whence’. At the same time, wohär ‘whence’ is listed as the spatial interrogative of Source although there is evidence also of vo wo ‘whence’ (Pinheiro-Weber 2010: 16). It might be assumed that the WHITHERconstruction wohi ‘whither’ is a relatively recent importation either directly from Standard German or from other varieties of Swiss German which copy Standard German wohin ‘whither’. The alternative wohäre ‘whence’ seems to be older since the directional morpheme häre is found as preverb on motion verbs such as häregah ‘to go somewhere’ (← gah ‘to go’) and häreluege ‘to look at’ (← luege ‘to look’) whereas there is no evidence of hi(n) as a preverb (Pinheiro-Weber 2010: 143). The differences that result from a comparison of the LPP-variety and the DGB-variety of Swiss German (Bern) are captured by Table 158. Table 158: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Swiss German (Bern). Spatial relation

LPP

DGB

Place

wo

wo

Goal

wohäre [!]

wohäre [!] ~ wohi [!]

Source

vo wu [!]

vo wo [!] ~ wohär [!]

The spatial interrogatives of Goal and Source, wohäre ‘whither’ and wohär ‘whence’ are represented by almost identical phonological chains. It is tempt-

222 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe ing, therefore, to assume that on a previous stage or on a more basilectal level of Swiss German (Bern), there was WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism similar to the situation in Landkölsch and Limburgish (North). The synchronic evidence is conclusive neither in the Luxemburgian case nor in that of Swiss German (Bern). What can be said nevertheless is that the small number of instances of WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in the Germanic languages is ceding to the pressure from languages whose paradigm contains three distinct spatial interrogatives. As far as we can tell on the basis of our current knowledge, WHITHER=WHERE-syncretism has been always a minority solution in the phylum under scrutiny. It seems to be a recurrent feature of the Rhenish region and neighboring areas. At some places in the Germania the predominant pattern is giving way to Option II with WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. No matter how small the number of languages is which display WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism, already the attestation of this pattern in a single variety would be completely unexpected. Not only do Kölsch, Limburgish (North), and – presumably also – Luxembourgish and Swiss German (Bern) show that the range of variation in Europe is wider than hitherto assumed, but they also challenge the supposed impossibility of Goal and Source sharing the same expression without Place being syncretic too. A close-up study of the Rhenish varieties thus is called for – a task that alas cannot be carried out in the course of this study.

3.2.2.2 Overabundance and sundry phenomena It is by no means exceptional that Germanic LPP-varieties and DGB-varieties disagree as to their paradigms of spatial interrogatives. It suffices to focus on a selection of the most striking phenomena. The first problem to be discussed arises in connection to the (optional) morphosyntactic dissociation of the directional morpheme from the Q-stem which is typical of many Germanic languages. Swedish is a good representative of those Germanic languages which fail to attest to periphrasis while they give evidence of multi-word constructions nevertheless. In (35) the first set of sample sentences from the Swedish translation of Le Petit Prince are given. (35) (35.1)

Swedish Source Varifrån kommer du, lille S? come:PRES you little ‘Where do you come from, little man?’

[LPP Swedish, 16] man? man

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 223

(35.2)

(35.3)

Place Var är hemma hos dig? P? be.PRES at_home at 2SG.OBL ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Vart tänker du fara med ditt G? think:PRES you go:INF with your:NT ‘Where do you think to go with your lamb?’

lamm? lamb

As mentioned in the quote from Siemund (2001: 1023) in Section 1.2.1 above, Swedish boasts a distinct spatial interrogative vart ‘whither’. What is not mentioned in the same quote, however, is the existence of an equally distinct spatial interrogative varifrån ‘whence’. The reason why the Swedish WHENCE-construction is not referred to by Siemund is easily explained. According to the Swedish Academy Grammar (Teleman et al. 1999: 660), the WHENCE-construction may come in two shapes, namely in the (somewhat more literary) mono-word format or as the discontinuous combination of var ‘where’ + stranded preposition ifrån ‘from’ which is typical of the spoken register. The latter is also attested in the Swedish version of Le Petit Prince, cf. (36). (36)

Swedish – Source Var kommer du ifrån? P? come:PRES you from ‘Where do you come from?’

[LPP Swedish, 53]

We interpret the possibility of having either a mono-word construction or a multi-word construction as a piece of evidence of the functional unity of Q-stem and preposition – independent of their adjacency or the lack thereof, meaning: they are part of one and the same construction. Their optional separability bars the possibility to classify the construction as an example of periphrasis. Swedish differs from English insofar as the stranding of the preposition from in the English WHENCE-construction is compulsory whereas the Swedish speakers have the choice between mono-word varifrån ‘whence’ and multi-word var (…) ifrån ‘whence’. According to the above rules, the English WHENCEconstruction illustrates periphrasis and the Swedish WHENCE-construction does not. Both of the languages, however, give evidence of multi-word constructions – English consistently and Swedish optionally. The optional detachability of the components of the morphologically complex constructions is attested in several of the Germanic languages. The directional morpheme is either a particle or an adposition. In most of the cases, the directional morpheme winds up in a slot on the right of the Q-stem. Stranding in

224 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe clause-final position is common. At the same time, the directional marker may also be hosted as a preverb on the motion verb involved in the question. Discounting the syntactic implications of these patterns of variation, we can interpret the Norwegian (Bokmål) case. Superficially, Norwegian (Bokmål) seems to behave very much like its Scandinavian sister-language Swedish, cf. (37). (37) (37.1)

(37.2)

(37.3)

Norwegian (Bokmål) [LPP Norwegian (Bokmål), 16] Source Hvor kommer du egentlig fra, småen? P? come:PRES you actually from small:DEF.UT ‘Where do you come from, little one?’ Place Hvor er hjemme hos deg? P? be.PRES at_home at 2SG.OBL ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Hvor vil du hen med den sauen din? P? want you EXTRO with DET.UT sheep:DEF.UT your.UT ‘Where do you want to go with your sheep?’

The Norwegian (Bokmål) WHENCE-construction in (37.1) resembles those of English and Swedish. As in English, the stranding of the ablative preposition fra ‘from’ is obligatory in the sample text. In contrast to English, the WHITHERconstruction in (37.3) involves a detached directional marker hen ‘hither’. There are thus three distinct spatial interrogatives as in Swedish although morphologically the constructions of the two Scandinavian languages are very dissimilar from each other. However, there is indirect evidence from Le Petit Prince that is suggestive of Place-Goal syncretism, cf. (38). (38) (38.1)

(38.2)

Norwegian (Bokmål) – Goal Question Men hvor skulle han but where shall he ‘But where should it go?’ Answer Hvor som helst. where REL best ‘Wherever you like.’

[LPP Norwegian (Bokmål), 16] gå go.INF

hen? to

The discontinuous WHITHER-construction hvor (…) hen ‘whither’ of the question (38.1) is not taken up again in the mono-word answer hvor ‘where/whither’

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 225

(38.2) to this question. As a matter of fact, the employment of hen ‘hither’ is not absolutely compulsory in Norwegian. According to the Norwegian reference grammar (Faarlund et al. 1997: 950), the directional morpheme can come in two shapes, namely short hen and long henne. Moreover, the authors observe that interrogative clauses with hen(ne) ‘hither’ are less frequent in Nynorsk. The absence of any illustrative examples of WHITHER-constructions without hen(ne) ‘hither’ in the Norwegian reference grammar notwithstanding, it can be assumed that Norwegian allows optionally for WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. That this is in fact the case can be proved by presenting data from the Norwegian (Bokmål) translation of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series, cf. (39). (39) (39.1)

(39.2)

(39.3)

Norwegian (Bokmål) – Goal Hvor gikk de? P?/G? go.PRET they ‘…where did they go?’ Hvor skulle han gå? P?/G? should he go ‘Where should he go?’ Hvor skal du? P?/G? shall you ‘Where’re you going?’

[HP I Norwegian (Bokmål), 151]

[HP I Norwegian (Bokmål), 191]

[HP I Norwegian (Bokmål), 242]

In the Harry-Potter translation, there is no evidence of the multi-word construction hvor hen(ne) ‘whither’. On this basis, it can be concluded that the extroversive directional morpheme hen ‘to’ is but an optional component of the spatial interrogative construction of Goal. Accordingly, the paradigm of the spatial interrogative in Norwegian (Bokmål) has to be revised as in Table 159. The same table also presents the paradigm of Nynorsk which we have reconstructed on the basis of the information given in Faarlund et al. (1997: 27 and 950). Table 159: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Norwegian varieties. Spatial relation

Norwegian (Bokmål)

Norwegian (Nynorsk)

Place

hvor

kvar ~ kor

Goal

hvor ~ hvor hen(ne) [!]

kvar ~ kor ~ kvar hen(ne) [!] ~ kor hen(ne) [!]

Source

hvor fra [!]

kvar fra [!] ~ kor fra [!]

The DGB-variety of Norwegian (Bokmål) not only attests to overabundance in the cell of Goal but also gives evidence of optional WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism,

226 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe i.e. the language testifies to a pattern which otherwise is a marginal feature within the Germanic phylum. The sister-variety Nynorsk displays overabundance in all three of the paradigmatic cells. Moreover, the two competing spatial interrogatives of Place kvar and kor can be used optionally also as spatial interrogatives of Goal. Future studies need to clarify whether or not the optionality of the directional morpheme hen(ne) ‘hither’ is possible only in combination with prototypical motion verbs such as gå ‘to go’. In connection to the issue of Norwegian (Bokmål) hen(ne) ‘hither’, it is interesting to look briefly at the situation in Danish. The LPP-variety of Danish distinguishes three different constructions in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. The Norwegian kind of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is not admissible in Danish, cf. (40). (40) (40.1)

(40.2)

(40.3)

Danish [LPP Danish, 14] Source Hvor kommer du egentlig fra, lille mand? you actually from small man P? come:PRES ‘Where do you come from, little man?’ Place Og hver er hjemme hos dig? and P? be.PRES at_home at 2SG.OBL ‘And where is your home?’ Goal med mit får? Hvor vil du hen P? want you EXTRO with my.NT sheep ‘Where do you want to go with my sheep?’

In interrogative clauses inquiring about the Goal of a motion event, the directional particle hen ‘hither’ is indispensable. However, as in the Norwegian (Bokmål) case in (38.2), answers to such questions might lack hen ‘hither’, cf. (41). (41) (41.1)

(41.2)

Danish – Goal Question Hvor skulle det dog gå hen? P? should it then go EXTRO ‘Where should it go anyway?’ Answer Hvor det fandt for godt. where it find.PRET for good.NT ‘Wherever it finds convenient (to go).’

[LPP Danish, 16]

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 227

What is more interesting than the absence of the extroversive hen from the answer in (41.2) is the use of the directional particle henne in (42). The identical question including henne is attested also on page 58 of the Danish translation of the sample text. (42)

Danish – Place Hvor er menneskene P? be.PRES human:DEF.PL ‘Where are the people?’

henne?

[LPP Danish, 60]

PLACE

The Danish reference grammar (Christensen & Christensen 2009: 146) mentions hvor henne ‘where’ as an alternative of the mono-word construction hvor ‘where’. This means that all three of the cells of the Danish paradigm of spatial interrogatives host multi-word constructions. In the case of the spatial interrogatives of Goal and Source, the presence of the directional morphemes is compulsory while it is optional with WHERE. From the above discussion of Norwegian, we already know that the directional morpheme hen(ne) ‘hither’ is also attested in this sisterlanguage of Danish. The two Scandinavian languages differ, however, as to the functions of the directionality marker. In Norwegian (Bokmål), it is employed to encode Goal whereas in Danish it functions as marker of Place. It is conceivable that the erstwhile distinct directional markers henne and hen merged functionally in Norwegian with the introduction of optional WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. In this way, the formerly stative henne developed into an allomorph of the dynamic extroversive hen ‘hither’. Danish on the other hand preserves the distinction of stative henne and dynamic extroversive hen ‘hither’. It makes sense to continue the discussion with the data from the two insular varieties of North Germanic, viz. Icelandic and Faroese. The Icelandic facts are uncontroversial. The three distinct mono-word constructions in (43) are not subject to variation in the sample text nor do Icelandic grammars give any indication of alternative ways to construe the spatial interrogatives of Place, Goal, and Source (e.g. Kress 1982: 97).26 (43) (43.1)

Icelandic Source Hvaðan kemur þú, litli you little S? come:2SG ‘Where do you come from, my dear?’

[LPP Icelandic, 13] minn? my

|| 26 To avoid misunderstanding we add that – like in many other languages of our sample – Icelandic allows for constructions of the type [(Prep) Qwhich Nplace]spatial interrogative as in til hvaða staðar ‘(literally) to which place’ (Böðvarsson 1985: 432). However, secondary constructions of this kind have already been excluded from this study in Sections 1–2 since they require to be studied separately.

228 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (43.2)

(43.3)

Place Hvar er þetta heima þitt? P? be.3SG this home your:NT ‘Where is this home of yours?’ Goal Hvert ætlarðu að fara með kindina G? want:2SG:you to go:INF with sheep:DEF:ACC ‘Where do you want to go with my sheep?’

mína? my:ACC

Icelandic’s closest relative Faroese cannot be ticked off as easily as that. First of all, the Faroese LPP-variety differs from the Icelandic LPP-variety insofar as the two languages give evidence of two different patterns of syncretism. Icelandic sides with the vast majority of the Germanic LPP-varieties in the sense that it instantiates the pattern Place ≠ Goal ≠ Source. Faroese, on the other hand, behaves similarly to the English LPP-variety and the Norwegian (Bokmål) DGBvariety, i.e. there is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism, cf. (44). The stranded preposition frá ‘from’ in (44.1) will be discussed further below. (44) (44.1)

(44.2)

(44.3)

Faroese [LPP Faroese, 16] Source Sig mær, hvaðani kemur tú frá, lítli mín? tell 1SG.DAT S? come.2SG you from little my ‘Tell me, where do you come from, my dear?’ Place Og hvar er heima hjá tær? and P?/G? be.3SG at_home at 2SG.DAT ‘And where is your home?’ Goal Hvar ætlar tú at fara við lambinum hjá mær? P?/G? want:2SG you to go:INF with sheep:DEF:DAT at 1SG.DAT ‘Where do you want to go with my sheep?’

The use of syncretic hvar ‘where = whither’ is consistent throughout the Faroese translation of Le Petit Prince. In the Faroese reference grammar (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 182), it is claimed that there is a distinct hvagar ‘whither’. This is tantamount to denying that there is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism in Faroese since hvar ‘where = whither’ is assigned only one function, namely that of the spatial interrogative of Place. However, in the Faroese version of the sample text hvagar ‘whither’ is not employed. The huge monolingual dictionary of Faroese (Poulsen et al. 1998: 500) registers both functions for hvar ‘where = whither’. Moreover, the same dictionary also mentions hvar til ‘whither’ and hvørt ‘whither’ as spatial

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 229

interrogatives of Goal (besides hvagar ‘whither’) as well as hvar ífrá ‘whence’ as a synonym of hvaðan(i) ‘whence’ (Poulsen et al. 1998: 499). A point on which our sources agree is that the spatial interrogative of Place is hvar. The dictionary and the LPP-variety show that WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism applies – a possibility that is counted out by the reference grammar. Hvaðani ‘whence’ is attested in all three of the sources as spatial interrogative of Source. In the LPP-variety and in the reference grammar, there is no overabundance in the cell of Source whereas the dictionary mentions a multi-word construction as alternative to the mono-word construction hvaðani ‘whence’. Both the reference grammar and the dictionary give hvagar ‘whither’ as spatial interrogative of Goal for which the dictionary offers two alternative constructions. A look at the grammar of Faroese by Lockwood (1977: 61) which was published for the first time in 1955 reveals that “hvar … frá is common in spoken Faroese for hvaðani”, i.e. we are facing stylistically motivated and register-based overabundance in the cells of the dynamic spatial relations of the paradigm which is reflected by Table 160. The directionality marker ífrá ‘from’ of the dictionary corresponds to Lockwood’s stranded preposition frá ‘from’. Note also that Lockwood (1977: 60) makes no mention of a WHENCEconstruction that is distinct from the WHERE-construction. Table 160: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four Faroese sources. Spatial relation LPP-variety Dictionary

Reference grammars 1977

Place

hvar

hvar

Goal

hvar

hvar ~ hvagar ~ hvørt ~ hvar til [!] hvar

hvar

Source

hvaðani

hvaðan(i) ~ hvar ífrá [!]

2004 hvar hvagar

hvaðani ~ hvar frá [!] hvaðani

The data from other primary sources of Faroese we have checked cursorily for the purpose of this study are largely in line with the LPP-variety. The patterns of the LPP-variety and the DGB-variety of the reference grammar are included in the maximalist inventory of the dictionary which, in turn, adds three constructions which are foreign to the other two sources. The reference grammar favors a paradigm which is largely in accordance to that of Icelandic whereas the LPPvariety is further removed from Icelandic. On top of that, the dictionary offers a wealth of options so that word-forms can be picked out to yield a paradigm that bears close resemblance to those of the English LPP-variety and the Norwegian (Bokmål) DGB-variety, namely Place hvar = Goal hvar ≠ Source hvar ífrá.

230 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe With reference to the multi-word construction hvar ífrá ‘whence’, the stranded preposition frá ‘from’ in example (44.1) above becomes interesting. It co-occurs with the spatial interrogative hvaðani ‘whence’ which is distinctive enough not to require reinforcement by an ablative preposition. The combination of Faroese hvaðani ‘whence’ and the stranded preposition frá ‘from’ is not the same as the discontinuous English WHENCE-construction where + from. In this context, example (45) is revealing. (45)

Faroese – Source Hvaðani kemur tú? S? come:2SG you ‘Where do you come from?’

[LPP Faroese, 51]

In contrast to example (44.1) from the same language, there is no evidence of the stranded preposition frá ‘from’. Hvaðani ‘whence’ alone suffices to represent the Source relation. The absence of frá ‘from’ from example (45) can be understood as proof of the facultative nature of frá ‘from’ in the WHENCE-construction. Furthermore, the prepositional verb koma frá ‘to originate/stem from’ contrasts with the motion verb koma ‘to come’ in Faroese (Poulsen et al. 1998: 616). Thus, the presence of frá ‘from’ in (44.1) and the absence thereof in (45) can be explained as the effect of two different verbs being used only one of which requires the directional marker to be there. The optional preposition of the Faroese WHENCE-construction leads us to issues which are at least remotely related to reinforcement. Most of the phenomena to be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs have to do with the multi-word constructions (or their absence). We open the discussion by presenting the data from the Lorrain Franconian translation of Le Petit Prince. It suffices to look at the two examples of WHENCE-constructions in (46). (46) (46.1)

(46.2)

Lorrain Franconian – Source Vun wu bisch donn du, min Klääner? from P? be:2SG then you my little_one ‘Where are you from, my little one?’ [LPP Lorrain Franconian, 14] Vun wu kummsch donn du här? from P? come:2SG then you INTRO ‘Where do you come from?’ [LPP Lorrain Franconian, 51]

The Lorrain Franconian construction type resembles that of a normal PP with the ablative preposition vun ‘from’ occupying the slot to the immediate left of the Q-stem wu ‘where’, namely [Prepablative Q]whence. Similar constructions can be found in the LPP-varieties of Swiss German (Bern) and Yiddish. This construc-

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 231

tion type is identical to the majority solution attested with WHENCE in the Romance languages. It is perhaps not incidental that Lorrain Franconian vun wu ‘whence’ replicates the internal structure of French d’où ‘whence’ (cf. below). There is no prepositional stranding. Sentence (46.2) shows här ‘hence’ in sentence-final position. This directional morpheme, however, is not detached from wu ‘where’ since it is a mobile preverb of härkummen ‘to come from somewhere’. Identifying the “correct” host of the mobile directional morphemes is a rather difficult task – at least for a number of the regional varieties of German. The difference of (46.1) and (46.2) is thus explained in analogy to the Faroese case above. The presence/absence of the directional particle is dependent upon the lexical verb. Thus, we do not face “extra-complex” spatial interrogatives but combinations of (simple or complex) spatial interrogatives with lexical verbs which trigger the employment of directional markers. In Yiddish, the problems arise from the co-existence of several WHITHERconstructions. The data from the Yiddish LPP-variety are given in (47). (47) (47.1)

(47.2)

(47.3)

Yiddish [LPP Yiddish, 10] Source Fun vanen kumstu, mayn kleyn mentshl? from G? come:2SG:you my little man:DIM ‘Where do you come from, my little man?’ Place Vu iz es bay dir? P? is it at you.DAT ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Vu ahin vilstu nemen mayn lemele? P? EXTRO want:2SG:you take:INF my lamb:DIM ‘Where do you want to take my little lamb?’

The multi-word construction vu ahin ‘whither’ can be replaced by the syncretic mono-word construction vu ‘where = whither’ as shown in (48). (48)

Ober vu vet But where will ‘But where will it go?’

es it

geyn? go:INF

[LPP Yiddish, 10]

The use of vu ‘where’ for WHITHER is not recorded in Jacobs (2005: 230–232) who mentions exclusively vuhin ‘whither’ in this function. This third option is closer to Standard German wohin ‘whither’ whereas Yiddish vu ahin ‘whither’ resembles more some of the WHITHER-constructions attested in contemporary regional

232 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe varieties of German. Since the general survey of Yiddish language structure (Jacobs 2005) does not treat of the spatial interrogatives specifically, we cannot present a complete DGB-paradigm. What can be said nonetheless is that there seems to be a relatively high degree of overabundance at least in the cell of WHITHER. Diachronically, the Yiddish WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is probably the effect of language contact with Polish and Slovak (cf. below). The separability of the Q-stem and the directional morpheme is a recurrent topic in contemporary dialectological and variationist literature on the regional varieties of German and Low German. The dynamic spatial interrogatives are often discussed within the wider framework of the so-called Pronominaladverbien (Fleischer 2002, Negele 2012). Separability presupposes polymorphism of the spatial interrogative. Polymorphism, however, does not automatically involve mobile directional morphemes. Low German (Holstein) woneem ‘where’ is dimorphic but inseparable. The minimal-pair of questions in (49) demonstrates that the long form woneem ‘where’ and its short counterpart neem ‘where’ are functional equivalents of each other. (49) (49.1)

(49.2)

Low German (Holstein) – Place ‘neem sünd de Minschen? [LPP Low German (Holstein), 60] P? be.3PL DET man:PL ‘Where are the men?’ Woneem sünd de Minschen? [LPP Low German (Holstein), 62] P? be.3PL DET man:PL ‘Where are the men?’

The Low German grammar by Lindow et al. (1998: 216) lists woneem among the “nicht trennbare Frageadverbien”. What comes as a surprise is that the authors of this grammar translate this spatial interrogative as follows into Standard German: “woneem >wo, woher Goal Woneem hest du de Schruven hen-leggt? P? have:2SG you DET screw:PL EXTRO-put:PTCPL ‘Where have you put the screws?’ Source (> Place ?) Woneem hest du de Schruven kregen? P? have:2SG you DET screw:PL get:PTCPL ‘Where have you got the screws from?

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 233

These examples are perhaps not the most fortunate choice of data because both of them are doubtful as to the interpretation of the spatial relations. In the case of (50.1), the supposed spatial relation of Place is not compatible with the use of the extroversive preverb hen ‘hither’ on the lexical verb. One might argue that what the question actually is about is not the action carried out by the addressee but the result of this action, namely the whereabouts of the screws. The Source reading of (50.2) fares only slightly better than the Place reading of the previous example. In contrast to (50.1), there is no directional morpheme in (50.2). In analogy to the ambiguity of Place and Goal in (50.1), it might be claimed that the interrogative clause (50.2) does not focus on the path but on the location at which the transferral of the screws took place. If this were true, (50.2) too would be about Place and not about Source.27 The situation is rendered more complicated further by the fact that Lindow et al. (1998: 21–22) attempt to cover the entire range of contemporary Low German varieties (with a certain preference for a generalized northern “standard”). Therefore, it remains unclear whether the putative WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism is typical of a certain variety of Low German or a commonality of a cluster of varieties or even a pan-Low German feature. The latter option is unlikely to be the case since Lindow et al. (1998: 216) also mention mono-functional Low German spatial interrogatives which are similar to those of Standard German, namely wo(r) ‘where’ ≠ wohen ‘whither’ ≠ woher ‘whence’. Indeed, this set of spatial interrogatives is compatible with the paradigm of spatial interrogatives attested in the LPP-variety of Low German (East Frisia). The Q-stem woneem, however, is attested only in the LPP-variety of Low German (Holstein). The additional literary texts ([Postroov], [Plattbarft]) we have consulted to clarify the issue at hand give evidence exclusively of WHENCE-constructions which involve an overt marker of directionality. The Low German translation of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series is representative of the Holstein variety of the language. The sole example of an interrogative clause inquiring about Source is reproduced in (51.1). The further examples under (51) stem from shortstories written in Low German varieties of the same regional provenance.

|| 27 In connection to this problem, one should compare [Plattbarft 29] Neem kriggt wi nu Benzin? ‘Where do we get petrol now?’ – a question asked in a situation when the car of a group of weekend tourists had run out of fuel. At least pragmatically, the question is about the next petrol-station to which the tourists have to walk in order to refill their spare can. In our interpretation, neem ‘where’ functions as the spatial interrogative of Place and not as that of Source in questions of this kind.

234 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (51) (51.1)

(51.2)

(51.3)

(51.4)

Low German (Holstein) – Source Woneem kummst du överhaupt her? [HP Low German, 33] P? come:2SG you actually INTRO ‘Where do you come from, anyway?’ Woneem dat Tüüchs her-kriegen? [Postroov 70] P? that stuff INTRO-get ‘Where do you get that stuff from?’ Wonehm keem de her? [Postroov 106] P? come.PRET it INTRO ‘Where did it [= the snake] come from?’ Woneem weet Se dat mit St. Georg her? [Plattbarft 41] P? know:3SG you.HON that with St. Georg INTRO ‘How do you know about St. Georg?’ (lit. ‘Where do you know that about St. Georg from?’)

To our mind, the above cases speak against WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism in Low German. The idea according to which woneem can function both as spatial interrogative of Place and Source is based on the superficial analysis of controversial examples. The textual evidence suggests that, in the Holstein variety of Low German, the spatial interrogative of Source consists of the Q-stem woneem and a directional morpheme. The LPP-variety of Low German (Holstein) and the additional literary sources of this variety differ only as to the expression size of the spatial interrogative of Source. Where the LPP-variety employs the tetramorphic construction woneem vun weg ‘whence’ consistently (cf. 52), the other prose texts give evidence exclusively of woneem her ‘whence’. The use of the introversive directional particle her ‘hither’ follows the pattern of Standard German. (52) (52.1)

(52.2)

Low German (Holstein) – Source Woneem büst du vun weg, mien lütten Buttjer? P? be.PRES:2SG you from away my little kid ‘Where are you from, my little child?’ [LPP Low German (Holstein), 16] Woneem büst du vun weg? P? be.PRES:2SG you from away ‘Where are you from?’ [LPP Low German (Holstein), 53]

Table 161 summarizes the above discussion about the situation in Low German (Holstein). The column which hosts the data presented in Lindow et al. (1998) is probably not fully compatible with the two other data sets since it remains unclear to what extent the regional characteristics of the Holstein varieties are taken account of in the reference grammar.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 235

Table 161: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three Low German varieties. Spatial relation

LPP-variety

Reference grammar

Other sources

Place

woneem ~ neem

woneem ~ wo(r)

woneem ~ neem

Goal

woneem hen [!] ~ wo hen [!] wohen [!]

woneem hen [!]

Source

woneem vun weg [!]

woneem her [!]

woher [!]

With reference to the Standard German wohin ‘whither’ and woher ‘whence’, Bopst (1995) argues that the mono-word version and the multi-word version (with stranded extroversive hin ‘hence’ or introversive her ‘hither’) are basically identical in terms of semantics and functions. We assume that this judgment can be extended to the polymorphic dynamic spatial interrogatives of all regional varieties of German. In the extant descriptions of Standard German, the paradigm of spatial interrogatives is identical with the ternary set of wo ‘where’ ≠ wohin ‘whither’ ≠ woher ‘whence’ attested in the LPP-variety of Standard German (Drosdowski 1995: 360–361, Eisenberg 1999: 219). According to our native speaker competence, colloquial German also allows for an alternative WHENCEconstruction which resembles that of Swiss German (Bern), Lorrain Franconian, and – to some extent – also that of Yiddish. In lieu of woher ‘whence’, German speakers often employ von wo ‘whence’ which is construed like a PP with the construction frame [von Q]whence. The use of the ablative preposition von ‘from’ and its position immediately to the left of the Q-stem corresponds to the general pattern of WHENCE-constructions in the Romance languages (cf. above). Ablative adpositions form part of the WHENCE-constructions in a number of Germanic LPPvarieties. However, in contrast to German, Swiss German (Bern), Lorrain Franconian, and Yiddish, the ten other Germanic LPP-varieties whose WHENCEconstruction involves an ablative adposition reserve a slot to the right of the Qstem for the adposition. These varieties are Afrikaans, Dutch, English, Frisian (Fering), Frisian (Sölring), Limburgish (North), Limburgish (South), Low German (Holstein), Norwegian (Bokmål), and Swedish. In German, the PP-based construction type is restricted to WHENCE. If we argue that the ablative preposition von ‘from’ is the functional equivalent of the introversive directional particle her and thus the one may replace the other, it is remarkable that the extroversive directional particle hin has no prepositional substitute. Our experience with spoken and written German is such that the logically possible *zu wo ‘lit. to where’ as replacement of wohin ‘whither’ is generally unacceptable. Another candidate is ?nach wo ‘lit. to where’ which seems to occur occasionally in informal spoken German. We are not entirely

236 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe sure of the conditions which regulate the alternation of ?nach wo ‘whither’ and wohin ‘whither’. In the absence of any robust statistics, we can only speculate that the PP-based construction type [nach Q]whither has but a relatively modest token frequency. It is also possible that regional and other sociolinguistic factors come into play so that the domain of ?nach wo ‘whither’ is limited to certain geographical areas and registers or styles. Interestingly, none of the other Germanic LPP-varieties which employ the PP-frame for the spatial interrogative of Source provides any evidence of a parallel construction-type with WHITHER. The situation in spoken (Standard) German is most probably much more complex than the above paragraph suggests. Since we cannot take stock of the entire range of variation in this realm, we cut the discussion short at this point and summarize the results in Table 162. The uncertain status of the construction ? nach wo ‘whither’ justifies the use of brackets in the cell of whither. Table 162: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two German varieties. Spatial relation

LPP-variety + standard

Colloquial German

Place

wo

wo

Goal

wohin [!]

wohin [!] (~ ?nach wo [!])

Source

woher [!]

woher [!] ~ von wo [!]

To conclude this journey across the Germania, we take a look at Cymbrian in Northern Italy. Cymbrian is a Germanic variety which is closely related to Bavarian and the neighboring varieties of Tyrolean. For most of its existence, Cymbrian has been under the influence of the surrounding Italo-Romance varieties. This influence manifests itself also in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. In the monumental Zimbrische Gesamtgrammatik (originally written between 1933 and 1953), Schweizer (2008: 735) states with reference to ba ~ bo (= Standard German wo ‘where’) that [d]ieses Fragewort hat neben der örtlichen Bedeutung auch noch sehr übertragene Funktionen. Vor allem fungiert es als Relativum. Die Richtung ‘wohin’ wird gewöhnlich nicht besonders ausgedrückt.

The last sentence of this quote is especially interesting because it tells us two things. First of all, there is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and, secondly, this syncretism is not absolutely compulsory. Evidence of spatial interrogatives of Goal which are overtly marked for directionality are, however, absent from

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 237

Schweizer’s grammar. The Cymbrian by the examples in (53). (53) (53.1)

(53.2)

WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism

Cymbrian Place Ba pisto gabest P?/G? be.PRES:2SG PTCPL:be ‘Where have you been today?’ Goal Ba gesto du? P?/G? go:2SG you ‘Where are you going?’

is illustrated

[Schweizer 2008: 735] hôüte? today

For the spatial relation of Source, the varieties of Cymbrian seem to have different solutions. In (54), examples from two different village varieties – Roana and Giazza – show that there is intra-Cymbrian variation. (54) (54.1)

(54.2)

Cymbrian – Source Cymbrian (Roana) Bannont kemetar? S? come:2PL:you.PL ‘Where do you come from?’ Cymbrian (Giazza) Un-bo ken dise hearn? and-P?/G? come those INTRO ‘And where do those come from?’

[Schweizer 2008: 734]

[Schweizer 2008: 735]

Bavarian makes the same distinctions as Standard German in the realm of the spatial interrogatives (Merkle 2005: 177), meaning Bavarian does not tolerate WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. Cymbrian, however, shares this syncretic pattern with Italian and the Romance varieties spoken in the vicinity of Cambrian. Moreover, the formal identity of the spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal is also attested in Mócheno (Rowley 2003: 270–271), a Germanic variety of the same region which has been subject to Romance contact influence for an equally long period, cf. (55). (55) (55.1)

Mócheno Place Bou is der P?/G? be.3SG DET ‘Where is my donkey?’

[Rowley 2003: 271] mai’ my

eisl? donkey

238 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (55.2)

Goal Bou geaso? P?/G? go:2SG ‘Where do you go?’

There is no example of a WHENCE-construction in the descriptive grammar of Mócheno. As to the neighboring South Tyrolean village variety of Laurein (Kollmann 2012: 350–351), the empirical basis is too small to allow us to draw any definitive conclusions. There are exactly two examples of WHENCEconstructions – two types = two tokens, namely bɤuˈhĩ ‘whither’ (which is a cognate of Standard German wohin ‘whither’) and bɤu ‘where = whither’ (which is a cognate of Standard German wo ‘where’). This alternation might tell us that the Italian influence has not yet ousted fully the pre-contact paradigm of WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE whereas Mócheno and Cymbrian reflect a higher degree of Italianization of their paradigm of spatial interrogatives. However, the Laurein WHENCE-constructions stem from the lyrics of prayers or church hymns and their status is thus difficult to judge. The above paragraphs demonstrate that the inclusion of the DGB-varieties is tantamount to an increase of structural variation. More generally, one cannot help the feeling that the degree of variation increases with every new source that is taken account of. The Germanic languages are affected by an additional dose of overabundance to much the same degree as the Romance language. What the representatives of the two phyla share beyond this property is the relatively strict observation of the markedness hierarchy, i.e. whatever additional word-forms enter the paradigms via the inclusion of DGB-varieties obeys the general principles according to which WHERE is expressed by the least complex construction while WHITHER and especially WHENCE tend to be expressed by complex constructions. In the Romance case, we have seen also that there is an areal distribution of syncretic patterns. There is evidence of areality in the Germanic case too with English, Faroese (LPP-variety), and both Norwegian varieties reflecting the WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism which is typical of the majority of the Romance languages. Romance influence can also be assumed for the (ongoing) change of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Cymbrian and sundry Germanic varieties spoken in northern Italy where the same syncretic pattern is on the verge of ousting the erstwhile syncretism-free system of spatial interrogatives. At the same time, a number of Germanic varieties which are situated in the border-region between German, Dutch and French display (often only residual) features of WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism – a pattern that runs counter to all predictions about possible and impossible syncretisms in systems of spatial categories. This pattern has been constantly losing ground because of the pres-

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 239

sure exerted by the dominant standard languages (Dutch and German) which are characterized by the absence of syncretism from their paradigms of spatial interrogatives. The employment of WHENCE-constructions of the type [Prepablative Q]whence in a number of westerly varieties of Germanic might also be connected to parallel structures in the neighboring Romance languages. Contact-induced changes thus constitute a non-negligible factor in the dynamics of the systems under scrutiny. It is therefore a must for us to look at some of those diachronic developments which can be traced easily without probing too deeply into the philological details.

3.2.2.3 Germanic spatial interrogatives in diachronic perspective Throughout their history the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Germanic languages have undergone changes none of which, however, seriously affect the basic architecture of the system. On the whole, the unmarked status of WHERE and the marked status of both WHITHER and WHENCE is not at stake when changes occur. The direction of the derivational process within the paradigm remains unaltered. What language change brings about instead is a higher degree of overabundance and in several cases also the replacement of the erstwhile pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE with the Romance-like pattern (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE. It is safe to assume that the Germanic languages in general look back on a distant past in which their paradigm of spatial interrogatives was shaped along the lines of what Valfells & Cathey (1981: 198) state in connection to Old Icelandic: “Old Icelandic has various interrogative adverbs which derive from certain case forms of the interrogative pronouns or which are otherwise related to them.” This means that there were originally three distinct mono-word constructions which were formally distinct because of the different inflexions they displayed. This situation is reflected by the formal properties of spatial adverbs in Gothic of which Braune & Ebbinghaus (1973: 123) paint the following picture: Adverbia des Orts werden gebildet auf die Frage wohin? entweder ohne Suffix oder mit den Suffixen -þ (-d) und -drê, auf die Frage wo? mit den Suffixen -r und -a, auf die Frage woher? mit den Suffixen -þrô und -ana.

This means that the spatial interrogatives of this early period of the documented history of the Germanic languages formed part of a larger set of spatial adverbs all of which obeyed the same morphological rules to distinguish the relations to be expressed. Table 163 reproduces the paradigms of the spatial interrogatives

240 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe of Gothic (Braune & Ebbinghaus 1973: 124) and Old Icelandic (Valfells & Cathey 1981: 198), cf. also Mackenzie (1978: 133–41). Table 163: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Gothic and Old Icelandic. Spatial relation

Gothic

Old Icelandic

Place

hvar

hvar

Goal

hvaþ ~ hvadrê

hvert

Source

hvaþrô

hvaðan

For Gothic, a general Q-stem hva- can be assumed which also occurs with the interrogative pronouns such as hvas/hva/hvô ‘who (masculine/neuter/feminine)’ which also boast of case inflexions (e.g. the accusative singular masculine hvana ‘who(m)’) (Braune & Ebbinghaus 1973: 94–95). Thus all word-forms in the Gothic paradigm are dimorphic and dimorphemic according to the pattern [Q-CASEdirectionality]spatial interrogative. It is interesting to see that Gothic conforms to the general pattern nevertheless. WHERE is represented by the simplest construction because it is monosyllabic and its phonological realization comprises a chain of only three segments. In contrast, whence is expressed by a disyllabic spatial interrogative which has a phonological chain of five segments. Unsurprisingly, WHITHER takes in an intermediate position insofar as it can be represented by two different alloforms, namely, on the one hand, the relatively simple hvaþ ‘whither’ which is identical in complexity to the WHERE-construction and, on the other hand, the relatively complex hvadrê ‘whither’ which yields the same number of syllables and segments as those determined for the WHENCEconstruction. The cell of WHITHER gives evidence of overabundance. In the case of Old Icelandic, the relation of the spatial interrogatives with the interrogative pronouns and other spatial adverbs is not as transparent as in Gothic. Since in these parts of grammar, Icelandic has not experienced any major changes over time it comes as no surprise that the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of modern Icelandic is identical to that of the earliest stages of the language, cf. (43) above. Today, remnants of the erstwhile inflexions on the spatial interrogatives can be found in Swedish vart ‘whither’, most probably also in Luxembourgish wuer ‘whither’, Yiddish fun vannen ‘whence’, Cymbrian (Roana) bannont ‘whence’, Faroese hvørt ‘whither’ and hvaðani ‘whence’, Elfdalian wert ‘whither’ and weðą̊ ‘whence’. The old word-forms of WHERE ending in a rhotic –r have been reanalyzed as Q-stems in Dutch, English, all varieties of Frisian and closely related languages, i.e. the former case marker has

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 241

been degrammaticalized. In the majority of the Germanic languages, however, the word-forms of old have experienced more or less radical changes so that the paradigms of today differ markedly from those attested in the distant past. For the purposes of this study it suffices to discuss a small selection of the most instructive cases in this section. In analogy to the case of Latin in (20) above, we make use of the extant versions of Le Petit Prince in Old English, Middle English, Old High German, and Middle High German to illustrate the phenomena in a format that allows direct comparison to other languages discussed in this book. We are fully aware of the pitfalls of working with non-original data from extinct varieties. Therefore, if needs be, the examples taken from our sample text will be complemented by references to the extant grammars which take account of the original language material of the four above older stages of English and German. We begin with Old English. The examples in (56) suggest that at the onset of the documented history of English, the paradigm of spatial interrogatives comprised three distinct constructions all of which were mono-word constructions. (56) (56.1)

(56.2)

(56.3)

Old English Source Hwanon eart þu, min þu S? be:2SG you my you ‘Where are you from, my little boy?’ Place Hwær is þin ham? P? be.3SG your home ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Hwider wilt þu lædan G? want:2SG you guide:INF ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

[LPP Old English, 16] lytel little

min my

wiht? thing

sceap? sheep

This is indeed the picture that also results from the extant philological literature on Old English (Mitchell & Robinson 2001: 352). This means that originally English conformed to the majority of the Germanic languages in the sense that its paradigm of spatial interrogatives contained three formally distinct constructions. Their mono-word structure resembles that of Icelandic on all of its stages. The situation in the Middle English period is still very similar to that of Old English although there are already evident signs of on-going changes, cf. (57).

242 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (57) (57.1)

(57.2)

(57.3)

Middle English [LPP Middle English, 16] Source Fro whennes comestow, my litel prynce? from S? come:2SG:you my little prince ‘Where do you come from, my little prince? Place Wher is thy place? P? be.3SG your place ‘Where is your place?’ Goal Whider wiltow take my sheep? G? want:2SG:you take my sheep ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

Discounting the possibility of sound changes, we first of all recognize that there are three distinct constructions also in Middle English. Word-forms for WHERE and WHITHER are also given in Mossé (1969: 549–550), namely w(h)er(e) ~ w(h)are ~ hwer(e) ~ huer(e) ~ quere ‘where’ and w(h)eder ‘whither’. No WHENCEconstruction is mentioned in this handbook of Middle English. The Middle English LPP-version is suggestive of a stepwise reshaping of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives, because the question-answer pair in (58) shows that the interrogative whider ‘whither’ triggers an answer by the indefinite any where ‘anywhere’ which is ambiguous as to Place and Goal. (58) (58.1)

(58.2)

Middle English – Goal Question But whider wiltow but G? want:2SG:you ‘But where do you want it to go?’ Answer Any where. any where ‘Anywhere.’

[LPP Middle English, 16] that that

it it

go? go

Moreover the multi-word WHENCE-construction of (57.1) competes with the synonymous mono-word construction given in (59). (59)

Middle English – Source Whennes comestou? S? come:2SG:you ‘Where do you come from?’

[LPP Middle English, 53]

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 243

Fro whennes ‘whence’ looks like an optionally reinforced construction since whennes ‘whence’ alone seems to be sufficient to fulfil the task of the spatial interrogative of Source. According to the etymological information provided in the Webster’s (1994: 1626), Middle English whennes ~ whannes ‘whence’ is equivalent to whanne ‘when’ to which the genitival -(e)s has been added. Interestingly, in the same lexical entry the dictionary user is cautioned against using the preposition from in combination with whence “in careful speech and writing”. This admonition implies that the multi-word construction in (57.1) reflects a relatively common usage in colloquial Early Modern English. On this somewhat shaky basis we can reconstruct the general lines of development of the spatial interrogatives in the history of English. In Table 164, we skip the usual allographies so that overabundance is limited to the cell of the spatial interrogative of Source. Table 164: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives on different diachronic stages of the English language. Spatial relation Old English Middle English Early Modern English

Contemporary English

Place

hwær

where

where

where

Goal

hwider

whider

whither

where

Source

hwanon

whennes ~ whence ~ from whence [!] where from [!] fro whennes [!]

According to this simplified account of the diachronic processes, it can be assumed that, on the one hand, the erstwhile tripartite paradigm has given way to the Romance-like paradigm with only two distinct constructions after the Early Modern English period. Furthermore one might argue that the reorganization of the paradigm began much earlier during Middle English times when the optional reinforcement of the WHENCE yielded a multi-word construction to pave the way for contemporary where from. In terms of the assumed higher markedness of WHENCE, it is telling that it is exactly the spatial interrogative of Source that was affected first by substantial changes – changes which introduced an especially complex construction type. The history of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of German likewise gives evidence of a number of changes. In contrast to the English case, however, these changes have not altered the syncretic pattern. The representative interrogatives clauses from the Old High German translation of Le Petit Prince are given in (60).

244 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (60) (60.1)

(60.2)

(60.3)

Old High German [LPP Old High German, 16] Source Huuanna chuuimis dhû mîn luzzilaz cherlinchilîn? S? come:2SG you my little guy:DIM ‘Where do you come from, my little boy?’ Place huuâr ist dhîn heimingi? P? be.3SG your home ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Huuara uuilli dhû pringan mîn scâf? G? want:2SG you bring:INF my sheep ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

Like in Old English, there is a ternary paradigm with three distinct mono-word constructions. Braune & Ebbinghaus (1994: 210) provide a similar paradigm with the word-forms (h)wā(r) ‘where’ ≠ (h)wara ‘whither’ ≠ (h)wanān ~ hwanana ‘whence’ with (h)wanna ~ wanne being registered only as pronominal adverb without interrogative function. These distinctions are also reported for the Middle High German period. Their use is reflected by the sentences in (61) taken from the Middle High German version of our sample text. (61) (61.1)

(61.2)

(61.3)

Middle High German [LPP Middle High German, 16] Source Wanne kumestu, mîn kleinez büebelîn? S? come:2SG:you my little boy:DIM ‘Where do you come from, my little boy?’ Place Wâ bistu ze hûse? P? be.2SG:you to home ‘Where are you at home?’ Goal War wiltu mîn schaf mite nehmen? G? want:2SG:you my sheep with take:INF ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

There are again three distinct constructions which seem to have undergone reductive sound change. According to Paul et al. (1989: 231), the Middle High German paradigm of spatial interrogatives contains the following word-forms: wâ(r) ‘where’ ≠ war ‘whither’ ≠ wannen ‘whence’. The latter is also employed in Le Petit Prince in Middle High German as example (62) shows.

Micro-level variation in Germanic | 245

(62)

Middle High German – Source Wannen kumestu? S? come:2SG:you ‘Where do you come from?’

[LPP Middle High German, 53]

It is immediately evident that there is the potential for WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism in the Middle High German paradigm because word-forms like wâr ‘where’ and war ‘whither’ are distinguished from each other only by the vowel quantity. As a matter of fact, modern Standard German limits reflexes of the old spatial interrogatives with a stem-final rhotic to the set of pronominal adverbials the second element of which has an initial vowel as e.g. worin ‘wherein’. Everywhere else wo ‘where’ (< Middle High German wâ ‘where’) has become the uncontested Q-stem. The generalization of this Q-stem has ousted the erstwhile distinct mono-word constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE. This dramatic change notwithstanding, the German paradigm of spatial interrogatives has remained what it was in the beginning, namely a representative of the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. This conversation of the syncretic pattern has been achieved by the introduction of the mobile directional morphemes – extroversive hin and introversive her. The major change that has affected the German system boils down to the replacement of mono-word constructions with multi-word constructions in the case of WHITHER and WHENCE, cf. Table 165 (and Table 162 above). Table 165: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives on different diachronic stages of the German language. Spatial relation Old High German

Middle High German Contemporary Duden-German

Place

(h)wār ~ wā

wâr ~ wâ

wo

Goal

(h)wara

war

wohin [!]

Source

(h)wanān ~ hwanana

wanne(n)

woher [!]

The Yiddish multi-word construction fun vannen ‘whence’ includes the Middle High German spatial interrogative of Source wannen ‘whence’. Note that the Yiddish construction type is structurally similar to the optionally reinforced Middle English construction fro whennes ‘whence’. Cymbrian (Roana) bannont ‘whence’ is certainly a direct descendant of Middle High German wannen ‘whence’. The Luxembourgish mono-word WHITHER-construction wuer ‘whither’ is probably a cognate of Middle High German war ‘whither’. To sum up the general lines of the diachronic developments sketched above, it suffices to conclude that what has happened in the vast majority of the German-

246 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe ic languages is the gradual replacement of one encoding strategy with another. On the oldest stages of the Germanic languages, the distinction of the three spatial relations of Place, Goal, and Source was the task of case-inflexions on the spatial interrogatives which used to be mono-word constructions. The system with three distinct constructions WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE has escaped being altered in most of the Germanic languages. What has changed though is the way in which these distinctions are made morphosyntactically. The erstwhile inflexions have vanished from the paradigm of spatial interrogatives in the bulk of the Germanic languages surveyed in this study. The role of the obsolete case morphology on the spatial interrogatives has been taken over gradually by often analytic means so that the contemporary paradigms host multi-word constructions where in the past there were only mono-word constructions. The substitution of synthetic constructions by largely analytic constructions does not impair the validity of the inherited ternary paradigm. The number of Germanic languages in which WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism has arisen is relatively small. In contrast to the diachrony of the majority of the Romance languages, the developments that have occurred in the history of the Germanic spatial interrogatives have not caused any major typological changes. It is remarkable that the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE proves to be immune against changes also in most of those Germanic languages which have lost morphological case elsewhere in their morphological system (such as Dutch, and Swedish) and that Faroese which has morphological case also displays a tendency towards WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism. Scheme 14 marks the termination of the section devoted to the Germanic languages. It paints a necessarily very simplified picture of what has happened in the diachrony of the majority of the Germanic languages. [(Prepdirectionality) Q]spatial interrogative [Q-CASEdirectionality]spatial interrogative > [Q (Ptcldirectionality)]spatial interrogative Scheme 14: Change of encoding strategy.

The originally case-inflected spatial interrogative gives way to the emergence of two successor constructions. Either a preposition assumes the functions of the erstwhile case marker or a directional particle comes to be employed in this function.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 247

3.3 Micro-level variation in Slavic 3.3.1

Slavic LPP-varieties

3.3.1.1 Mismatches 3.3.1.1.1 Syncretism With translations into seventeen languages the Slavic share of our corpus of versions of Le Petit Prince is considerably smaller than that of Romance or Germanic. As in the previous cases, the Slavic languages are divided into three groups, viz. those languages which do not employ syncretic patterns as opposed to those which attest to syncretism within the paradigm of spatial interrogatives plus a third class of languages which combines both patterns via overabundance. In these three groups of the Slavic LPP-varieties, the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE accounts for 70.5% of all cases. The twelve languages which give evidence exclusively of this pattern are presented in Table 166. Table 166: Maximally distinct paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Slavic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

Russian Kashubian28 Belarusian

dze

Serbian

gde

LPP

WHITHER

WHENCE

gde

kuda

otkuda

12

gdze

dokądka

skądka

–

kudy

adkul‘

388

kuda

odakle

16

Croatian

gdje

kamo

odakle

14

Croatian (Burgenland)

kade

kamo

odakle

14

Slovak

kde

kam

odkiaľ

14

Czech

kde

kam

odkud

17

Slovenian

kje

kam

od kod [!]

13

Sorbian (Lower)

źo

źo hyn [!]

wót źo [!]

16

Sorbian (Upper)

hdźe

dokal

zwotkel

16

Ukrainian

de

kudy

zvidky ~ vidkilja

14

|| 28 The Kashubian translation of Le Petit Prince is fragmentary. As of now, it covers only the first nine chapters of the sample text. This means that the control sentences from chapters XV, XVII and XVIII are not available for this language.

248 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Five languages attest to WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism, i.e. 29% of the Slavic LPPvarieties reflect this pattern. Four of these languages monopolize this pattern in their versions of the sample text, cf. Table 167. Table 167: Slavic LPP-varieties with paradigm-internal syncretism. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Bosnian

gdje

gdje

odakle

15

Bulgarian

kăde

kăde

otkăde

16

Macedonian

kade

kade

od kade [!]

11

Slavomolisano

di

di

do di [!] ~ jiskla

16

In addition, there is Polish whose LPP-variety illustrates both syncretic patterns, cf. Table 168. Table 168: Combination of patterns in the Polish LPP-variety. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Polish

gdzie

gdzie ~ dokąd

skąd

14

The Slavic LPP-varieties seem to occupy an intermediate position between Romance on the one hand and Germanic on the other. The relatively high share of languages with paradigms which keep all of the three spatial relations distinct from each other links the Slavic LPP-varieties to their Germanic counter-parts. In contrast to the latter, however, there is a higher percentage of languages which are characterized by WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and thus resemble the Romance LPP-varieties. This resemblance to Romance notwithstanding, the Slavic LPP-varieties are in agreement with the Germanic LPP-varieties insofar as both groups of languages give preference to the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. The low incidence of overabundance in the Slavic LPP-varieties is responsible for the almost imperceptible numerical difference which separates the estimated number of word-forms per spatial interrogative from the number of the attested cases, cf. Table 169. The increase in absolute numbers is lower than that calculated for the Romance and the Germanic LPP-varieties as indicated in Table 65 and Table 123, respectively.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 249

Table 169: Attested constructions in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

sum

estimate

17

17

17

51

attested

17

18

19

54

increase

0%

+5%

+12%

6%

As the values in Table 169 show there is only a surplus of three constructions. This means that only 6% of all cells are affected by overabundance. Twelve cells of a total of fifty-one cells are occupied by identical word-forms, i.e. syncretism extends over slightly less than a quarter of all cells (namely 23.5%). About 22% of all word-forms are involved in patterns of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism.

3.3.1.1.2 Overabundance The limited significance of overabundance for the organization of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of the Slavic LPP-varieties emerges from Table 170 which hosts the data for just three languages. Table 170: Slavic LPP-varieties which attest to overabundance. Language

WHERE

Ukrainian Slavomolisano Polish

WHITHER

WHENCE

de

kudy

zvidky ~ vidkilja

di

di

do di ~ jiskla

gdzie

gdzie ~ dokąd

skąd

Interestingly, all instances of overabundance involve one of the dynamic spatial relations whereas the spatial interrogatives of Place are generally exempt from overabundance. This yields a distribution of 2-to-1 in favor of WHENCE as opposed to WHITHER, cf. Diagram 57. The turnout of overabundance is too small to serve as the basis of generalizations. The possibility of drawing further conclusions is also hampered by the small size of the subsample of Slavic LPP-varieties so that the discussion of this issue can be taken up only in Section 3.3.2 below.

250 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

where 0 0% whither 1 33% whence 2 67%

Diagram 57: Shares of spatial interrogatives of overabundance in Slavic LPP-varieties.

3.3.1.1.3 Suppletion In contrast to overabundance, suppletion is an almost pervasive trait of the paradigms of the spatial interrogatives of the Slavic LPP-varieties. In point of fact, there is only a small set of three languages whose paradigms lack suppletion entirely, cf. Table 171. Table 171: Slavic LPP-varieties without suppletion. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Bulgarian

kăde

kăde

otkăde

Macedonian

kade

kade

od kade

Sorbian (Lower)

źo

źo hyn

wót źo

The languages in Table 171 account for 17.5% of the Slavic LPP-varieties. Thus, there must be a majority of fourteen languages (= 82.5%) which attest to suppletion. Forty-two of fifty-one cells (= 82%) are affected by suppletion. The paradigms which give evidence of suppletion are listed in Table 172. Grey shading marks those paradigms in which there are three distinct stems. For paradigms which involve two different stems, boldface and underlining are used to keep the two stems apart.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 251

Table 172: Slavic LPP-varieties which attest to suppletion. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Belarusian

dze

kudy

adkul‘

Serbian

gde

kuda

odakle

Croatian

gdje

kamo

odakle

Slovak

kde

kam

odkiaľ

Czech

kde

kam

odkud

Slovenian

kje

kam

od kod

Sorbian (Upper)

hdźe

dokal

zwotkel

Ukrainian

de

kudy

zvidky ~ vidkilja

Russian

gde

kuda

otkuda

Kashubian

gdze

dokądka

skądka

Polish

gdzie

gdzie ~ dokąd

skąd

Bosnian

gdje

gdje

odakle

kamo

odakle

di

do di ~ jiskla

Croatian (Burgenland) kade Slavomolisano

di

Synchronically, the bulk of the above cases can be classified as instances of strong suppletion. Weak suppletion is a marginal phenomenon with doubtful attestations in Czech kde ‘where’ and odkud ‘whence’ as well as in Sorbian (Upper) dokal ‘whither’ and zwotkel ‘whence’. The diachronic background of contemporary suppletion will be addressed in Section 3.3.2.2 below. In Diagram 58, we expose how often a spatial category is represented by a stem which is completely isolated within the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. WHERE and WHENCE display equal propensity of morphologically unique stems within paradigms whereas WHITHER lags behind with about a quarter of all cases as opposed to about a third of all cases which go to the credit of each of the other members of the paradigm. Note that Slavomolisano is the only LPPvariety of the Slavic languages in Table 172 which allows for identical stems for WHERE and WHENCE (under the conditions of overabundance and with WHERE= WHITHER-syncretism). In stark contrast to the Germanic LPP-varieties, the Slavic LPP-varieties are prone to allowing suppletive word-forms on board their paradigms of spatial interrogatives. The difference is less striking in the case of the Romance LPPvarieties (cf. Section 3.1.1.3 above). Nevertheless, the share of suppletion is considerably higher with Slavic LPP-varieties than it is with Romance LPP-varieties.

252 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

whence

where

11

11

36.7%

36.7% whither 8 26.7%

Diagram 58: Shares of spatial interrogatives of strong suppletion in Slavic LPP-varieties.

3.3.1.1.4 Periphrasis Periphrasis is attested in exactly four of the Slavic LPP-varieties, cf. Table 173. Grey shading highlights those cells which host periphrastic constructions. In case of overabundance, boldface is used to single out the periphrastic construction. There is only one example of anti-periphrasis. Table 173: Slavic LPP-varieties with periphrastic spatial interrogatives. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Slovenian

kje

kam

od kod

Macedonian

kade

kade

od kade

Sorbian (Lower)

źo

źo hyn

wót źo

Slavomolisano

di

di

do di ~ jiskla

On this parameter, the results are relatively clear. Generally, periphrasis is a minority phenomenon as it occurs in 23.5% of the languages under scrutiny. Of fifty-one cells, no more than four are affected by periphrasis, i.e. periphrasis is absent from 78% of all cells of the total of paradigms. Moreover, periphrasis is attested predominantly in connection to WHENCE. It is always represented by constructions of the type [Prepablative Q]whence. The absolute and relative values in Diagram 59 yield an unequivocal picture according to which periphrasis is the monopoly of WHENCE alone.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 253

whither 0 0%

where 1 25% whence 3 75%

Diagram 59: Shares of (anti-)periphrastic spatial interrogatives in Slavic LPP-varieties.

In comparison to the numerical values discussed in connection with periphrasis in Germanic LPP-varieties and Romance LPP-varieties, the data surveyed in this section are suggestive of the limited importance of this phenomenon for the Slavic LPP-varieties.

3.3.1.1.5 Fused exponence The Slavic LPP-varieties offer a relatively sizable number of cases which illustrate fused exponence. There are a dozen languages which attest to this phenomenon. Thus, 70.5% of the languages under debate testify to fused exponence. In Table 174, grey shading marks those cells which host a wordform which is characterized by fused exponence. In the case of Polish and Slavomolisano, it is necessary to mark fused exponence by boldface. This wordform forms a paradigm with those word-forms which are underlined. Table 174: Slavic LLP-varieties with cases of fused exponence. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

Belarusian

dze

kudy

adkul‘

Serbian

gde

kuda

odakle

Ukrainian

de

kudy

zvidky ~ vidkilja

Polish

gdzie

gdzie ~ dokąd

skąd

WHENCE

254 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Sorbian (Upper)

hdźe

dokal

zwotkel

Kashubian

gdze

dokądka

skądka

Russian

gde

kuda

otkuda

Croatian

gdje

kamo

odakle

Slovak

kde

kam

odkiaľ

Czech

kde

kam

odkud

Slovenian

kje

kam

od kod

Slavomolisano

di

di

do di ~ jiskla

Fifteen of fifty-one cells of the paradigms host word-forms which instantiate fused exponence. This means that 29% of all cells display fused exponence. Note that the turnout of fused exponence computed for the Slavic LPP-varieties is almost as big as those of the Germanic and Romance LPP-varieties together, namely fifteen as opposed to sixteen cases. Since the Slavic subsample is much smaller than the sets of Germanic and Romance LPP-varieties, it can be stated that fused exponence is a characteristic trait of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives in the Slavia whereas fused exponence is a minority solution with Germanic and Romance LPP-varieties. It is also remarkable that in the Slavic case, the spatial interrogative of Place is most often affected by fused exponence. The phenomenon is eleven times more frequent with WHERE than it is attested with WHENCE, cf. Diagram 60. whence whither 3

1 7%

20%

where 11 73%

Diagram 60: Shares of spatial interrogatives of fused exponence in Slavic LPP-varieties.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 255

In the two previously discussed phyla, it is always the category of WHENCE which yields the highest values as to fused exponence.

3.3.1.1.6 Results We survey the results of the above presentation in Diagrams 61–62. The total of sixty-two mismatches is remarkable because it exceeds the fifty-five cases attested in the much larger Germanic group. This fact can be interpreted as a clear sign of the higher tolerance of Slavic LPP-varieties as to morphological mismatches in the paradigms of spatial interrogatives. 100% 80%

1

2

60%

whence

3 8

40% 20%

3

11

5

whither

11 5

1

11

overabundance

suppletion

where

1

0% syncretism

periphrasis

fused exponence

Diagram 61: Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in Slavic LPP-varieties. 100%

3

80%

11

60%

1

40%

11

20% 0%

5 where

1 3

periphrasis

8 11 1 5 whither

fused exponence

suppletion overabundance

2

syncretism

whence

Diagram 62: Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in Slavic LPP-varieties.

256 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe WHERE is strong in three categories of mismatches, namely syncretism, suppletion, and fused exponence. WHITHER excels only with syncretism whereas WHENCE occupies the rank at the top with overabundance, suppletion, and periphrasis. These differences are reflected by the shares in Diagram 61. The biggest share of all instances of mismatches go to the credit of WHERE. The shares displayed in Diagram 62 reveal that suppletion is the most important kind of mismatches in the Slavic LPP-varieties. For all three spatial categories, suppletion claims especially big shares. None of the other mismatches reaches similarly high values. Fused exponence is exceptional insofar as it is responsible for 40% all mismatches associated with WHERE. As to the Romance LPP-varieties, the favored mismatch is syncretism. In contrast, suppletion is a relatively infrequent phenomenon (cf. Diagram 19 above). The Germanic data show periphrasis to be especially strong (cf. Diagram 41 above). This means that the three phyla are characterized by different preferences for mismatches. Suppletion and fused exponence together yield 45 tokens of the total of 55 mismatches. This is tantamount to a share of 82% of all cases. If mismatches occur in a paradigm of spatial interrogatives in a Slavic LPP-variety, there is thus  a 4.5-to-one probability that suppletion or fused exponence applies,  a 100% certainty that WHENCE is not involved if we are dealing with syncretism,  a 100% certainty that WHERE is not involved if we are dealing with overabundance, and  a 75% certainty that WHENCE is involved if we are dealing with periphrasis.

The numerical weight of the two preferred mismatches makes itself felt also in the realm of combinations of mismatches. The pairwise combinability of mismatches in the Slavic case is presented synoptically in Table 175. Table 175: Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm in Slavic LPP-varieties. Syncretism Overabundance Suppletion Periphrasis Fused Sum exponence syncretism

2

overabundance 2 suppletion

2

2

periphrasis

3

1

2

3

2

9

2

1

2

7

1

11

16

0

5

1

fused exponence 2

2

11

0

Total

7

16

5

9

15 15

52

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 257

There are altogether fifty-two binary combinations. Among these, the cooccurrence of fused exponence and suppletion in one and the same paradigm stands out because it covers over 42% of all combinations. None of the other pairs of mismatches exceeds 12%.

3.3.1.2 Constructional complexity 3.3.1.2.1 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions In the Slavic case, there is no need to differentiate between periphrasis and multi-word constructions because the problems we had to face concerning this area in the Germanic languages above do not arise here. The identity of periphrasis and multi-word constructions simplifies things considerably. The four Slavic LPP-varieties which give evidence of periphrasis in Table 173 at the same time exhaust the group of Slavic LPP-varieties which attest to multi-word constructions. Every Slavic periphrastic construction is automatically also an instance of a multi-word construction and vice versa. It is therefore unnecessary to repeat the paradigms of Table 173 in this subsection. The same applies to the statistics since they are identical to those given in connection to periphrasis in Section 3.3.1.1.4 (cf. especially Diagram 59). The count of the combinations of mono-word constructions and multi-wordconstructions does not provide unexpected results. We therefore integrate all the combinations in Table 176 in lieu of giving a separate table per combination. The total of 114 has to be divided by two to get the exact number of combinations. Table 176: Combinations of mono-word constructions and multi-word-constructions in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Sum

mono-word mono-word multi-word mono-word multi-word WHERE

mono-word

WHITHER

mono-word multi-word

1

WHENCE

mono-word

15

16

multi-word

4

3

1

37

36

2

Total

17

1

17

15

4

37

16

4

37 1 31 8

31

8

114

258 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe In forty-eight cases of fifty-seven combinations, the spatial interrogatives which are compared to each other are represented by mono-word constructions and are thus of identical complexity. Identical complexity applies in 84% of all cases. The remaining 16% always involve a multi-word WHENCE-construction which is compared to mono-word constructions of WHERE or WHITHER. The constructions of spatial interrogatives in the Slavic LPP-varieties are mono-word constructions by default. Table 177 shows that the overall average for the constructions is very close to the possible minimum of one word. WHENCE alone exceeds the average – but only by a very narrow margin. Table 177: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of words per construction) in Slavic LPP-varieties.

words

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.0

1.0

1.2

1.1

In both the Romance and the Germanic LPP-varieties, the overall average is markedly higher than that of the Slavic LPP-varieties. Moreover, the gaps which separate the individual spatial interrogatives from each other are considerably larger in the cases of Romance and Germanic languages. In both of these groups of languages WHENCE comes close to the average of two words per construction (cf. Tables 76 and 133 above). Multi-word constructions are attested not only for WHENCE but also for WITHER (in only one language). The phenomenon is foreign to WHERE in the Slavic LPP-versions, no further explanations are needed to justify the score of ‘0’ for WHERE, ‘1’ for WHITHER, and that of ‘2’ for WHENCE on this parameter.

3.3.1.2.2 Morphs In contrast to the two previously discussed genetically-defined groups of LPPvarieties, the Slavic LPP-varieties do not display a sizable amount of multi-word constructions and periphrastic constructions. This means that one of the factors which contribute to polymorphism is largely inactive in the Slavic case. However, the scarcity of multi-word constructions does not bar the possibility that polymorphism applies. In point of fact, many of the Slavic spatial interrogatives which are represented by mono-word constructions contain two or three morphs, cf. Table 178. The numbers refer to the size of the constructions in

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 259

terms of morphs. The languages are ordered top-down according to the increase of the number of morphs. Table 178: Number of morphs of spatial interrogatives of Slavic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Russian

1

1

2

Belarusian

1

1

2

Serbian

1

1

2

Bosnian

1

1

2

Bulgarian

1

1

2

Macedonian

1

1

2

Slavomolisano

1

1

2~2

Ukrainian

1

1

2~3

Polish

1

1~2

2

Czech

1

2

2

Slovak

1

2

2

Croatian

1

2

2

Slovenian

1

2

2

Sorbian (Lower)

1

2

2

Sorbian (Upper)

1

2

3

Kashubian

1

3

3

Croatian (Burgenland)

2

2

2

Determining the number of morphs is a tricky business for several of the above Slavic LPP-varieties. What the data in Table 178 tell us is first and foremost that there is no Slavic LPP-variety whose paradigm of spatial interrogatives does not contain at least one polymorphic construction. Furthermore, we recognize immediately that WHENCE-constructions are always polymorphic whereas polymorphism is exceptional for WHERE-constructions. The Burgenland variety of Croatian is remarkable insofar as it provides the only example of a paradigm with three members all of which display the same number of morphs. Everywhere else there is asymmetry in the paradigm. There are altogether eighty-five morphs in Table 178. These morphs distribute unevenly across the three spatial categories. Diagram 63 shows that WHENCE

260 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe claims more than twice as many morphs as WHERE claims. WHITHER conforms to the usual pattern insofar as it occupies the middle position between the two extremes.

where 18 whence

21%

39 46%

whither 28 33%

Diagram 63: Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphs in Slavic LPP-varieties.

It is interesting to see that the share that WHENCE has of the total of morphs is almost identical for the Slavic LPP-varieties and the Romance LPP-varieties (cf. Diagram 27 above). Almost half of the fifty-five constructions attested in the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of the Slavic LPP-varieties are monomorphic. By far the biggest share of monomorphic constructions goes to the credit of WHERE. In contrast, monomorphic constructions are completely absent from the domain of WHENCE. The latter, however, covers two thirds of all dimorphic constructions. With trimorphic constructions the share of WHENCE increases to three quarters of all cases (cf. Diagram 64). 69% of all polymorphic constructions are WHENCE-constructions. The static spatial relation is clearly underrepresented in the realm of polymorphism where it is responsible for 3.5% of all cases. The values in Diagram 65 underline the above observations. For WHERE monomorphism is the favorite choice. For spatial interrogatives of Source, however, polymorphism is the sole choice. Everything points in the expected direction: WHENCE tends to be represented by morphologically complex constructions while WHERE is almost exclusively represented by morphologically simple constructions.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 261

100% 90% 80%

9

70%

16

60%

3

whence

50% whither

40% 30%

16

20%

where

8

1

10% 1

0% monomorphic

dimorphic

trimorphic

Diagram 64: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Slavic LPP-varieties. 100% 90%

1

1

3

80% 8

70%

trimorphic

60% 50% 40%

16

30%

16

monomorphic

9

20%

dimorphic

10% 0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 65: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Slavic LPP-varieties.

The combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions in paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Slavic LPP-varieties do not hold anything surprising in store for us. Table 179 shows that in ten out of eighteen cases, WHERE and WHITHER are equally simple or complex. In the remaining eight cases,

262 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe the WHITHER-construction exceeds the WHERE-construction in size by at least a morph. Thus, if there are differences on the level of morphs, it is always WHITHER which is represented by the more complex of the two constructions. Table 179: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

monomorphic

polymorphic dimorphic

trimorphic

monomorphic

9

7

1

17

dimorphic

0

1

0

1

Total

9

8

1

18

The situation is one-sided in the case of combinations of WHERE and WHENCE. There is only a single instance of equal length. In eighteen of nineteen cases (= 95%), the WHENCE-construction comprises one or two morphs in excess of the size of the WHERE-construction, cf. Table 180. Table 180: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHENCE

Sum

dimorphic

trimorphic

monomorphic

15

3

18

dimorphic

1

0

1

Total

16

3

19

As to combinations of WHITHER and WHENCE, we observe that 40% of all cases testify to equal size in terms of the number of morphs. For the remaining 60% thirds of all binary combinations of the two dynamic spatial relations, it is the WHENCE-constructions which counts the highest number of morphs – as Table 181 shows.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 263

Table 181: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

dimorphic

trimorphic

monomorphic

10

1

11

dimorphic

7

1

8

trimorphic

0

1

1

Total

17

3

20

The picture we paint by way of analyzing the morphological complexity of the spatial interrogatives of the Slavic LPP-varieties is largely in line with the pictures painted of the Romance and the Germanic LPP-varieties. This judgment also holds for the averages. Table 182 presents the averages for WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE which should be compared to those of the Romance languages (cf. Table 81) and Germanic languages (cf. Table 138). Table 182: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphs per construction) in Slavic LPP-varieties.

morphs

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.0

1.5

2.0

1.6

In all three cases, the average size of WHERE is identical to or comes close to the value of 1.0. What is also consistent over the three groups of languages is the fact that the average size of WHENCE is that of a dimorphic construction. The different averages for WHITHER notwithstanding, it can be stated that the spatial relation of Goal is located somewhere on the scale between the two extremes. Accordingly, it is imperative to note down the following scores for the Slavic LPP-varieties: the score of ‘0’ goes to WHERE, WHITHER is given the score of ‘1’ and WHENCE receives the score of ‘2’.

3.3.1.2.3 Morphemes It is the usual problem with morphemes to determine their exact number for each of the word-forms under scrutiny. There are several cases in which alternative counts could easily be defended. More often than not these problems show up in connection to the spatial interrogative of Goal. For a number of languages,

264 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe it is clear that the word-forms reflect erstwhile case-inflexions (mostly former locatives of a general interrogative pronoun). It is doubtful that these historical ties still hold synchronically. To clarify this open question an additional investigation is needed which, however, we cannot conduct within the framework of this study. To cut a potentially long story short, we have opted for a polymerphemic interpretation wherever the above problems arose. Nevertheless, the results in Table 183 look very dissimilar from those of the morph count of Table 178 above. Cells which host monomorphemic constructions are marked in grey. In case of overabundance with competing polymorphemic word-forms, the monomorphemic ones are additionally marked in boldface. Table 183: Number of morphemes per spatial interrogative in Slavic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Bosnian

1

1

2

Bulgarian

1

1

2

Macedonian

1

1

2

Slavomolisano

1

1

2 ~2

Polish

1

1~2

2

Sorbian (Lower)

1

2

2

Kashubian

2

2

2

Belarusian

2

2

2

Serbian

2

2

2

Croatian

2

2

2

Croatian (Burgenland)

2

2

2

Slovak

2

2

2

Czech

2

2

2

Slovenian

2

2

2

Sorbian (Upper)

2

2

2

Ukrainian

2

2

2~2

Russian

2

2

3

The differences to the statistics of the previous subsection are significant. The vast majority of all constructions are dimorphemic. Only WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions allow for monomorphemicity. Monomorphemic WHENCE-constructions are unattested.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 265

The dissimilarity of the morpheme-count to the morph-count results from a confrontation of the values in Diagram 66 and those of Diagram 63 above.

where

whence

28

39

28%

40%

whither 31 32%

Diagram 66: Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphemes in Slavic LPP-varieties.

A remarkable difference between the statistics of morphs and that of morphemes is that there is only a single trimorphemic construction whereas there are several trimorphic constructions. Diagram 67 shows that the distribution of the construction sizes over the spatial interrogatives is telling nevertheless. The instances of monomorphemic constructions divide almost equally over WHERE and WHITHER. All WHITHER-constructions are polymorphemic. In the case of polymorphemic constructions, the spatial categories of Place and Goal claim shares which are relatively similar in size. Almost half of all polymorphemic constructions represent WHENCE. Owing to the scarcity of trimorphemic constructions, these are lumped together with the dimorphemic constructions to yield the category of polymorphemic constructions. Diagram 68 shows that monomorphemicity is characteristic of a third of all attested WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions, respectively. The share of monomorphemic constructions for the entire set of spatial interrogatives does not cover a quarter of the attested cases. More than three quarters of those are polymorphemic. For each of the categories, polymorphemicity is the dominant feature.

266 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

100% 90% 80%

18

5

70%

whence

60% 50%

1

whither

13

40% 30%

6

20%

where

11

10% 0% monomorphemic

dimorphemic

trimorphemic

Diagram 67: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphemes in Slavic LPP-varieties.

100%

1

90% 80% 70%

11

60%

trimorphemic

13

50%

18

dimorphemic

40% 30% 20%

monomorphemic

6

10%

5

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 68: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphemes in Slavic LPP-varieties.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 267

The general picture shows that WHENCE tends to a high degree of complexity whereas the spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal also allow for constructions with a lesser degree of complexity. The largely parallel behavior of WHERE and WHITHER is also clearly reflected by the combination of construction sizes. Tables 184–186 speak for themselves. All WHENCE-constructions are polymorphemic and there are not as many WHEREconstructions and WHITHER-constructions of the same size. Since monomorphemic WITHER implies monomorphemic WHERE, the results are absolutely uncontroversial. There is no WHITHER-construction that counts fewer morphemes than the corresponding WHERE-construction. Equal size of WHERE and WHITHER occurs in exactly in 89% of all combinations of the two categories. For pairs of WHERE and WHENCE, the share of equal size is lower, namely 63%. With 70%, the percentage is considerably higher for combinations of WHITHER and WHENCE. Table 184: Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

Sum

monomorphemic

polymorphemic

monomorphemic

5

2

7

polymorphemic

0

11

11

Total

5

13

18

Table 185: Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHENCE

monomorphemic

Sum

polymorphemic

monomorphemic

0

7

7

polymorphemic

0

12

12

Total

0

19

19

268 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 186: Combinations of monomorphemic and polymorphemic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

monomorphemic

dimorphemic

monomorphemic

0

6

6

dimorphemic

0

14

14

Total

0

20

20

The averages sizes of the constructions as to the number of morphemes involved are markedly different from those calculated for morphs in Table 182 above. Table 187 shows that, on the average, WHITHER-constructions are more complex than WHERE-constructions. Table 187: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphemes per construction) in Slavic LPP-varieties.

morphs

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.6

1.8

2.0

1.8

The scores of ‘0’, ‘1’, and ‘2’ distribute over the three spatial categories accordingly.

3.3.1.2.4 Zero-marking Zero-marking is a relatively marginal phenomenon among the Slavic LPPvarieties. There are only four languages which attest to this phenomenon. This amounts to a share of less than a quarter of all Slavic LPP-varieties. From Table 188 we learn that zero-marking occurs predominantly in languages which also attest to WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and employ a constant Q-stem throughout the paradigm. Zero-marked categories are hosted by those cells which are highlighted by grey shading. Single underlining identifies the relevant word-forms in case of overabundance. What strikes the eye is the largely parallel behavior of WHERE and WHITHER. There is nothing surprising about the fact that WHENCE does not allow for zeromarking at all. However, the unilateral implication according to which a zeromarked WHITHER presupposes a zero-marked WHERE, cf. Diagram 69.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 269

Table 188: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Slavic LPP-varieties which allow for zero-marking. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Bulgarian

kăde

kăde

otkăde

Macedonian

kade

kade

od kade

Slavomolisano

di

di

do di ~ jiskla

Sorbian (Lower)

źo

źo hyn

wót źo

100% 80% 60%

13

15

40% 20%

4

19

3

0% where

whither zero-marking

whence

overt marking

Diagram 69: Distribution of zero-marking and overt marking across spatial interrogatives in Slavic LPP-varieties.

Some 13% of all the spatial interrogatives are zero-marked. For WHERE and WHITHER, however, the share of zero-marking rises to 23.5% and 16%, respectively. These values suggest that the two categories are very susceptible to zeromarking. WHERE deserves to being assigned the score of ‘0’. The score of WITHER is ‘1’. It is equally clear that WHENCE must be given the score of ‘2’ since this category never tolerates zero-marking.

3.3.1.2.5 Syllables Table 189 indicates the number of syllables each of the constructions under scrutiny contains. Grey shading is employed to highlight those cells which host monosyllabic constructions. Boldface is used once to distinguish a disyllabic

270 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe construction from a monosyllabic construction in the same cell. Note that there is only one language (Polish) which gives evidence of equal size of all members of the paradigm. Table 189: Syllable count of the spatial interrogatives of Slavic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

Polish

1

1~2

1

Czech

1

1

2

Slovenian

1

1

2

Slavomolisano

1

1

2~2

Bosnian

1

1

3

Slovak

1

1

3

Sorbian (Lower)

1

2

2

Sorbian (Upper)

1

2

2

Belarusian

1

2

2

Ukrainian

1

2

2~3

Russian

1

2

3

Croatian

1

2

3

Serbian

1

2

3

Kashubian

1

3

2

WHENCE

Croatian (Burgenland) 2

2

3

Bulgarian

2

2

3

Macedonian

2

2

3

There are three different sizes in terms of the number of syllables per construction. No construction exceeds three syllables. There are altogether ninety-seven syllables which distribute unevenly over the three spatial interrogatives. WHERE accounts for twenty syllables (= 20%), WHITHER is responsible for thirty-one syllables (= 32%), and WHENCE yields forty-six syllables (= 47%). The WHEREconstructions dominate numerically as to monosyllabic expressions. They account for almost two thirds of all cases and outnumber WHITHER-constructions by a ratio of 2-to-1. In the realm of dimorphemic constructions, WHERE constitutes a minority which dwindles down to a share of zero with trimorphemic constructions. Calculated for the entire set of polymorphemic constructions,

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 271

has a share of 37% as opposed to the 53% which go to the credit of WHENCE, cf. Diagram 70. WHITHER

100% 80%

1 6

9 whence

60% 40%

9 14

whither

11 where

20% 0% monosyllabic

3

1

disyllabic

trisyllabic

Diagram 70: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Slavic LPP-varieties.

Monomorphemic constructions are the preferred option in the case of WHERE. In contrast, both WHITHER and WHENCE display a leaning towards being expressed by polymorphemic constructions. This preference is most pronounced with WHENCE, cf. Diagram 71. 100% 3

1

80%

9 11

60% 40%

trisyllabic

disyllabic

14 9

20%

monosyllabic

6 1

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 71: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Slavic LPP-varieties.

272 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe The matrix of combinations of pairs of constructions shows WHERE to be privileged. Of eighteen combinations with WHITHER, nine (= 50%) involve a WHEREconstruction which is shorter than its counterpart by a syllable or two. In the remaining nine cases (= 50%), both constructions are of equal size, cf. Table 190. Table 190: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

σ

σσ

σσσ

σ

6

8

1

15

σσ

0

3

0

3

Total

6

11

1

18

Just as there is no WHITHER-construction that is less complex than the corresponding WHERE-construction, no WHENCE-construction counts fewer syllables than the WHERE-construction of the same paradigm, cf. Table 191. There is an isolated case of equal size whereas in eighteen out of nineteen combinations (= 95%), the WHENCE-construction exceeds the WHERE-construction in size by at least a syllable. Table 191: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

σ

σσ

σσσ

σ

1

9

6

16

σσ

0

0

3

3

Total

1

9

9

19

The situation is slightly more variegated in the case of WHITHER-WHENCE combinations. There are five examples of equal size (= 25%). Of the remaining fifteen cases of unequal size, fourteen (= 70%) involve WHENCE-constructions which comprise more syllables than the corresponding WHITHER-constructions. However, there are also two instances (= 10%) which attest to WHITHER-constructions being more complex than WHENCE-constructions, cf. Table 192.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 273

Table 192: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

σ

σσ

σσσ

σ

1

4

2

7

σσ

1

4

7

12

σσσ

0

1

0

1

Total

2

9

9

20

The above patterns resemble those which we have observed with the Romance LPP-varieties and the Germanic LPP-varieties. The outstanding position of WHERE is uncontroversial whereas the ranking of WHITHER and WHENCE is not as straightforward as that. Nevertheless, the markedness hierarchy WHERE < WHITHER < WHENCE in general is corroborated. As to the average sizes of the constructions, there is again a bipartition. The dividing line is indicated by the general average of 1.7 syllables per construction. WHENCE exceeds this average by 0.8. The average WHENCE-construction is more than twice as complex as the average WHERE-construction, cf. Table 193. Table 193: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of syllables per construction) in Slavic LPP-varieties.

syllables

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.1

1.7

2.4

1.7

Since WHITHER occupies the expected position between the two extremes represented by WHERE on the low end of the scale and WHENCE on the high end of the scale, the scores are exactly those which we know from the sections dedicated to the parameter of syllables in the Romance LPP-varieties and the Germanic LPP-varieties (cf. Sections 3.1.1.2.5 and 3.2.1.2.5 above), namely a ‘0’ for WHERE, a ‘1’ for WHITHER, and a ‘2’ for WHENCE.

3.3.1.2.6 Segments On the level of segments, the differences which can be observed for the three spatial categories are again indicative of the previously mentioned bipartition.

274 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe The WHENCE-constructions normally comprise more segments than there are in the phonological chains of the constructions used for WHERE and WHITHER in the same paradigm. The latter two happen to be represented relatively frequently by constructions which are equal in size. Croatian (Burgenland) provides the sole example of a Slavic LPP-variety whose paradigm contains three constructions of identical size. Equal size is marked by grey shading in Table 194. The languages are ordered according to the increasing number of segments of their constructions. Table 194: Number of segments of spatial interrogatives of Slavic LPP-varieties. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Slavomolisano

2

2

4~6

Slovenian

2

3

5

Belarusian

2

4

5

Ukrainian

2

4

6~7

Sorbian (Lower)

2

5

5

Czech

3

3

5

Polish

3

3~6

5

Slovak

3

3

6

Bosnian

3

3

6

Russian

3

4

6

Serbian

3

4

6

Croatian

3

4

6

Sorbian (Upper)

3

5

7

Kashubian

3

8

7

Croatian (Burgenland) 4

4

4

Bulgarian

4

4

6

Macedonian

4

4

6

The size of the phonological chains surveyed in Table 194 ranges from the attested minimum of two segments to the attested maximum of eight segments. This is also the range of variation found with WHITHER-constructions. No WHEREconstruction exceeds the size of four segments while no WHENCE-construction counts less than four segments. The shares the various construction sizes have of the spatial interrogatives are given in Diagram 72. It is obvious that the more extended a construction is the lower is the share that WHERE claims of this con-

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 275

struction. In contrast, the shares claimed by WHITHER increase to reach a peak with constructions of four segments and drop thereafter. However, the share of WHENCE keeps increasing also far beyond this line. 100% 90%

2

1 5

80% 70%

5

60%

40%

9

8

50%

whence

3

1

5

whither

9

30% 20%

where

3

10%

2 1

0% 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

segments segments segments segments segments segments segments Diagram 72: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Slavic LPP-varieties.

The perspective is changed for the values in Diagram 73. What we see is that the three spatial interrogatives differ as to their preferences. In the case of WHERE, significantly more than half of all constructions count three segments. With WHITHER, the biggest share goes to constructions which comprise four segments. As to WHENCE, the preferred size of the phonological chain is six segments. For both WHITHER and WHENCE, these preferences manifest themselves in shares which are close to the 50%-mark but fail to reach it by narrow margins. In the realm of binary combinations of constructions, there are three possibilities for WHERE and WHITHER to employ constructions of equal size, namely with constructions which involve two, three, or four segments. Table 195 shows that equal size applies in almost half of the combinations of these two categories. The other half of the cases involves WHITHER-constructions which are made up of at least one segment in excess of the phonological chain of the spatial interrogative of Place.

276 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 100%

8 segments

90% 80%

7 segments

70% 60%

6 segments

50% 40%

5 segments

30% 4 segments

20% 10%

3 segments

0%

where

whither

whence

8 segments

0

1

0

7 segments

0

0

3

6 segments

0

1

9

5 segments

0

2

5

4 segments

3

8

2

3 segments

9

5

0

2 segments

5

1

0

2 segments

Diagram 73: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in Slavic LPP-varieties. Table 195: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions of different segmental size in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

2

3

4

5

6

8

2

1

1

2

1

0

0

5

3

0

4

3

1

1

1

10

4

0

0

3

0

0

0

3

Total

1

5

8

2

1

1

18

As to the combinations of WHERE and WHENCE, there is only one case of equal size. In all other combinations of WHERE and WHENCE (= 95%), the latter is repre-

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 277

sented by a construction which counts more segments than the construction that is used for WHERE, cf. Table 196. Table 196: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

4

5

6

7

2

1

3

2

1

7

3

0

2

5

2

9

4

1

0

2

0

3

Total

2

5

9

3

19

Equal size is also exceptional for combinations of WHITHER and WHERE. In sixteen out of twenty cases (= 80%), the phonological chain which represents WHENCE is segmentally more complex than the phonological chain which expresses WHITHER. There are two examples of the inverse relation, namely a segmentally more complex WHITHER-construction combining with a segmentally less complex WHENCE-construction, cf. Table 197. Table 197: Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in Slavic LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

4

5

6

7

2

1

0

1

0

2

3

0

3

2

0

5

4

1

1

6

1

9

5

0

1

0

1

2

6

0

1

0

0

1

8

0

0

0

1

1

Total

2

6

9

3

20

The frequency of equal size of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions is only minimally higher than that of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCEconstructions. Moreover, WHENCE-constructions which are shorter than WHITHER-

278 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe constructions are extremely rare. These facts are indicative of the usual distribution of the spatial categories over the scale of complexity. WHERE and WHENCE occupy the opposing poles whereas WHITHER is located in between. Accordingly, the averages computed for the categories under review show that the number of segments increases from the relatively low value of WHERE via the medium value of WHITHER to the relatively high value of WHENCE, cf. Table 198. Table 198: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of segments per construction) in Slavic LPP-varieties.

segments

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

2.8

4.0

5.6

4.2

The average WHENCE-construction is twice as complex as the average WHEREconstruction. The average of WHENCE exceeds the general average by 1.4. Thus, the scores are self-evident, namely a ‘0’ for WHERE, a ‘1’ for WHITHER, and a ‘2’ for WHENCE.

3.3.1.2.7 Results in the realm of complexity The scores of the Slavic LPP-varieties summarized in Table 199 reflect the same tendency as those of the Germanic LPP-varieties (cf. Table 153 above) and the Romance LPP-varieties (cf. Table 97 above). Table 199: Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in Slavic LPP-varieties. Level

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

words

0

1

2

morphs

0

1

2

morphemes

0

1

2

zero-marking

0

1

2

syllables

0

1

2

segments

0

1

2

Total

0

6

12

Diagram 74 is the graphic representation of the totals of Table 199 above.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 279

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 where

whither

whence

Diagram 74: Scores of complexity of Slavic LPP-varieties.

3.3.1.3 Derivation (synchronic analysis) The Slavic LPP-varieties realize four different patterns as to the derivational relations among the spatial interrogatives in synchronic perspective, cf. Table 200. Since two languages attest to more than one pattern, the total turnout amounts to nineteen tokens. This means that according to the principles of random distribution, each of the four types should have a share of 25%. Table 200: Derivational patterns in Slavic LPP-varieties. Pattern

Frequency

Share

A/B/C

7

37%

A/A/A

4

21%

A/A/C

4

21%

A/B/B

4

21%

total

19

100%

The statistically most important pattern is A/B/C, i.e. the pattern in which none of the members of the paradigm is derived synchronically from any other member of the same paradigm. However, it is more common that there are derivational relations because 63% of the paradigms give evidence of relations of this kind. Interestingly, the three competing options are all of the same statistical weight. The constellation in which all three members of the paradigm are connected to each other derivationally is attested with the same frequency as those patterns in which the spatial interrogative of Goal is related derivationally to

280 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe either

or WHENCE. Wherever there is a derivational relation connected to either WHERE or WHITHER, WHENCE can be shown to be the derived category since it is represented by a construction which involves morphological material in addition to the units shared with WHERE or WHITHER. On top of this, the derived status of the spatial interrogative of Source is also evident in many other cases because the construction involves an (erstwhile) ablative preposition which combines with a stem which otherwise is not (or no longer) recognizable in the word-forms of the other members of the same paradigm. It is worth noting that the pattern A/B/C is absent from the Romance LPPvarieties (cf. Section 3.1.1.3) and the Germanic LPP-varieties (cf. Section 3.2.1.3). The high incidence of suppletion that is typical of the Slavic LPP-varieties is responsible for the frequency of the A/B/C-pattern. In contrast to the Slavic languages, the Romance LPP-varieties and the Germanic LPP-varieties disfavor suppletion. WHERE

WHENCE

3.3.2

About qualities

3.3.2.1 Old Church Slavonic In contrast to the Germanic and Romance languages discussed in the foregoing major sections, there is no translation of the sample text into older stages of any of the Slavic languages or an extinct ancestor language thereof. We therefore have recourse to the descriptive grammars of Old Church Slavonic to determine the starting point of the ensuing discussion. In Table 201, we present the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Old Church Slavonic according to the description by Gardiner (1984: 88) who states that “[a]dverbial suffixes of place, time, etc., combine with the stems of demonstrative, interrogative and relative pronoun to form adverbs of place, time and manner.” Table 201: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Old Church Slavonic. Spatial relation Constructions

Word-forms

Place

[Q-ьde]where

kьde

Goal

[Q-amo]whither ~ [Q-ǫdě]whither=whence

kamo ~ kǫdě

Source

[Q-ǫdu]whence ~ [Q-ǫdě]whither=whence ~ [Prepablative Q-ǫdǫ]whence kǫdu ~ kǫdě ~ otь kǫdǫ [!]

For the spatial interrogatives, the Q-stem k- is identified. The remainder of the phonological chain of the constructions recurs in other adverbial constructions (e.g. ovьde ‘over there [static]’, ovamo ‘over there [dynamic]’, ovǫdu ‘from over

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 281

there’ with the deictic stem ov-). Thus, the spatial interrogatives of Old Church Slavonic are polymorphic. Most probably, they are also polymorphemic. The spatial interrogatives counted two to four syllables and four to nine segments. There are six constructions altogether five of which are mono-word constructions. WHITHER and WHENCE give evidence of overabundance. The spatial interrogative kǫdě ‘whither = whence’ is an example of syncretism. This pattern of syncretism stands out because it illustrates the unexpected neutralization of the two dynamic spatial relations of Goal and Source, i.e. a ternary paradigm of the kind WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) is among the options of Old Church Slavonic. Overabundance with WHITHER and WHENCE involves distinct constructions and thus yields alternative paradigms of the type WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. What is absent from the Old Church Slavonic paradigm is suppletion which, however, is a typical feature of the modern Slavic LPP-varieties. As the discussion of suppletion in Section 3.3.1.1.3 above has shown, the spatial interrogative of Place is frequently suppletive in contemporary Slavic LPP-varieties. This susceptibility of WHERE to suppletion is the effect of sound-change. The so-called jer-vowel ь – possibly extra-short mid-central – (Gardiner 1984: 18) was syncopated (since the main-stress was on the ultimate) such that the originally disyllabic WHERE-construction shrank to become a monosyllabic expression. Only three of the above Slavic LPP-varieties have escaped this reductive change, namely Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Croatian (Burgenland). These varieties have preserved the disyllabic structure of the spatial interrogative of Place. In the bulk of the Slavic LPP-varieties, however, the syncope of the jer applied so that the initial voiceless velar plosive /k/ (= the Q-stem) and the voiced dentialveolar plosive /d/ of the supposed adverbial suffix came to be direct neighbors in the segmental chain. In several varieties, this neighborhood triggered a process of voice assimilation: k → g / _d (cf. Russian gde ‘where’).29 Elsewhere in the Slavic group the initial velar plosive of the WHERE-construction has experienced lenition via fricativization as e.g. k → h / _d, i.e. partial dissimilation applied (cf. Sorbian (Upper) hdźe ‘where’). Moreover, the /d/ underwent palatalization in a number of Slavic languages. This process resulted in the creation of a voiced affricate /ʣ/ sometimes with additional palatalization (cf. Kashubian gdze ‘where’ and Polish gdzie ‘where = whither’). In yet other varieties or additionally to the above changes, aphaeresis applied so that the initial syllable of || 29 Even for languages like Czech and Slovak in whose orthographic rendering of the spatial interrogative of Place there is an initial , it can be assumed that anticipatory voice assimilation to the adjacent /d/ applies. Accordingly, Slovak is pronounced [gd’e] (Stanislaw 1977: 51). This pattern of assimilation also holds for Czech (Fischer 1970: 19).

282 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe the spatial interrogative of Old Church Slavonic disappeared completely (cf. Belarusian dze, Ukrainian de, Slavomolisano di, and probably also Sorbian (Lower) źo ‘where’). These and similar processes have contributed to blurring the etymological relation which held originally between all members of the paradigm. In contrast to WHERE, the spatial interrogative of Goal usually preserves the vowel of the initial syllable so that the initial velar plosive escapes sonorization. Similarly, the WHENCE-constructions seem to be unaffected by those changes which have occurred with the spatial interrogative of Place. However, several of the Slavic languages display WHENCE-constructions the phonological chains of which invoke different sound changes and further diachronic processes not shared by the other members of the paradigm. This means that there is a strong tendency for the three cells of the paradigm to behave individually in diachronic perspective.

3.3.2.2 The contemporary facts The one extraordinary feature of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Old Church Slavonic has not survived into modern times. The modern Slavic languages are not necessarily direct successors of Old Church Slavonic. Nevertheless, their structural facts can be compared to those of Old Church Slavonic. None of the Slavic languages of our sample testifies to the existence of WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism. This option has ceded its erstwhile territory to the two competing syncretic patterns WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE and WHERE = WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. Russian is a representative of the former. The sample sentences in (63) show that the three spatial relations are distinguished formally from each other. (63) (63.1)

(63.2)

(63.3)

Russian Source Ot-kuda že ty priletel, from-G? EMPH you PFCTV:fly:PTCPL ‘Where do you have come from flying, boy?’ Place Gde tvoj dom? P? your house ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Kuda ty xočeš‘ unesti G? you want:2SG take_away:INF ‘Where do you want to take the lamb?’

[LPP Russian, 12] malyš? boy

baraška? lamb

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 283

Russian also belongs to those Slavic languages which have abolished overabundance for good. The reduction of the number of options in the cells of the spatial interrogatives of Goal and Source goes hand in hand with the phonological reduction of the WHERE-construction. In this way, the diachronic processes of reduction and selection conspire to yield a ternary paradigm which reflects the assumed markedness hierarchy of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE almost perfectly. The size of the segmental chains increases from three via four to six. The WHERE-construction is monosyllabic, that of WHITHER is disyllabic, and WHENCE is expressed by a trisyllabic construction. In contrast, five of the six word-forms of the paradigm are cases of equal size on the parameter of syllables. On the level of segments, there are two constructions of four segments each as opposed of a set of three constructions with five segments each. It is telling that, in Russian, the sole survivor of the three competing WHENCE-constructions of Old Church Slavonic is the successor of the only example of a multi-word construction with the exceptional size of nine segments. Table 202 allows us to contrast the data of Old Church Slavonic with those of contemporary Russian. Table 202: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Old Church Slavonic and Russian. Spatial relation

Old Church Slavonic

Russian

Place

kьde

gde

Goal

kamo ~ kǫdě

kuda

Source

kǫdu ~ kǫdě ~ otь kǫdǫ [!]

otkuda

Superficially, it looks as if the Russian paradigm of spatial interrogatives is tailor-made to fit the requirements of the markedness hierarchy. At the same time, Russian comes relatively close to the canonical paradigm as discussed in Section 2 above. Thus, the changes which have reshaped the facts in the interval between Old Church Slavonic and Russian may be understood as optimization because many of the deviations from the canonical paradigm have been lost in the course of time. Within the Slavic family, Russian does not stand alone. However, the pattern of a paradigm with three distinct word-forms is not the only option. As mentioned above, there are also several examples of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. Macedonian is a typical representative of this group of languages, cf. (64).

284 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (64) (64.1)

(64.2)

(64.3)

Macedonian [LPP Macedonian, 11] Source Od kade doaģaš, malečok? from P?/G? come:2SG little:DIM ‘Where do you come from, little one?’ Place Kade e «kaj tebe»? P?/G? be.3SG at you:OBJ ‘Where is “at your place”?’ Goal Kade sakaš da ja odneseš mojata ovca? P?/G? want:2SG SUBORD EMPH take_away:2SG my:DEF:F sheep ‘Where do you want to take my sheep then?’

The paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Macedonian differs not only from that of Old Church Slavonic but also from that of Russian. The major differences are the generalization of the Q-stem which is identical to the syncretic spatial interrogative kade ‘where = whither’ which connects to the Old Church Slavonic WHERE-construction kьde ‘where’. The erstwhile distinct spatial interrogative of Goal has given way to the generalized kade to give rise to WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism. A property of the Macedonian paradigm of spatial interrogatives which cannot be identified on the basis of the sample text is overabundance. Overabundance affects the cells of WHERE and WHITHER in which the syncretic kade ‘where = whither’ competes with the equally syncretic kaj ‘where = whither’ which is identical with the spatial preposition kaj ‘at (someone’s place)’ (cf. kaj tebe ‘at you place’ in example [64.2] above) and forms part of the complex preposition otkaj ‘from’ for which Foulon-Hristova (1998: 234) also provides the French translation d’ou ‘whence’. The identity of spatial interrogatives and spatial prepositions in a number of languages spoken in the Balkans will occupy us more specifically in a dedicated section further below. On the other hand, the synonymy of kade and kaj is acknowledged by Foulon-Hristova (1998: 223) (cf. also Greva & Rau 2006: 251) for the function of spatial adverbs and relatives outside the realm of interrogatives for which the same source assumes a monopoly of kade ‘where = whither’ (Foulon-Hristova 1998: 228). If we extend our empirical basis beyond the limits of the Macedonian translation of Le Petit Prince, however, it becomes evident almost immediately that the two expressions may replace one another also as spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal. Sentences (65)–(66) are from the Macedonian version of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 285

(65)

(66)

Macedonian [HP I Macedonian, 137] Dobro, kaj bevte dosega? well, P?/G? be.IMPERF:2PL tonight ‘Well, where have you been tonight?’ Macedonian [HP I Macedonian, 225] Ej, kaj trčate? hey P?/G? run:2PL ‘Hey, where are you going?’

The existence of the preposition otkaj ‘from’ notwithstanding, we have not found any properly spatial examples of kaj being used as Q-stem also for the spatial interrogative of Source. The best we can get is the synonymy of otkaj ~ od kade ‘(lit. from where) how come’ in questions inquiring about the origin of information/knowledge, cf. (67). (67) (67.1)

(67.2)

Macedonian – source of knowledge otkaj [HP I Macedonian, 163] Otkaj znajte za Mekuško? S? know:2PL with Fluffy ‘How do you know about Fluffy?’ od kade [HP I Macedonian, 227] Od kade znaete? from P? know:2PL ‘How do you know?’

There remain reasons for doubt as to the correct classification of otkaj ‘whence’. Nevertheless, we dare to assume that it can be used as spatial interrogative of Source even outside the domain of inquiries about the source of knowledge. Accordingly, the Macedonian comes in two shapes which we treat as examples of different varieties – LPP-Macedonian vs. DGB-Macedonian – in Table 203. Table 203: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in two Macedonian varieties. Spatial relation

LPP-variety

DGB-variety

Place

kade

kade ~ kaj

Goal

kade

kade ~ kaj

Source

od kade [!]

od kade [!] ~otkaj

286 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe The co-existence of two different stems in the DGB-variety does not change the syncretic pattern. However, the alternation of the two stems kaj and kade introduces the possibility of suppletion to the paradigm. Moreover, the paradigm of the DGB-variety is characterized by overabundance. In sum, DGB-Macedonian violates the canonical paradigm more often than LPP-Macedonian deviates from the prerequisites of the canonical paradigm. Interestingly, the Macedonian DGB-variety allows overabundance with WHERE, i.e. in a cell which was exempt from overabundance in Old Church Slavonic. Overabundance is rarely attested with the Slavic LPP-varieties. In this connection, Polish and Ukrainian are exceptional. If we go exclusively by the examples in (68), Polish resembles Russian notably since the three categories are expressed by distinct constructions. (68) (68.1)

(68.2)

(68.3)

Polish Source Skąd przybyłeś, mój mały? S? arrive:PTCPL:2SG my small ‘Where do you come from, my little one?’ Place Gdzie jest twój dom? P?/G? be.3SG your house ‘Where is your home?’ Goal – no syncretism with Place Dokąd chcesz zabrać baranka? G? want:2SG take:INF lamb ‘Where do you want to take the lamb?’

[LPP Polish, 14]

The picture changes, however, as soon as we take account of the evidence provided by sentence (69). (69)

Goal – syncretic with Place A gdzie on ma but P?/G? he have.3SG ‘But where shall he go?’

iść? go:INF

[LPP Polish, 14]

In (69) the spatial interrogative gdzie ‘where = whither’ is used to inquire about the Goal of a motion event whereas in (68.2) the same item serves the purpose of posing a question about the static whereabouts of an object. At the same time, example (68.3) shows that there is also a distinct spatial interrogative of Goal dokąd ‘whither’ which competes with the syncretic gdzie ‘where = whither’.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 287

It is clear diachronically that Polish dokąd ‘whither’ and skąd ‘whence’ contain a reflex of Old Church Slavonic kǫdě ‘whither = whence’. The apocopated *kǫd coalesced with the prepositions do ‘to’ and z (→ s/__ K[-voice]) ‘from’ to yield dimorphic and dimorphemic spatial interrogatives of Goal and Source, respectively. The univerbation of the erstwhile PPs guaranteed the disambiguation of the two dynamic spatial relations. However, this is not the only innovation of Polish in comparison to Old Church Slavonic. Similarly to the above Macedonian case, the spatial interrogative of Place has enlarged its original domain to include that of WHITHER as well so that there is now overabundance in the cell of WHITHER. In Old Church Slavonic, overabundance occurred in the same cell. However, the combination of synonymous word-forms in Polish is not inherited from the Slavic ancestor language. We are facing a Polish innovation which is the product of two autonomous developments. The confrontation of the data from Old Church Slavonic and Polish in Table 204 is indicative of these differences. Table 204: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Old Church Slavonic and Polish. Spatial relation

Old Church Slavonic

Polish

Place

kьde

gdzie

Goal

kamo ~ kǫdě

gdzie ~ dokąda

Source

kǫdu ~ kǫdě ~ otь kǫdǫ [!]

skąd

Polish has given up on overabundance with WHENCE. Furthermore, it has introduced new construction types for WHITHER and WHENCE. The erstwhile WHITHER = WHENCE-syncretism has been replaced by WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. There are two possibilities of expressing WHENCE in Ukrainian both of which are also employed by the Ukrainian translator of Le Petit Prince, cf. (70). (70) (70.1)

(70.2)

Ukrainian – Source Zvidky ž ty prybuv, chlopčyku? S? EMPH you arrive:PTCPL boy:VOC ‘Where do you come from, boy?’ Vidkilja ty prybuv? S? you arrive:PTCPL ‘Where do you come from?’

[LPP Ukrainian, 14]

[LPP Ukrainian, 51]

Pugh & Press (1999: 273) mention two further alloforms of WHENCE, namely zvidkil’ and zvidkilja which are not attested in the Ukrainian version of the sample text. We argue that these constructions are highly literary and practically

288 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe not used by average speakers of Ukrainian. The short form vidky ‘whence’ is as a variant of zvidky ‘whence’, cf. Table 205. For the potential generalization of de ‘where’ over the entire paradigm of spatial interrogatives in colloquial Ukrainian, we refer the reader to Section 6.6.2 below. Table 205: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in two Ukrainian varieties. Spatial relation

LPP-variety

DGB-variety

Place

de

de

Goal

kudy

kudy

Source

zvidky ~ vidkilja

zvidky ~ vidkilja ~ vidky ~ zvidkil’ ~ zvidkilja

The LPP-variety and the DGB-variety of Ukrainian differ from each other only insofar as the latter allows for more variation as to the expression of WHENCE.30 Both varieties allow for overabundance in connection with the spatial interrogative of Source. What is easily recognizable is the recurrence of the phonological chunk /vidk/ in all of the five constructions which serve the purpose of expressing WHENCE. According to the light shed on the case at hand in the Ukrainian etymological dictionary (Mel’nyčuk et al. 1982: 393 and 1985: 430), this sequence of segments can be divided in two. The first part corresponds to the ablative preposition vid ‘from’ while the voiceless velar plosive /k/ can be traced back to two different pronouns. In the case of (z)vidky ‘whence’, the component -ky is historically related to kyj which in its turn has developed from jakyj ‘which’ via aphaeresis. As to the WHENCE-constructions the second part of which is -kil(‘)-, it is assumed that they are cognates of the obsolete Russian otkol’ ~ otkole ~ otkel’ ‘whence’ and Belarusian adkul’ ‘whence’. An Old Russian wordform otkъliъ ‘whence’ is mentioned, too. The element -kil(‘)- is said to be a successor of an unattested *kil’ < kol’ < Proto-Slavic *koljь (cf. Proto-Slavic *otъkoljь ‘from which place; since when’). The instable initial sibilant of the Ukrainian WHENCE-expressions is identical to the ablative preposition z ‘from’ so that wordforms like zvidky ‘whence’ involve two erstwhile prepositional exponents of the dynamic spatial relation of Source. We interpret the tautological z ‘from’ as an instance of reinforcement.

|| 30 There is evidence in spoken Ukrainian of the generalization of de to cover the functions of all three spatial interrogatives, so that pattern V WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE arises (cf. Bilodid et al. 1971: 227, Zabjelina). We take up this issue again in the conclusions below.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 289

As in the Russian case above, the Ukrainian paradigm of spatial relations is fully in line with the markedness hierarchy WHERE < WHITHER < WHENCE which manifests itself in the different sizes of the word-forms on the levels of syllables and segments. The WHERE-construction has been subject to reductive sound-change whereas the WHENCE-construction has experienced the exact opposite, namely the increase of its segmental chain in several successive steps. In contrast to WHERE and WHENCE, the WHITHER-construction has not changed much in comparison to older stages. In comparison to Old Church Slavonic, overabundance has disappeared from the cell of the spatial interrogative of Goal. These changes have given rise to suppletion since there is no longer a common Q-stem. More generally, in comparison to the Slavic LPP-varieties, the Slavic DGBvarieties are more susceptible to overabundance. The additional word-forms sometimes disrupt the syncretic patterns of the LPP-varieties. In what follows, we will focus especially on these cases. For a start, we look at four languages which are commonly believed to be one of a kind, namely Bosnian, Croatian (together with the Burgenland variety), and Serbian. Their LPP-varieties yield four different paradigms, cf. Table 206. Table 206: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in the LPP-varieties of Bosnian, Croatian, Croatian (Burgenland), and Serbian. Spatial relation

Croatian (Burgenland)

Croatian

Serbian

Bosnian

Place

kade

gdje

gde

gdje

Goal

kamo

kamo

kuda

gdje

Source

odakle

odakle

odakle

odakle

Except Bosnian, the languages under scrutiny boast maximally distinct paradigms of spatial interrogatives. Bosnian gives evidence of WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism. There is no overabundance. The spatial interrogative of Source is the same for all four of the varieties. If we look beyond the data which are provided by the analysis of the sample text, the picture changes considerably. Alexander (2006: 69 and 120) observes that Bosnian and Serbian behave in identical ways whereas Croatian stands apart. The parallel behavior of Bosnian and Serbian is reflected by the possibility of both languages to choose between WHERE= WHITHER-syncretism and distinct word-forms for WHERE and WHITHER. This means that there is overabundance in the DGB-varieties of these two languages. To get an idea of the situation, it suffices to discuss the Serbian data. The three sample sentences under (71) are the input for our above analysis of the Serbian LPP-variety.

290 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (71) (71.1)

(71.2)

(71.3)

Serbian [LPP Serbian, 16] Source Odakle dolaziš, maleni moj? S? arrive:2SG little my ‘Where do you come from, my little one?’ Place Gde je to “kod tebe”? P?/G? be.3SG this at 2SG:GEN ‘Where is this “at your place”?’ Goal Kuda želiš poneti moju ovcu? G? want:2SG take:INF my:ACC sheep:ACC ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

There are three formally distinct constructions. Throughout the sample text, the three spatial categories are distinguished consistently. However, in the Serbian translation of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series, for instance, kuda ‘whither’ is hardly ever used in the function of spatial interrogative of Goal. In the majority of cases, gde ‘where = whither’ is used as e.g. in (72). (72)

Serbian Gde da ide? P?/G? that go:3SG ‘Where should he go?’

[HP I Serbian, 177]

There is thus competition of two patterns. The maximally distinct WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE coexists with (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE. The Serbian paradigm is rendered more colorful because the dictionary compiled by Vujani (2007: 188, 610, 854) reports the existence of additional allomorphs for the functions of WHERE and WHITHER. One of these additional allomorphs is attested in an earlier Serbian translation of Le Petit Prince which predates by a decade the publication of the version from which the examples under (71) have been taken. The two translations are in conformity with each other as to the representation of the spatial categories in the ternary set of examples which correspond to (71). However, there is variation elsewhere in the text as the examples in (73)–(74) show. (73) (73.1)

Serbian – Goal question Pa kuda bi but G? be.COND.3SG ‘But where would she go?’

[LPP Serbian, 18] (new translation) odlutala? go_away:PTCPL:F

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 291

(73.2)

answer Bilo kuda. no_matter where ‘Anywhere.’

(74) (74.1)

Serbian – Goal [LPP Serbian, 18] (old translation) question Ali kud xoćeš da odluta? but G? want:2SG that go_away:3SG ‘But where do you want it should go?’ answer Ma kud. any where ‘Anywhere.‘

(74.2)

The confrontation of the two translations reveals that there are short and long forms of the dedicated spatial interrogative of Goal, namely kuda and kud ‘whither’. Both of these word-forms are attested in the older translation whereas the more recent text gives evidence exclusively of kuda ‘whither’. It is worth noting that the sole example of Bosnian kuda ‘whither’ that we have found in our text corpus occurs in the translation of Harry Potter volume I. It is the same sentence which also triggers the unique case of kuda ‘whither’ in the Serbian translation. In both cases, it is possible to speak of pragmatically marked contexts. The communicative situation is such that the speaker has to repeat his request and underline the urgency thereof by employing imperatives of verba dicendi. It is questionable therefore whether we are dealing with direct questions properly speaking, cf. (75)–(76). (75)

Bosnian [HP I Bosnian, 168] Ne zezaj se sa mnom, Peeves, govori NEG mess.IMP REFL with me Peeves speak.IMP kuda su otišli? G? be.3PL go_away:PTCPL:PL ‘Do not mess me about, Peeves, speak: where have they gone?’

(76)

Serbian [HP I Serbian, 140] Ne zavitlavaj me, Pivse, nego reci NEG irritate.IMP me Peeves:VOC but say.IMP kuda su otišli? G? be.3PL go_away:PTCPL:PL ‘Do not irritate me, Peeves, but say: where have they gone?’

292 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Wherever the question can be classified as direct straightforwardly in the HarryPotter text, Bosnian employs gdje ‘where = whither’ and Serbian makes use of gde ‘where = whither’ for the purpose of inquiring about the Goal of a motion event. The Bosnian dictionary also mentions further alternative word-forms such as gdi ~ đe ~ đi ‘where’ and oklen ‘whence’ (Isaković 1995: 83 and 209). It is unclear what status these additional items have. In all probability, we are dealing with regional and/or archaic constructions. For DGB-Croatian (Burgenland) the relevant source – the dictionary compiled by Lončarić & Seedoch (1991: 150, 225–227, 269, 391, 423) – mentions a plethora of alloforms for each of the spatial interrogatives so that, in this case too, overabundance applies throughout the paradigm. The multitude of word-forms notwithstanding, the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Croatian (Burgenland) leaves no place for syncretism. Since we have not found any evidence of variation in the case of Croatian (of Croatia), Table 207 summarizes the results for three of the four languages mentioned in the previous Table 206 above. Table 207: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in the DGB-varieties of Bosnian, Croatian (Burgenland), and Serbian. Spatial relation Croatian (Burgenland)

Serbian

Bosnian

gde ~ gdje

gdje ~ gdi ~ đe ~ đi

Place

kade ~ gdje ~ kaj

Goal

kamo ~ kud ~ kuda ~ kudaj gde ~ gdje ~ kuda ~ kud

gdje ~ kuda

Source

odakle ~ otkud ~ otkuda

odakle ~ oklen

odakle

What looked like a cluster of languages which is almost devoid of variation according to the evidence drawn from Le Petit Prince, turns out to be a group of languages for which variation is a pervasive feature – in their DGB-varieties. Bulgarian can be expected to behave similarly to its closest relative Macedonian. This is evidently true of the two LPP-varieties, cf. the Bulgarian sentences in (77) with those of Macedonian in (64). Does the similarity also extend over the DGB-varieties? (77) (77.1)

Bulgarian Source Otkăde idvaš, moe malko S? arrive:3SG my little ‘Where do you come from, my little boy?’

[LPP Bulgarian, 16] momče? boy

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 293

(77.2)

(77.3)

Place Kăde e tova “pri teb”? P?/G? be.3SG this at you.DAT ‘Where is this “at your place”?’ Goal Kăde iskaš da zaneseš mojata P?/G? want:2SG that take:2SG my:F:DEF:F ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

ovca? sheep

In addition to kăde ‘where = whither’, Radeva (2003: 304) mentions the allomorphs gde ~ de ‘where’. Dobrinka Genevska-Hanke (p.c.) confirms the existence of these additional word-forms both of which are characterized as archaic and nonstandard. It is interesting to know that our native-speaker informant is positive that gde ‘where’ can function exclusively as spatial interrogative of Place, never as spatial interrogative of Goal. This is different with de ‘where = whither’ which follows the usual Bulgarian pattern of WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism. In addition to the above allomorphs of WHERE(= WHITHER), the Bulgarian translation of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series provides an isolated example of yet another construction, cf. (78). (78) (78.1)

(78.2)

Bulgarian nakăde Na-kăde otidoxa, at-P?/G? go_away:AOR.3PL ‘Where have they gone, Peeves?’ kăde Kăde otidoxa? P?/G? go_away:AOR.3PL ‘Where have they gone?’

[HP I Bulgarian, 139] Pijvs? Peeves

The questions in (78) form a kind of minimal-pair. They are largely synonymous. The absence or presence of the prefixed na- does not correlate with a change of meaning. The optional na- is identical to the polysemous spatial preposition na ‘on, at, in, to, of’ which can be employed in static as well as in dynamic situations (Radeva 2003: 312). It is reasonable to assume that nakăde ‘where = whither’ too is not sensitive to the distinction of static vs. dynamic. We consider the dimorphic construction to be an instance of pragmatically motivated optional reinforcement according to the pattern of the obligatorily dimorphic otkăde ‘whence’.

294 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe The paradigms of spatial interrogatives of the LPP-variety and the DGBvariety of Bulgarian look markedly different, cf. Table 208. Table 208: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Bulgarian varieties. Spatial relation

LPP-variety

DGB-variety

Place

kăde

kăde ~ nakăde ~ de ~ gde

Goal

kăde

kăde ~ nakăde ~ de

Source

otkăde

otkăde

Apart from the cases of overabundance, the most striking trait of the DGBvariety is the existence of a dedicated WHERE-construction which is functionally restricted to representing the spatial interrogative of Place. All other WHEREconstructions are syncretic with the WHITHER-constructions. Since gde ‘where’ is said to be an archaism, we judge the situation as follows. An erstwhile paradigm with three distinct constructions has been giving way to a new paradigm with only two formally distinct constructions, i.e. the loss of the distinction of WHERE and WHITHER is an innovation. As to the situation in Slavomolisano, similar observation can be made. The LPP-variety of this Slavic language gives evidence of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and of overabundance in the case of WHENCE. Consider the examples in (79)–(80). (79) (79.1)

(79.2)

(79.3)

(80)

Slavomolisano [LPP Slavomolisano, 16] Source Do di greš, moj ljudič? from P?/G? come:2SG my man:DIM ‘Where do you come from, my little man?’ Place Di je “di si ti”? at be.2SG you P?/G? be.3SG ‘Where is “where you are”?’ Goal Di hoš ponit moju ovcu? take:INF my:ACC sheep:ACC P?/G? want:2SG ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’ Slavomolisano – Source Jiskla greš ti? S? come:2SG you ‘Where do you come from?’

[LPP Slavomolisano, 53]

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 295

There is the syncretic di ‘where = whither’ which forms a binary paradigm together with the two WHENCE-constructions do di ‘whence’ and jiskla ‘whence’. The two whence-constructions display similar internal structure. In both cases, an ablative preposition is employed, viz. do ‘from’ and jiz (z → s / __ C[-voice]) ‘from’ (Breu & Piccoli 2000: 59). The major difference is that the complement of jiz is no longer transparent to be identified with any contemporary item from the lexicon of Slavomolisano. This etymological opacity might be the reason why jiskla ‘whence’ is treated like a mono-word construction whereas do di ‘whence’ is considered a syntagm of two words. The dictionary compiled by Breu & Piccoli (2000: 79) mentions a dedicated spatial interrogative of Goal which comes in three shapes, namely kuda ~ kude ~ kudare ‘whither’. The dictionary compilers provide translations into Italian, Croatian, and German for this spatial interrogative. The latter two (Croatian kuda ‘whither’ and German wohin ‘whither’) are suggestive of a proper spatial interrogative of Goal whereas the Italian translations per dove ‘where along’ and attraverso dove ‘where through’ invoke a perlative relation. At the same time, kuda and di are cross-referenced as (partial) synonyms in the dictionary (Breu Piccoli 2000: 28 and 79). To clarify this issue, we have checked the 380 pages of Slavomolisano texts recorded by Breu & Piccoli (2011). There are several dozens of WHITHER-constructions – all of which involve di ‘whither’ as a spatial interrogative of Goal. There is not a single example of kuda ‘whither’ in this function. The unique occurrence of kude that we have found in the anthology illustrates the use of this element as a relative. As an aside we mention that of the two WHENCEconstructions, jiskla ‘whence’ is attested twice whereas the multi-word construction do di ‘whence’ occurs ten times as frequently as jiskla in the same collection of texts. One therefore has to take Table 209 with a grain of salt. The exact status of overabundance in the cell of WHITHER of the DGB-variety remains unclear. Table 209: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Slavomolisano varieties. Spatial relation

LPP-variety

DGB-variety

Place

di

di

Goal

di

di ~ kuda ~ kude ~ kudare

Source

do di [!] ~ jiskla

do di [!] ~ jiskla

If we accept the data in Table 209 at face value, the differences of the two varieties are substantial since the role of suppletion is more prominent in the DGBvariety than it is in the LPP-variety. The same holds for the role of overabun-

296 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe dance. The paradigm of spatial interrogatives of the DGB-variety can be characterized as being heterogeneous whereas that of the LPP-variety is relatively homogeneous. The last of the members of the southern branch of the Slavic languages to discuss is Slovenian. From what the data in the sample text tell us, the situation seems to be rather straightforward, cf. (81). (81) (81.1)

(81.2)

(81.3)

Slovenian Source Od kod prihajaš, dečko moj? from *?* come:2SG boy my ‘Where do you come from, my boy?’ Place Kje si doma? P? be.2SG at_home ‘Where are you at home?’ Goal Kam nameravaš z mojim G? intend:2SG with my:INS ‘Where do you intend to go with my lamb?’

[LPP Slovenian, 13]

backom? lamb:INS

In the Slovenian translation, there is no variation, meaning: kje ‘where’ is used consistently as spatial interrogative of Place, kam ‘whither’31 is without competitor for the role of spatial interrogative of Goal, and od kod ‘whence’ is the sole construction employed for WHENCE. Why have we glossed kod with *?* in example (81.1) then? The reason for glossing the second component of the WHENCEconstruction in this way is that the extant linguistic descriptions of Slovenian provide largely incompatible descriptions of kod. Svane (1958: 119), for instance, mentions the co-existence of two Goal interrogatives kam ~ kod ‘whither’. The latter fails to show up in the sample text. In the function of spatial interrogative of Goal, it is also not part of the system of interrogatives as described by Jenko (2000: 72). However, in this latter source, kod is introduced as a special kind of WHERE-construction which differs semantically from kje ‘where’. This difference is difficult to capture on the basis of the information provided in Jenko’s grammar. As far as we can gather from what is said there, kje ‘where’ inquires about the location at which an event takes place || 31 The Slovenian kam ‘whither’ can be associated with the locative/instrumental kom (← kdo ‘who’) which is used only in combination with prepositions (pri kom ‘at whose place’ and s kom ‘with whom’) (Jenko 2000: 33).

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 297

whereas kod ‘where’ is supposed to refer to the surroundings of such a location. The dictionary by Debenjak (1996) treats the two items differently. In the Slovenian-German part of the dictionary, both kje and kod are translated by German wo ‘where’ without any further differentiation (Debenjak 1996: 424 and 426). In the German-Slovenian part of the same dictionary, however, German wo ‘where’ is exclusively translated as kje ‘where’ into Slovenian, i.e. kod is not mentioned at all (Debenjak 1996: 330). The Slovenian translation of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series provides no evidence of kod being used as a spatial interrogative of either Place or Goal. There is ample evidence of kje ‘where’ and kam ‘whither’, though. Therefore, it is difficult to decide what to make of the contradictory information given by the descriptive linguistic literature and the corpus texts. Table 210 summarizes the above results. It shows that the two corpus texts behave as one. They deviate from the DGB-varieties insofar as they do not give any evidence of kod as a member of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. The descriptions of Slovenian are in disagreement among each other because they assign different functions to kod.32 Table 210: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three Slovenian varieties. Spatial relation

LPP-variety + HP-variety

DGB-varieties Svante (1958)

Jenko (2000)

Place

kje

kje

kje ~ kod

Goal

kam

kam ~ kod

kam

Source

od kod [!]

od kod [!]

od kod [!]

Given that kod ‘where’ is not fully synonymous to kje ‘where’, it is possible to claim that kod is not an example of general location at all but a case of specific location. This assumed semantic specificity of kod could be interpreted such that there is no overabundance in the cell of WHERE. Another possibility is to take the variable classification of kod as spatial interrogative of either Goal or Place as indirect evidence of (remnants of) WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. That kod

|| 32 For the Italo-Slovenian variety of Resia San Giorgio, the spatial interrogatives ké͈ ‘where’ and kan ‘whither’ are registered by Steenwijk (1992: 266–267). There is no trace of kod. Unfortunately, there is also no example of a WHENCE-construction. The absence of the latter does not allow us to include this variety in our survey of the Slavic DGB-varieties.

298 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe once played a role in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Slovenian can be told from the WHENCE-construction which is a PP which involves kod as complement of od ‘from’.33 Since we lack the necessary philological data from the diachrony and dialectology of Slovenian, we cannot come up with a better version of Table 210 which therefore has to speak for itself. In the LPP-variety of Slovak, there is evidence neither of syncretism nor of overabundance. This is the result of the analysis of the sample sentences in (82). (82) (82.1)

(82.2)

(82.3)

Slovak [LPP Slovak, 14] Source Odkiaľ prichádzaš, milý chlapček? S? arrive:2SG dear boy ‘Where do you come from, dear boy?’ Place Kde je to tvoje “u mňa”? P? be.3SG this your at 1SG.GEN ‘Where is this “at home” of yours?’ Goal Kam chceš odniesť moju ovečku? G? want:2SG take:INF my:ACC lamb:ACC ‘Where do you want to take my lamb?’

This ternary paradigm of distinct constructions constitutes a perfect parallel to that of Czech. The minimal differences of the WHENCE-constructions Slovak odkiaľ = Czech odkud ‘whence’ are irrelevant for the issue at hand. The Slovak grammar by Stanislav (1977: 88) corroborates these results. In the SlovakGerman dictionary, however, we find indications not only of WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism (Slovak kde ‘where = whither’, Vaverková et al. 1978: 482) but also of overabundance in the cells of the dynamic spatial interrogatives (Slovak kade ‘whither’ and skade ‘whence’, Vaverková et al. 1978: 372 and 478). However, these additional word-forms are mentioned either only in the German-Slovak part or only in the Slovak-German part of the dictionary. Slovak kade is also mentioned in the descriptive grammar – however, with a perlative meaning (Stanislav 1977: 88). The Slovak translation of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series provides a single piece of evidence of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism, cf. (83). || 33 Lidia Federica Mazzitelli (p.c.) reports that she has found a handful of examples of od kje ‘whence’ in Slovenian texts on the internet which span the period from 1910 to 1980. However, the exact status of these statistically marginal cases still needs to be determined.

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 299

(83)

Slovak Hej, gde letíte? Hey P?/G? fly:2PL ‘Hey, where are you running?’

[HP I Slovak, 273]

This example is remarkable for various reasons. There is no other example of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism in the corpus. Moreover, the word-form gde ‘where’ is at odds with the standard orthography which stipulates the written representation as . We may conclude that the Slovak translator wanted to mark the utterance deliberately as nonstandard. This practice makes sense because the speaker who utters (83) is the game-keeper Hagrid, a character which is depicted as uneducated with relatively limited control of the standard language in the original. Tilman Berger (p.c.) argues that the syncretic use of kde ‘where = whither’ as spatial interrogative of Place and Goal is possible also in the Slovak standard, although the WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is viewed critically by many speakers of Slovak. Occasionally, the same phenomenon can also be observed in Czech where this form of syncretism, however, is inadmissible in the standard.34 An additional complication concerning the Slovak Harry-Potter translation occasions is illustrated by the sentence in (84). (84)

Slovak Kadiaľ išli, Zloduch? *?* go:PTCPL:PL Peeves ‘Where have they gone, Peeves?’

[HP I Slovak, 16]

The spatial interrogative kadiaľ ‘along which way’ is used twice in the HarryPotter text. It is used in contexts in which all of the other Slavic languages employ their spatial interrogatives of Goal (in the case of Czech, for instance, kam ‘whither’ is used). Nevertheless, we do not consider kadiaľ to be a full-blown synonym of Slovak kam ‘whither’. Rather, kadiaľ ‘along which way’ is a specific spatial interrogative with a kind of perlative meaning which may function as a substitute of kam ‘whither’ only in some contexts. Accordingly, Table 211 contains only three allomorphs in the cell of WHITHER of the DGB-variety.

|| 34 Tilman Berger (p.c.) also mentions the dialectological work of Bělič’s (1972: 213) who assumes that the central and eastern Moravian varieties of Czech employ kde ‘where = whither’ in lieu of kam ‘whither’. The syncretic kde ‘where = whither’ is also attested in older translations of the Bible whereas the recent translations of the same text make use exclusively of kam ‘whither’ as spatial interrogative of Goal.

300 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 211: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Slovak varieties. Spatial relation

LPP-variety

DGB-variety

Place

kde

kde

Goal

kam

kde ~ kam ~ kade

Source

odkiaľ

odkiaľ ~ skade

We repeat that the status of kade ‘whither’ and skade ‘whence’ is unclear. If we accept them as full-blown members of the paradigm, the differences of the two varieties in Table 211 are striking. Overabundance and syncretism are exclusive traits of DGB-Slovak. It is noteworthy too that kade ‘whither’ and skade ‘whence’ are in a derivation relation whereas, synchronically, none of the four other word-forms of the DGB-paradigm display any morphological similarities. In terms of the constructions they use, the two Sorbian languages behave differently on the level of their LPP-varieties. None of the Sorbian varieties provides proof of any syncretism at all in Le Petit Prince. This situation is illustrated by the sample sentences in (85)–(86). (85) (85.1)

(85.2)

(85.3)

(86) (86.1)

Sorbian (Lower) [LPP Sorbian (Lower), 16] Source Wót źo ga ty pśiźoš, mały luź? from P?/G? EMPH you come:2SG little man ‘Where do you come from, little man?’ Place Źo ga to jo “pśi mnjo”? P?/G? EMPH this be:3SG at 1SG.PREPV ‘Where is this “at my place”?’ Goal Źo hyn coš se ty z mójeju P?/G? EXTRO want:2SG REFL you with my:INS wójcu wuderiś? sheep: INS step_out:INF ‘Where do you want to go with my sheep?’ Sorbian (Upper) [LPP Sorbian (Upper), 16] Source Zwotkel pochadźeś, ty mój kadlička? S? stem_from:2SG you my guy:DIM ‘Where do you stem from, my little guy?’

Micro-level variation in Slavic | 301

(86.2)

(86.3)

Place Hdźe maš swoje doma? P? have:2SG POSS.REFL home ‘Where do you have your home?’ Goal Dokal chceš sej moju G? want:2SG REFL my:ACC sobu wzać? with take:INF ‘Where do you want to take my sheep along?’

wowcku sheep:DIM:ACC

For both of the Sorbian languages, the descriptive linguistic literature assumes overabundance for the dynamic spatial interrogatives. For Sorbian (Lower) this involves the additional word-forms dokul ‘whither’ and wotkul ‘whence’ (Jannasch 1990: 340). In connection with the five cases of allomorphy with WHENCE in Sorbian (Upper)35, wotkal ~ wotkel ‘whence’ are considered idiolectal innovations which are only marginally attested (Faßke 1981: 613). For dokal ‘whither’ the same author assumes that it is also an innovation which, however, has been gaining ground recently to the detriment of the employment of the (erstwhile) syncretic hdźe ‘where = whither’ in the function of the Goal interrogative. In connection to this issue it is instructive to consider the examples in (87). (87) (87.1)

(87.2)

Sorbian (Upper) Question Ale dokal dyrbjała but G? must:PTCPL:F ‘But where should it go?’ Answer Ně-hdźe. NEG-where ‘Anywhere.’

[LPP Sorbian (Upper), 16] běžeć? go:INF

In the question (87.1), the distinctive Goal interrogative dokal ‘whither’ is used. In the answer to this question, the indefinite něhdźe ‘anywhere’ (literally ‘nowhere’) is employed which contains the stem hdźe which is identical to the syncretic hdźe ‘where = whither’. We interpret this scenario as evidence of the relative recency of the coining of dokal ‘whither’. The innovation has not reached

|| 35 In addition to the many contemporary WHENCE-constructions of Sorabian (Upper), Faßke (1981: 613) mentions zwotkal ‘whence’ which is an archaic remnant of the 19th century.

302 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe beyond the domain of interrogative sentences yet (i.e. there is no *nědokal). Outside this domain, the former Place=Goal-syncretism still reigns supreme. The most striking feature of the Sorbian (Upper) paradigm of spatial interrogatives is the possibility to use hdźe ‘where = whither’ also in WHENCEconstructions. For Faßke (1981: 613) this is a feature of the colloquial style. Moreover, in the function of the Source interrogative, hdźe ‘where = whither’ must co-occur with either the introversive sem ‘towards (here)’ (or direction in general) or the equally introversive jow ‘here; towards (here)’ – two so-called “lokale adverbielle Demonstrativpronomen” (Faßke 1981: 583–585). This is probably a partial calque on the pattern of German woher ‘whence’ – with the introversive directional morpheme her serving as pattern for the use of sem and jow. Faßke (1981: 613) provides example (88) for this colloquial WHENCEconstruction which corresponds closely to German Wo hat er das Geld hernehmen sollen? ‘Where should he have taken the money from?’. (88)

Sorbian (Upper) [Faßke 1981: 613] Hdźe by měł pjenjezy sem brać. P?/G? PTCL have:PTCPL money:ACC INTRO take:INF ‘Where should he have taken the money from?’

Thus, there is no genuine WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism since we are dealing with two distinct constructions, namely [hdźe]where/whither ≠ [hdźe (…) sem/jow]whence. The results are interesting (cf. Table 212). Table 212: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Sorbian (Lower) and two Sorbian (Upper) varieties. Spatial relation

Sorbian (Lower)

Sorbian (Upper)

LPP-variety

DGB-variety

LPP-variety

DGB-variety

Place

źo

źo

hdźe

hdźe

Goal

źo hyn

źo ~ dokul

dokal

hdźe ~ dokal

Source

wót źo

wót źo ~ wotkul

zwotkel

zwotkel ~ hdźe sem ~ hdźe jow ~ wotkel ~ wotkal

In the realm of the DGB-varieties, both Sorbian languages allow not only for overabundance with WHITHER and WHENCE but also tolerate the co-existence of two different syncretic patterns, namely that of WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE vs. that of (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE. Moreover, derivationally related word-forms of WHITHER and WHENCE are introduced via overabundance, viz. Sorbian (Lower)

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 303

dokul ‘whither’ and wotkul ‘whence’ as well as Sorbian (Upper) dokal ‘whither’ and wotkal ‘whence’ which share the stem -kul/-kal as complement of the prepositions do ‘to’ and wot ‘from’, respectively. The above discussion of the Slavic data reveals the following. First of all, there are considerable differences between most LPP-varieties and their corresponding DGB-varieties. These differences often correlate with the distinction of standard and nonstandard varieties. Furthermore, language contact is probably the decisive factor at least for some of the observed facts. Italian influence on Slavomolisano and German influence on both of the Sorbian languages can be taken for granted. There are also areal phenomena to be taken account of in the Balkans. We will come back to this issue further below in Section 3.4.2. The more westerly and southerly varieties are likely to instantiate WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism. In contrast, most of the easterly varieties avoid any kind of syncretism. A small number of counter-examples notwithstanding, the additional constructions found in the DGB-varieties corroborate the general tendencies, i.e. the markedness hierarchy WHERE < WHITHER < WHENCE also holds for most of the constructions which are added to the paradigms by way of analyzing the DGBvarieties. In this way, the Slavic languages behave largely identical to the Romance languages and the Germanic languages. It remains to be seen whether this overall homogeneity of the major Indo-European subgroups is replicated by the minor subgroups of the same family.

3.4 Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe 3.4.1

Sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties

3.4.1.1 Mismatches 3.4.1.1.1 Syncretism Not only do the further representatives of the Indo-European language family constitute a relatively small group with just thirteen members, but they also come as a genetically heterogeneous assortment of languages. There are Celtic languages, Baltic languages, Indo-Aryan languages, Greek, Armenian (Eastern), and two varieties of Albanian. The mixed character of this group renders it likely that the results might turn out to be much more varied than those of the previous genetically homogeneous groups.

304 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe This prediction is proved right as to the distribution of the syncretic patterns. Table 213 shows that there are seven LPP-varieties in which WHERE and WHITHER are represented exclusively by one and the same construction whereas there are three languages which consistently differentiate the one from the other in the corpus text. Moreover, there are also three languages which attest to the co-existence of both patterns. In sum, this means that WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism occurs in ten out of thirteen languages (= 77%) as opposed to six languages which display distinct constructions for the spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal (= 46%). The presentation of the languages in Table 213 is organized as follows from top to bottom. The languages with WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism are mentioned first beginning with those which do not employ any multi-word constructions in their paradigm of spatial interrogatives. The languages which display WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and make use of multi-word constructions in the paradigm are next and are followed suit by the two languages which testify to overabundance. At the bottom of Table 213, we posit those languages which have distinct constructions for all three categories. The final entry is Armenian (Eastern) which stands out from the majority of this group insofar as it employs exclusively mono-word constructions. Table 213: Spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Lovari

kaj

kaj

kathar

25

Albanian (Tosk)

ku

ku

nga

289

Albanian (Gheg)

ku

ku

prej kah [!]

16

Greek

pou

pou

apó pou [!]

23

Breton

pelec’h

pelec’h

eus pelec’h [!]

16

Irish

cá

cá

cá has [!]

9

Lithuanian

kur

kur

iš kur [!]

11

Latvian

kur

kur ~ kurp

no kurienes [!]

14

Zazaki

koti

kamta ~ koti

koti ra [!] ~ kamca ra [!]

16

Scots-Gaelic

càit

cà ~ càit

co às [!]

16

Welsh

ble

i ble [!]

o ble [!]

16

Kurmanji

li ku derê [!]

ku derê [!]

ji ku derê [!]

21

Armenian (Eastern)

orteł

u

ortełic

16

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 305

Unsurprisingly, it is not as easy to generalize over the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties as it is in the case of the genetically homogeneous larger subgroups of the same language family. The relatively high frequency of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism connects the majority of the mixed group to the majority of the Romance LPP-varieties whereas the minoritarian pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE allows us to draw a connection line to the majority of the Germanic languages. In a way, the sundry Indo-European languages are situated in between the Romance and the Germanic languages – and they share this middle position with the Slavic languages as discussed in the foregoing section. What the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties share also with the Slavic LPPvarieties and the Germanic LPP-varieties is the relatively moderate surplus of attested constructions in comparison to the estimated minimum, cf. Table 214. Table 214: Attested constructions in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Sum

estimate

13

13

13

39

attested

13

16

14

43

increase

0%

23%

8%

10%

shows no excess at all whereas WHENCE exceeds the estimate by just one construction. In the case of WHITHER, the excess is more substantial. However, the percentages of the Romance surplus are higher still (cf. Table 65 above). The above values are indicative of four cells which host more than one construction, i.e. overabundance occurs in 10% of the cells in Table 213. Syncretism on the other hand involves twenty out of thirty-nine cells and thus is representative of 51% of all cells of the same table.

WHERE

3.4.1.1.2 Overabundance It is clear from the above that overabundance is not a typical mark of the varieties under scrutiny. The three LPP-varieties for which this phenomenon can be identified in the sample text are presented again in Table 215. Grey shading is used for those cells which host two constructions.

306 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 215: Overabundance in paradigms of spatial interrogatives of sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

Latvian

kur

kur ~ kurp

no kurienes

Zazaki

koti

kamta ~ koti

koti ra ~ kamca ra

Scots-Gaelic

càit

cà ~ càit

co às

WHENCE

The three LPP-varieties of Table 215 belong to three different branches of IndoEuropean (Baltic, Indo-Aryan, and Celtic). They behave differently from their next-of-kin and are spoken in different parts of Europe so that their similarity cannot be explained by convergence via contact. What strikes the eye in Table 215 is the fact that WHITHER is affected by overabundance in all of the three languages. In contrast to WHITHER, WHENCE is involved in overabundance only once while WHERE is completely exempt from overabundance. Thus, WHITHER is responsible for the majority of all instances of overabundance, cf. Diagram 75. where 0 0%

whence 1 25%

whither 3 75%

Diagram 75: Shares of spatial interrogatives of overabundance in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

As in the Slavic case (cf. Section 3.3.1.1.2 above), the number of cases of overabundance is not big enough to allow us to generalize especially because the group of sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe is particularly small.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 307

Overabundance will be discussed at some length in Section 3.4.2 below when evidence from the DGB-varieties can be taken into account too.

3.4.1.1.3 Suppletion Suppletion is a frequent feature of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. It is attested in six languages, i.e. it occurs in 46% of the varieties of this group, cf. Table 216. Those cells which host a suppletive stem are highlighted by grey shading. In the context of overabundance or balanced competition, one of the competing stems is additionally marked by boldface. Table 216: Suppletive spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Armenian (Eastern)

orteł

ur

ortełic

Lovari

kaj

kaj

kathar

Albanian (Tosk)

ku

ku

nga

Albanian (Gheg)

ku

ku

prej kah

Scots-Gaelic

càit

cà ~ càit

co às

Zazaki

koti

kamta ~ koti

koti ra ~ kamca ra

In some of the cases, the synchronic suppletion is the result of phonologically divergent historical developments of erstwhile identical stems (cf. Section 3.4.2). Nevertheless, the above cases in their entirety can synchronically be classified as examples of strong suppletion. Interestingly, the static spatial interrogative is always represented by a construction which employs the stem which occurs in the majority of the cells of the paradigm. All instances of suppletive stems affect dynamic spatial relations with WHENCE outnumbering WHITHER by a ratio of three-to-one, cf. Diagram 76. The values in Diagram 76 differ considerably from those of Diagram 58 which reflect the situation in the Slavic sub-group. It is especially the absence of suppletive spatial interrogatives of Place which distinguishes the sundry IndoEuropean LPP-varieties from the Slavic LPP-varieties.

308 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

where 0 0%

whither 2 25% whence 6 75%

Diagram 76: Shares of spatial interrogatives of strong suppletion in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

3.4.1.1.4 Periphrasis In contrast to suppletion and even more so in contrast to overabundance, periphrasis is a characteristic of the majority of the LPP-varieties of sundry IndoEuropean languages of Europe. Table 217 contains the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of ten languages. Grey shading is indicative of a cell which hosts periphrastic constructions. Table 217: Periphrastic spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Albanian (Gheg)

ku

ku

prej kah

Greek

pou

pou

apó pou

Breton

pelec’h

pelec’h

eus pelec’h

Irish

cá

cá

cá has

Lithuanian

kur

kur

iš kur

Latvian

kur

kur ~ kurp

no kurienes

Zazaki

koti

kamta ~ koti

koti ra ~ kamca ra

Scots-Gaelic

càit

cà ~ càit

co às

Welsh

ble

i ble

o ble

Kurmanji

li ku derê

ku derê

ji ku derê

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 309

About 77% of the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe attest to periphrasis. In two languages – Welsh and Kurmanji – periphrasis occurs in several cells of the paradigm. In all other languages, the phenomenon is restricted to one cell of the paradigm. This amounts to a share of 31% of all cells of Table 213. Welsh is the sole language which attests to anti-periphrasis because the mono-word construction is isolated in the paradigms of spatial interrogatives. Of the altogether thirteen periphrastic constructions, ten come in the shape of a PP with a prepositional head whereas two constructions involve circumpositions. A third case (Kurmanji) involves a postposition or relational noun. The construction types  [Prep Q]spatial interrogative,  [Prep Q Post]spatial interrogative ~ [Prep Q Nrelational(-CASE)]spatial interrogative, and  [Q(-CASE) Post]spatial interrogative are employed. In all ten of the languages which display periphrastic constructions, the WHENCE-construction is an instance of periphrasis. The two other categories are represented by periphrastic constructions once (= WHERE) and twice (= WHITHER), respectively, cf. Diagram 77. where 1 8% whither 2 15% whence 10 77%

Diagram 77: Shares of periphrastic spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

Since the distribution of antipheriphrasis over WHERE and WHITHER is almost the same as that of periphrasis there is no need to differentiate the two kinds of mismatches in Diagram 77. As to periphrasis, the sundry Indo-European LPPvarieties lean definitely towards the Romance languages and the Germanic languages which also exhibit high percentages of periphrasis.

310 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 3.4.1.1.5 Fused exponence Notwithstanding the occurrence of suppletive stems, there is no convincing evidence of fused exponence in the case of the sundry Indo-European LPPvarieties of Europe. This has to do mainly with the fact that the suppletive stems combine with additional morphemes to yield a construction. These additional morphemes are mostly dedicated markers of spatial relations. Even mono-word constructions (like Lovari kathar ‘whence’ and Albanian (Tosk)nga ‘whence’) fail to meet the criteria of fused exponence, because these constructions do not have an inherent interrogative meaning. We will come back to these and similar cases in Section 3.4.2 below. For the time being it must suffice to state the absence of fused exponence.

3.4.1.1.6 Results The usual synopsis of the above results is given in Diagrams 78–79. None of the spatial categories participates in all of the mismatches. The sole example of a mismatch which involves all three spatial interrogatives is periphrasis whereas fused exponence is unattested in the LPP-varieties at hand. Diagram 78 shows that WHERE is involved in only two of the five mismatches. WHENCE takes part in three mismatch categories and WHITHER partakes in four different categories of mismatches. The differences come to the fore also in connection to the shares the spatial interrogatives have of the mismatches and vice versa. According to the shares displayed in Diagram 78, WHERE accounts for a quarter of all mismatches – a share that is significantly smaller than that of WHITHER and that of WHENCE. 100% 80%

1 10 6

60% 40% 20%

whence

10

3

whither

10 2

0% syncretism

overabundance

suppletion

2 1 periphrasis

where

0

fused exponence

Diagram 78: Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 311

If

is involved in a mismatch category it never exceeds the percentage of WHITHER. Relatively big shares claimed by WHITHER correlate with relatively small shares of WHENCE and vice versa. Diagram 79 tells us that syncretism is the most important type of mismatch that occurs in the group of sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties although WHENCE does not tolerate syncretism. The share calculated for syncretism outsizes the share of periphrasis by two-to-one. WHERE

100% 90%

1

2

80% 70%

3

60% 50% 40%

2

10

periphrasis

suppletion

10 overabundance

30%

10

20%

6

syncretism

10% 1

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 79: Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

Syncretism accounts for the bulk of the mismatches in which the spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal are involved. The only other share above the 50%mark is claimed by periphrasis in connection to WHENCE. With their high incidence of syncretism the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties display affinities to the Romance LPP-varieties, for which syncretism is also the most important mismatch. The two top-ranking types of mismatch – syncretism and periphrasis – are responsible for 73% of all cases of mismatches in the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. There are certain patterns which allow statistical predictions of the following kind:  there is a probability of 100% that fused exponence does not occur,  there is a probability of 90% that if WHERE is involved in a mismatch this mismatch is syncretism,

312 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe  there is a probability of three-to-one that WHITHER is affected if overabundance applies,  there is a probability of over 75% that WHENCE is affected if periphrasis applies. The frequency of binary combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm is surveyed in Table 218. Table 218: Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. Syncretism Overabundance Suppletion Periphrasis Fused Sum exponence syncretism

1

overabundance 1 suppletion

5

0

periphrasis

5

9

0

15

0

1

0

2

4

0

9

9

1

4

fused exponence 0

0

0

0

Total

2

9

14

15

0

14 0

0

40

The co-occurrence of the two most frequent mismatches (syncretism and periphrasis) is not surprising. This combination covers 45% of all instances of multiple mismatches. Suppletion combines with syncretism and periphrasis relatively frequently whereas overabundance combines with the same partners only marginally.

3.4.1.2 Constructional complexity 3.4.1.2.1 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions There are only three languages which do not include at least one multi-word construction in their paradigms of spatial interrogatives. These languages are presented in Table 219. It is worth noting that these languages form a proper subset of the languages in Table 216 above, i.e. they also attest to suppletion.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 313

Table 219: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives without multi-word constructions in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Armenian (Eastern)

orteł

ur

ortełic

Lovari

kaj

kaj

kathar

Albanian(Tosk)

ku

ku

nga

Those languages which give examples of multi-word constructions need not be identified again since they are identical with those of Table 217 which surveys the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties which are representative of periphrasis. Accordingly, the statistics for the distribution of multi-word constructions are identical with the statistics for the distribution of periphrasis given in Diagram 77 above. For the sake of brevity, we thus refer back to Table 217 and Diagram 77 in case the reader finds it necessary to scrutinize the constructions as such and/or the statistical weight of multi-word constructions in correlation with the three spatial categories. In this way we can directly proceed to the statistical evaluation of the binary combination of constructions. Table 220 elucidates us as to the combinations of WHERE and WHITHER. Table 220: Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHITHER. WHERE

WHITHER

Sum

mono-word

multi-word

mono-word

14

1

15

multi-word

1

0

1

Total

15

1

16

In fourteen out of sixteen cases, the spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal are represented by constructions of equal size. All of these constructions consist of one word. In 87.5% of all combinations, WHERE and WHITHER are expressed by constructions of identical size in terms of the number of words. There are two exceptions. In one case, the WHERE-construction is shorter than the WHITHERconstruction. In the other case, the inverse situation applies. Since WHERE and WHITHER display similar behavior in combinations with WHENCE (cf. Tables 221222), the two categories of Place and Goal can lay claim to an identical status.

314 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 221: Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHERE

WHENCE

Sum

mono-word

multi-word

mono-word

3

10

13

multi-word

0

1

1

Total

3

11

14

In ten out of fourteen cases, the WHERE-construction is an example of monoword constructions whereas the corresponding WHENCE-construction contains two words. This means that WHENCE exceeds WHERE in size in 71% of all combinations of the two categories. The remaining four cases (= 19%) are instances of equal size. Table 222: Combinations of mono-word and multi-word constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHITHER

WHENCE

Sum

mono-word

multi-word

mono-word

3

14

17

multi-word

0

1

1

Total

3

15

18

The higher number of combinations of WHITHER and WHENCE notwithstanding, the picture is almost the same as in the previous case. There is no example of WHENCE being represented by a construction which counts fewer words than the corresponding WHITHER-construction. In fourteen out of eighteen cases (= 78%), the WHENCE-construction is a multi-word construction which combines with a mono-word WHITHER-construction. In 12% of the cases, the combinations involve constructions of equal size. The above statistics yield two implicational patterns, cf. Schemes 15–16. If a WHENCE-construction is represented by only one word, the WHERE-construction and WHITHER-construction of the same paradigm cannot be a multi-word construction. If, on the other hand, a paradigm hosts either a multi-word WHEREconstruction or a multi-word WHITHER-construction, then WHENCE must also be represented by a multi-word construction.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 315

WHEREmono WHENCEmono

 WHITHERmono

Scheme 15: Implication of mono-wordhood.

WHEREmulti



WHENCEmulti

WHITHERmulti

Scheme 16: Implication of multi-wordhood.

These patterns are in line with the general observation that the spatial interrogative of Source tends to behave differently from those of Place and Goal – and that this behavioral difference is indicative of a high degree of markedness. In contrast to the special behavior of WHENCE, WHERE and WHITHER give the impression of being twins, in a manner of speaking. Their overall similarity across the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe can also be recognized on the basis of the average number of words employed in spatialinterrogative constructions, cf. Table 223. Table 223: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of words per construction) in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

words WHERE

and

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.1

1.1

1.8

1.3

WHITHER

yield identically low averages. In contrast, the average

WHENCE-construction exceeds those of the other categories by 0.7. The identity of

the averages of WHERE and WHITHER is reminiscent of the Slavic case (cf. Table 177). The high average of WHENCE, however, is more in line with the results reported for the Romance LPP-varieties and the Germanic LPP-varieties (cf. Tables 76 and 133).

316 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Since WHERE and WHITHER display parallel behavior, both of these categories are entitled to the score of ‘0’ whereas WHENCE scores the usual ‘2’. This result is the same as that of the Slavic LPP-varieties discussed in Section 3.3.1.2.1 above.

3.4.1.2.2 Morphs The number of morphs per construction is identified in Table 224. Polymorphism occurs in those cells which are shaded in grey. Wherever overabundance involves pairs of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions, the latter are marked additionally in boldface. Table 224: Number of morphs in spatial interrogatives of sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Albanian (Tosk)

1

1

1

Lovari

1

1

2

Albanian (Gheg)

1

1

2

Greek

1

1

2

Irish

1

1

2

Lithuanian

1

1

2

Zazaki

1

1~2

2~3

Latvian

1

1~2

3

Armenian (Eastern)

2

1

3

Scots-Gaelic

2

1~2

2

Breton

2

2

3

Welsh

2

3

3

Kurmanji

4

3

4

In several cases (viz. Lovari kathar ‘whence’, Armenian (Eastern) orteł ‘where’ and ortełic ‘whence’, Scots-Gaelic càit ‘where = whither’, and Welsh ble ‘where’), we assume that the compositional nature of the word-forms is still recognizable for native speakers. Some details connected to these and other cases are discussed in Section 3.4.2. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to know that most of these have the following internal structure: [Qwhich-PLACE(-CASE)]spatial interrogative. In the case of the WHENCE-construction of Lovari, the formula is [Q-ABLATIVE]whence.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 317

The turnout of morphs and the distribution of morphs over the paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Diagram 80 look similar to the situation which has been described for the Slavic LPP-varieties (cf. Diagram 63 above). The smallest share is claimed by WHERE and the biggest share goes to WHENCE while WHITHER is situated between the two extremes.

where whence 34

20 26%

43% whither 24 31%

Diagram 80: Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphs in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

The upper limit of the morphological complexity of the constructions under scrutiny is four morphs. All of the trimorphic constructions represent dynamic spatial relations. The biggest share of polymorphic constructions is claimed by WHENCE. In contrast, WHENCE is represented only once among the monomorphic constructions, the bulk of which goes to the credit of WHITHER and WHERE, cf. Diagram 81. In the absence of trimorphic WHERE-constructions, the spatial interrogative of Place displays a marked preference for monomorphism. This preference is even more pronounced in the case of WHITHER since more than two thirds of all WHITHER-constructions are monomorphic. In contrast, exactly half of all WHENCEconstructions are dimorphic, cf. Diagram 82. The association of WHENCE and polymorphism can be termed very strong.

318 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 100% 90%

1

80% 70% 60%

7

11

1 whence

5

50%

whither

40%

3

where

30% 20%

1

8

10%

4

2

dimorphic

trimorphic

0% monomorphic

tetramorphic

Diagram 81: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. 100% 90% 80% 70%

1

2

4

3

1

5

60%

trimorphic

50% 40% 30%

tetramorphic

8

11

7

20%

dimorphic

monomorphic

10%

1

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 82: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

The fewer morphs a construction counts, the higher the probability that we are dealing with WHITHER or WHERE. The more morphs are needed to build a construction, the higher the probability that we are dealing with WHENCE.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 319

The comparison of binary combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions yields the following results, cf. Table 225. The relation of WHERE and WHITHER is balanced. In ten of sixteen combinations, equal size applies (= 62.5%). The remaining six cases are evenly divided in three instances of WHERE exceeding the size of WHITHER and three instances of WHITHER counting more morphs than WHERE. Table 226 shows that imbalance is characteristic of the relation of WHERE and WHENCE. Table 225: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

monomorphic

polymorphic dimorphic

trimorphic

monomorphic

8

2

0

10

dimorphic

2

2

1

5

tetramorphic

0

0

1

1

Total

10

4

2

16

Table 226: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

monomorphic

polymorphic dimorphic

trimorphic

tetramorphic

monomorphic

1

6

2

0

9

dimorphic

0

1

3

0

4

tetramorphic

0

0

0

1

1

Total

1

7

5

1

14

Only in three out of fourteen cases does equal size apply. In eleven cases (= 78.5%), there are differences of size – and in all of these cases, the WHENCEconstruction is more complex than the WHERE-construction. A similar judgment holds for the relation of WHITHER and WHENCE as is shown in Table 227.

320 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 227: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

mono-morphic

dimorphic trimorphic

tetramorphic

monomorphic

1

7

3

0

11

dimorphic

0

2

3

0

5

trimorphic

0

0

1

1

2

Total

1

9

7

1

18

There is no case of a WHENCE-construction which is shorter than the corresponding WHITHER-construction. What is attested are fourteen combinations which involve a WHENCE-construction that exceeds the morphological complexity of the corresponding WHITHER-construction. Thus, in 78% of all combinations WHENCE requires a number of morphs which is higher than that of WHITHER. Equal size is attested four times. The implications which we have found on the parameter of the number of words per construction are also reflected on the level of morphs. Schemes 17–18 below are almost exact replicas of the Schemes 15–16 above. WHEREmono WHENCEmono

 WHITHERmono

Scheme 17: Implication of monomorphism.

WHEREpoly



WHENCEpoly

WHITHERpoly

Scheme 18: Implication of polymorphism.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 321

The average number of morphs per construction corroborates the above findings, cf. Table 228. The overall average is similar to that computed for the Slavic LPP-varieties (cf. Table 182 above). Table 228: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphs per construction) in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

morphs

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.5

1.5

2.4

1.8

In contrast to the Slavic averages, the values in Table 228 are again indicative of the parallelism of WHERE and WHITHER that we have observed already in the previous subsection. WHERE and WHITHER yield identical averages. We therefore give the score of ‘0’ to both of the categories. Like in the case of mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions WHENCE scores ‘2’.

3.4.1.2.3 Morphemes This section can be very brief. Our morpheme analysis yields exactly the same results as those presented in connection to the level of morphs which we have discussed in the foregoing subsection. This identity of results is caused by our decision to opt for a polymorphemic interpretation in case of doubt. Accordingly, there is no need to reproduce the contents of Section 3.4.1.2.2 here. It is fully sufficient to repeat the scores which are as follows: WHERE = ‘0’, WHITHER = ‘0’, and WHENCE = ‘2’.

3.4.1.2.4 Zero-marking Zero-marking of spatial relations is attested in eight of the sundry IndoEuropean LPP-varieties of Europe. This is a majority of 61.5% of the group under review. Table 229 indicates that zero-marking is the privilege of WHERE and WHITHER. Grey shaded cells host word-forms which bear evidence of zeromarking. In case of overabundance, the relevant constructions are printed in boldface.

322 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 229: Zero-marking with spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Welsh

ble

i ble

o ble

Greek

pou

pou

apó pou

Breton

pelec’h

pelec’h

eus pelec’h

Irish

cá

cá

cá has

Lithuanian

kur

kur

iš kur

Zazaki

koti

kamta ~ koti

koti ra ~ kamca ra

Kurmanji

li ku derê

ku derê

ji ku derê

Armenian (Eastern)

orteł

ur

ortełic

The absence of zero-marking of WHENCE is not surprising if we take the previous discussion into account. However, this time it is not the spatial interrogative of Place which is affected most frequently by zero-marking. There is a slight majority by one case of zero-marking in favor of WHITHER. In five languages, both WHERE and WHITHER are zero-marked. These are all instances of WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism. There are two languages in which WHITHER is the sole category that tolerates zero-marking and one language in which WHERE alone is zero-marked. WHITHER yields the greater number of zero-marked cases whereas in the case of WHERE the share of zero-marked constructions is slightly larger than in the case of WHITHER, cf. Diagrams 83–84. 100% 80%

7

14

60%

whence

40% 20%

9

whither where

6 7

0% zero-marking

overt marking

Diagram 83: Distribution of spatial interrogatives across zero-marking and overt marking in sundry Indo-European LPP varieties.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 323

100% 80%

7

9

60% 14

40% 20%

6

7

where

whither

0%

zero-marking

whence

overt marking

Diagram 84: Distribution of zero-marking and overt marking across spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

In analogy to the Slavic case in Section 3.3.1.2.4, we consider the data to be proof of the equality of WHERE and WHITHER. Both of these categories are therefore given the score of ‘0’. Since WHENCE never allows for zero-marking in the group of languages under scrutiny, it can only receive the score of ‘1’.

3.4.1.2.5 Syllables The distribution of monosyllabic constructions and polysyllabic constructions over categories and languages is captured by Table 230. The polysyllabic cases are indicated by grey shading. Table 230: Number of syllables of spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

Albanian (Tosk)

1

1

1

Lovari

1

1

2

Albanian (Gheg)

1

1

2

Irish

1

1

2

WHENCE

324 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Lithuanian

1

1

2

Scots-Gaelic

1

1~1

2

Greek

1

1

3

Latvian

1

1~1

4

Welsh

1

2

2

Armenian (Eastern)

2

1

3

Breton

2

2

3

Zazaki

2

2~2

3~3

Kurmanji

4

3

4

Like in the previous two subsections, Albanian (Tosk) is the sole example among the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe which has the minimal value of 1 in all three cells of the paradigm. No other language attests to equal numbers of syllables of all constructions of a given paradigm. The size of the constructions ranges from one to four syllables. Tetrasyllabic constructions are attested only twice. Diagram 85 shows that constructions which comprise more than two syllables occur predominantly as representatives of WHENCE. Monosyllables on the other hand are the prerogative of WHERE and WHITHER. 100% 90%

1

80% 70% 60%

12

6 2 5

50%

whither

40%

3

30% 20%

whence

where

9 3

10%

1 1

0% monosyllabic

disyllabic

trisyllabic

tetrasyllabic

Diagram 85: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 325

The shares monosyllabicity has of all WHERE-constructions and WHITHERconstructions is about ten times as big as monosyllabicity claims for WHENCE, cf. Diagram 86. Over two thirds of all WHERE-constructions and three quarters of all WHITHER-constructions are monosyllabic whereas 94% of all WHENCE-constructions are polysyllabic. The association of WHITHER and monosyllabism is slightly stronger than in the case of WHERE and monosyllabism. Whether or not this minimal difference has any repercussions in the domain of combinations of constructions is checked next. Table 231 provides evidence of an almost identical status of WHERE and WHITHER. 100%

1

1

90%

3

3

80%

2

70%

5

60%

tetrasyllabic

trisyllabic

50% 40% 30%

disyllabic

12

9

6

20% 10%

monosyllabic

1

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 86: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. Table 231: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

σ

σσ

σσσ

σ

10

1

0

11

σσ

1

3

0

4

σσσσ

0

0

1

1

Total

11

4

1

16

326 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe In thirteen out of sixteen combinations, the spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal are represented by constructions with identical numbers of syllables. Equal size thus has a share of 81% of all combinations. The remaining three combinations reveal a slight advantage on the side of WHITHER because this category is expressed by fewer syllables than WHERE twice. In contrast, WHERE is shorter than WHITHER only once. Expectedly, the combinations of WHERE and WHENCE yield a different picture, cf. Table 232. Equal size applies only in two instances whereas in twelve cases (= 86%) the construction used to express WHENCE outsizes that of WHERE by at least one syllable. Table 232: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

σ

σσ

σσσ

σσσσ

σ

1

6

1

1

9

σσ

0

0

4

0

4

σσσσ

0

0

0

1

1

Total

1

6

5

2

14

Similarly, combinations of WHITHER and WHENCE are of identical size only twice. There is no WHENCE-construction that counts fewer syllables than the corresponding WHITHER-construction. In sixteen cases (= 89%), the spatial interrogative of Source requires a construction which is more complex than that of the spatial interrogative of Goal in terms of the number of syllables, cf. Table 233. Table 233: Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

σ

σσ

σσσ

σσσσ

σ

1

6

2

2

σσ

0

1

5

0

6

σσσ

0

0

0

1

1

Total

1

7

7

3

18

11

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 327

The minimal advantage of WHITHER in comparison to the often privileged WHERE is also evident when we look at the average number of syllables per construction, cf. Table 234. Table 234: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of syllables per construction) in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

syllables

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.4

1.3

2.5

1.8

For the very first time in this study does WHITHER score higher than WHERE. Admittedly the distance between the two averages is very small, viz. 0.07. Nevertheless, we have seen in several of the previous subsections devoted to the LPPvarieties of sundry Indo-European languages of Europe that WHITHER is a very strong competitor of WHERE. It is therefore legitimate to give the score of ‘0’ exclusively to WHITHER this time. Since WHENCE behaves as usual and thus receives the score of ‘2’, WHERE can claim the score of ‘1’.

3.4.1.2.6 Segments On the level of segments, we observe that none of the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe has three constructions with identical phonological complexity. What Table 235 shows nevertheless is that except Armenian (Eastern) all of the languages under scrutiny here display two constructions of equal phonological size per paradigm. The cells which host constructions of identical numbers of segments in a given language are marked by grey shading. In multiply occupied cells, boldface highlights the construction the size of which is the same as that of another member of the same paradigm. Table 235: Number of segments of spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Albanian (Tosk)

2

2

3

Greek

2

2

5

Irish

2

2

5

Albanian (Gheg)

2

2

7

328 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Scots-Gaelic

3

2~3

4

Lovari

3

3

5

Lithuanian

3

3

5

Latvian

3

3~4

9

Welsh

3

4

4

Zazaki

4

5~4

6~7

Armenian (Eastern)

5

2

7

Breton

5

5

7

Kurmanji

8

6

8

The minimum is two segments as opposed to the maximum of nine segments. All sizes between two and nine segments are attested at least once. The spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal display strikingly parallel preferences since only a minimum of their constructions exceeds five segments. No WHENCEconstruction is made up of fewer than three segments. Almost all constructions with sizes of n > 5 segments are WHENCE-constructions, cf. Diagram 87. 100%

1

90%

2

80% 70%

6

4

4

1

1

whence

60% 50%

4 3

40% 30% 20% 10%

4

whither

2

5

1 1

1

1

where

2

0% 2 segments 3 segments 4 segments 5 segments 6 segments 7 segments 8 segments 9 segments

Diagram 87: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 329

The biggest share of all WHERE-constructions is held by constructions of three segments. The spatial interrogative of Goal, however, displays a relatively strong leaning towards constructions which consist of two segments. In the case of WHENCE, constructions of five segments and constructions of seven segments yield identically high percentages, cf. Diagram 88. All these pieces of evidence are indicative not only of the relative markedness of WHENCE but also of the close run between WHERE and WHITHER in the competition for the status of unmarked category. That the spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal are representatives of two categories with equal right to this status results also from the matrix in Table 236. As to the combinations of constructions, one might talk of a draw between WHERE and WHITHER because in ten out of sixteen cases equal size applies (= 62.5%). The remaining six cases are equally divided between three instances of WHERE-constructions exceeding the size of WHITHER-constructions and three instances which illustrate the inverse. 100%

9 segments

90% 80%

8 segments

70%

7 segments

60% 50%

6 segments

40%

5 segments

30% 20%

4 segments

10% 0%

3 segments where

whither

whence

9 segments

0

0

1

8 segments

1

0

1

7 segments

0

0

4

6 segments

0

1

1

5 segments

2

2

4

4 segments

1

3

2

3 segments

5

4

1

2 segments

4

6

0

2 segments

Diagram 88: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

330 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 236: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions of different segmental size in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

2

3

4

5

6

2

4

0

0

0

0

4

3

1

4

2

0

0

7

4

0

0

1

1

0

2

5

1

0

0

1

0

2

8

0

0

0

0

1

1

Total

6

4

3

2

1

16

In contrast, 93% of the combinations of WHERE and WHENCE are of the kind that pairs a segmentally complex spatial interrogative of Source with a spatial interrogative of Place which consists of fewer segments. There is only a single case in which equal size applies. No example of a WHENCE-construction whose chain of segments is shorter than that of the corresponding WHERE-construction could be found, cf. Table 237. Table 237: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

1

0

2

0

1

0

0

4

3

0

2

2

0

0

0

1

5

4

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

2

5

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

8

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Total

1

2

4

1

4

1

1

14

The situation is the same in the case of WHITHER-WHENCE combinations, cf. Table 238. In 94% of all combinations, the WHENCE-construction is the segmentally more complex of the two constructions. Like in the case of combinations of WHERE and WHENCE, there is an isolated example of equal size of WHITHER and

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 331

but no example of a WHITHER-construction that exceeds the corresponding WHENCE-construction in segmental complexity.

WHENCE

Table 238: Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

1

2

2

0

2

0

0

7

3

0

1

2

0

0

0

1

4

4

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

3

5

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

3

6

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Total

1

3

4

2

5

1

2

18

In sum, we are facing a situation which should be familiar by now. The paradigm of spatial interrogatives is split in two with WHENCE deviating considerably from the other two members of the paradigm. For the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe, WHERE and WHITHER are characterized by largely identical behavior (whereas in other languages discussed so far the similarity of WHERE and WHITHER is severely restricted). The average number of segments per construction is telling, cf. Table 239. The average of WHENCE exceeds the general average by 1.5 segments and is distanced from the other members of the paradigm by 2.3–2.4 segments. Table 239: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of segments per construction) in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties.

segments

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

3.4

3.6

5.8

4.3

The averages of WHERE and WHITHER, on the other hand, differ from each other only minimally, viz. by 0.2 segments. In analogy to the solution of a similar problem posed by the averages computed for the number of syllables per construction in the previous subsection, we take the difference as being significant enough to justify different scores for WHERE and WHITHER. Accordingly, WHERE is given the score of ‘0’ and WHITHER that of ‘1’. The score of ‘2’ goes once more to WHENCE.

332 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 3.4.1.2.7 Results in the realm of complexity The synopsis of the above subsections is given in Table 240. Right at first glance, it is evident that the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe yield results which differ markedly from those which we have observed with the three previous genetically defined groups of languages. Table 240: Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Level

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

words

0

0

2

morphs

0

0

2

morphemes

0

0

2

zero-marking

0

0

1

syllables (!)

1

0

2

segments

0

1

2

Total

1

1

11

One of the leitmotifs of the previous subsections is continued also in the case of the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Of the three categories under scrutiny WHENCE gets constantly the highest score and thus can be considered especially marked. We can conclude confidently that, at least within the geographical limits of Europe, the markedness of WHENCE is a pan-IndoEuropean trait. As to the role of WHERE and WHENCE, however, the results in Table 240 do not correspond to those identified for the Romance, Germanic, and Slavic LPP-varieties (cf. Tables 97, 153, and 199). In contrast to these three subgroups of the Indo-European language family, WHERE has not always the upper hand in the competition for the unmarked status. In lieu of scoring always ‘0’ like in the other LPP-varieties, WHERE is given the score of ‘1’ on the parameter of syllables. Moreover, WHITHER scores ‘0’ exactly as often as WHERE scores ‘0’ so that both categories can boast the same total of ‘1’. This is why Diagram 89 looks so different from Diagrams 34, 56, and 74 above, all of which suggest that WHITHER is relatively marked in contrast to WHERE and relatively unmarked in comparison to WHENCE. In the Romance, Germanic, and Slavic cases, WHITHER is positioned between WHERE and WHENCE. It occupies a middle position – sometimes slightly closer to WHERE than to the center of the scale. The sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe, however, treat WHERE

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 333

and WHITHER as two of a kind, as it were. Both of these categories behave like relatively unmarked members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. It is true that the Romance LPP-varieties as well as their Germanic and Slavic equivalents constitute genetically relatively homogeneous groups whereas the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe must be considered to be heterogeneous genetically. We cannot discount the possibility that the heterogenity of this group of languages is partly responsible for the above exceptional results. However, we do not subscribe to the idea that the lack of genetic homogeneity explains the unexpected behavior of WHITHER. Even across the ensemble of the Romance, Germanic, and Slavic LPP-varieties, WHITHER behaves in a largely predictable way so that genetic diversity as such cannot be a viable (sole) explanation of the properties that WHITHER displays in the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. There must be factors other than genetic affiliation which determine the behavior of the categories under review. To identify these factors, we need to look beyond the bounds of the Indo-European family and ultimately leave Europe behind (cf. Sections 3.5 and 4 below). 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 where

whither

whence

Diagram 89: Scores of complexity of sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

3.4.1.3 Derivation (synchronic analysis) The sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe realize six different patterns of synchronic derivational relations among the members of the paradigm of spatial relations, cf. Table 241. In fourteen (= 87.5%) of these patterns, the WHERE-construction serves as the basis of at least one other construction of the same paradigm. This observation also holds for the pattern B+x/B/[B+x]+z because the WHENCE-expression [[B+x]+z]whence is based on [B+x]where (which in its turn is derived from the WHITHER-construction [B]whither). WHITHER is the deriva-

334 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe tional basis in three patterns. In four patterns, the WHENCE-construction is morphologically independent of WHERE and WHITHER. This means that in twelve out of sixteen patterns (= 75%), the WHENCE-construction is formally derived from one of the other two members of the same paradigm. Table 241: Derivational patterns in sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Pattern

Frequency

Share

A/A/A+z

7

44%

A/A/C(+z)

4

25%

A/A+y/A+z

2

13%

A/B/B+z

1

6%

B+x/B/B+z

1

6%

B+x/B/[B+x]+z

1

6%

Total

16

100%

The prominent role played by the spatial interrogative of Place in the derivational network of the paradigms corresponds nicely to the findings which we have made in connection with the LPP-varieties of Romance, Germanic, and Slavic (cf. Tables 98 and 200 as well as Diagram 74 above). Therefore, it can be concluded that the picture painted of the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe does not deviate in each and every aspect from the general picture of the larger Indo-European subphyla. The next subsection will reveal to us whether or not this judgment can be extended also over the DGB-varieties.

3.4.2

About qualities

If we look beyond the evidence drawn from the LPP-varieties, the picture becomes as colorful as that painted of the Romance, Germanic, and Slavic languages. To demonstrate that we are dealing with an area which is subject to a hefty dose of variation we dedicate separate subsections to each of the genetically defined subgroups of the sundry Indo-European languages of Europe. For purely practical reasons, the internal isolates are treated first starting with Greek because of its age-long documented history. Armenian and Albanian follow in this order before it is the turn of the Indo-Aryan languages. The Celtic languages come next while the Baltic languages are scrutinized thereafter. The final subsection summarizes the major results of Section 3.4.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 335

3.4.2.1 Greek There is a translation of the sample text into Classical Greek. Unfortunately we have not been able to find it in time to integrate it into our corpus. This is why we cannot proceed in the same way as in the case of Latin and Old High German in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2, respectively. In lieu of making use of Le Petit Prince, we exploit the Ancient Greek version of the first volume of the Harry-Potterseries – with the usual proviso that we are well aware of the fact that we are interpreting a source which is doubly artificial since it is not only a translation but also a translation executed by a non-native speaker of an extinct language. These problematic aspects notwithstanding, the data to be presented and discussed below have the advantage of providing a suitable starting point for the ensuing argumentation. The system of spatial interrogatives of the classical language is markedly different from that of Modern Greek. This can best be shown by way of directly confronting sentential examples from the Harry-Potter translations into both the ancient and the modern variety of Greek. This procedure requires the presentation of three pairs of sentences which are translation equivalents of identical English originals. The pairs of sentences are given in (89)–(91). (89) (89.1)

(89.2)

Greek – Source Ancient Greek [HP I Ancient Greek, 21] gs lthes? Póthen ts DET:GEN earth:GEN come:AOR.2SG S? ‘Where on earth have you come from?’ Modern Greek [HP I Modern Greek, 40] Apó poú eísai? from P?/G? be:2SG ‘Where are you from?’

The questions in (89) are posed by Harry Potter to the boa constrictor he watches in a glass cage in the zoo. The Ancient Greek spatial interrogative of Source differs from its modern functional equivalent insofar as the former is expressed by a mono-word construction whereas in Modern Greek, a multi-word PP is employed the complement of which is the syncretic spatial interrogative poú ‘where = whither’. (90) (90.1)

Greek – Place Ancient Greek Allà pou͂ estín? but P? be:3SG ‘But where is it?’

[HP I Ancient Greek, 235]

336 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (90.2)

Modern Greek Allà poú brísketai but P?/G? find:REFL.3SG ‘But where is it now?’

[HP I Modern Greek, 327] tṓra? now

The WHERE-constructions of Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are the same. The questions in (90) are asked by the character Quirrell who is trying to find the Philosophers Stone. In both of the translations, the spatial interrogative pou͂/poú is used. There is thus a functional overlap of these cognates in Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. This overlap, however, is limited to the function of spatial interrogative of Place. In the case of Goal, the two languages go separate ways. (91) (91.1)

(91.2)

Greek – Goal Ancient Greek Poi͂ sú? G? you ‘Where (are) you (going)?’ Modern Greek Poú pas? P?/G? go:2SG ‘Where are you going?’

[HP I Ancient Greek, 215]

[HP I Modern Greek, 300]

In (91), Ron Weasley asks Harry Potter where he is headed. In the Ancient Greek example (91.1), no verb is used because the spatial interrogative poi͂ ‘whither’ leaves no doubt that it is the Goal of a motion event that is inquired about. The Modern Greek version in (91.2) cannot do without the motion verb because the spatial interrogative poú ‘where = whither’ is ambiguous as to a static or dynamic reading. The above examples indicate that major changes have affected the system of spatial interrogatives in the course of the history of Greek. In antiquity, there was a ternary paradigm with three distinct mono-word constructions to the exclusion of syncretism. The contemporary situation is markedly different since there is not only WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism but also a combination of monoword constructions and multi-word constructions in one and the same paradigm, cf. Table 242. The word-forms of the paradigm of Ancient Greek are regularly based on the interrogative stem po- with the spatial interrogative of Goal coming in the shape of the dative singular of Ancient Greek nouns while the WHENCE-construction involves a suffix -then which is widely employed for the formation of spatial adverbs with an ablative meaning (Bornemann & Risch 1978: 67–68). In short, the Ancient Greek spatial interrogatives constitute an inflexional paradigm. They are examples of synthetic morphology.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 337

Table 242: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. Spatial relation

Ancient Greek

Modern Greek

Place

pou͂

poú

Goal

poi͂

poú

Source

póthen

apó poú

In contrast, Modern Greek does not display any reflexes of synthesis in the realm of the spatial interrogatives. The periphrastic WHENCE-construction is an instance of analytic principles. The formal distinction of WHERE and WHITHER has been given up to the benefit of syncretism. Thus, the maximally distinct paradigm WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE has given way to the pattern (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE – a process which is familiar already from the diachrony of numerous Romance languages and, to some extent, also from the historic development of some Germanic languages and Slavic languages discussed in the foregoing sections. From Leluda-Voss’s (2006: 150) description of the southern Greek variety of Kastelli we learn that the WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism of the standard may be optionally disambiguated. Disambiguation is achieved by way of adding an allative preposition to the spatial interrogative as in (92) – cf. (91.2) above.36 (92)

Kastelli Greek (Gia) poú pas? (for) P?/G? go:2SG ‘Where are you going?’

[Leluda-Voss 2006: 150]

According to Rohlfs (1977: 138), the Greek varieties spoken in southern Italy have preserved the mono-word WHENCE-construction of Ancient Greek and at the same time give evidence of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. The three examples in (93) illustrate the system of spatial interrogatives of the contemporary Greek variety of Roccaforte in Calabria (Italy). (93) (93.1)

Calabrian Greek (Roccaforte) Source Pútte sas írtai ettúnda S? 2PL come:AOR.3PL DEM:NOM.PL ‘Where have these pigs come from (to you)?’

[Taibbi 1994: 11] χ́iríδya? pig:NOM.PL

|| 36 Leluda-Voss (2006: 150) describes the phenomenon of disambiguation in relatively vague terms so that it remains unclear whether or not it is also possible to combine the spatial interrogative poú ‘where = whither’ with a locative preposition to mark the Place relation distinctly.

338 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (93.2)

(93.3)

Goal Prandégwome će pu tim marry:1SG:REFL.1SG and P?/G? OBJ.3SG.F tin ģinékamu? DET:F.ACC woman:POSS.1SG ‘I marry and where do I take my wife?’ Place Će pu abbitégwite? and P?/G? live:2PL ‘And where do you live?’

[Taibbi 1994: 25] bérro take:1SG

[Taibbi 1994: 62]

The above examples suggest that the Greek varieties of Italy occupy a position half-way between Ancient Greek and Modern Greek because they have introduced the WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism of the standard and at the same time have not created a periphrastic WHENCE-construction. In addition, the absence of a prescriptive norm for the regional varieties of Italo-Greek is responsible for the coexistence of several synonymous constructions. However, it remains to be investigated whether we are dealing with proper overabundance or with different word-forms which are typical of different individual Greek-speaking villages, cf. Table 243 (based on Rohlfs 1977: 138 and Greco 1998: 16, 37 and 86). Table 243: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Italo-Greek. Spatial relation

Calabria

Salento

Place

pu ~ pusa

pu ~ epú ~ ipú

Goal

pu ~ pusa

pu ~ epú ~ ipú

Source

pútte(n)

apútte(n)

It is interesting to note that the Italo-Greek varieties resist to the introduction of periphrasis in the cell of WHENCE although they are under permanent pressure of the surrounding prestigious Italo-Romance varieties all of which employ constructions of the type [Prepablative Q]whence like Modern Greek, cf. Section 3.1.2 above. This resistance is all the more remarkable since in other areas of their grammar and lexicon, the Italo-Greek varieties give ample evidence of processes of Romancisation.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 339

3.4.2.2 Armenian The Armenian (Eastern) LPP-version is consistent as to the distinction of the spatial relations under interrogation. There is a paradigm of three distinct mono-word constructions. The word-forms illustrated by the examples in (94) are employed without any variation throughout the sample text. (94) (94.1)

(94.2)

(94.3)

Armenian (Eastern) [LPP Armenian (Eastern), 16] Source Ortełic’ es dw ekel, p’ok‘riks? S? be.2SG you come:PERF.PTCPL little:POR.1SG ‘Where do you come from, my little one?’ Place Orteł ē k’o twne? P? be.3SG your house:DEF ‘Where is your house?’ Goal Ev wr es wzm tanē im gařnwke? but G? be.2SG want carry my lamb:DEF ‘But where do you want to take my lamb?’

Dum-Tragut (2009: 153) confirms that this is the system of the written register of contemporary Armenian (Eastern). However, she adds that in colloquial style, the formal distinction of WHERE ≠ WHITHER is commonly ignored. In the spoken register, the spatial interrogative ur ‘where = whither’ is syncretic and “substitutes the literary […] orteł” (Dum-Tragut 2009: 153). To illustrate this variation, our source provides examples which we reproduce in (95) below. (95) (95.1)

(95.2)

Armenian (Eastern) – Place literary standard Grk’ers orteł en book:PL:my P? be.3PL ‘Where are my books?’ colloquial Grk’ers ur en? book:PL:my P?/G? be.3PL ‘Where are my books?’

[Dum-Tragut 2009: 153] gtnvum? find:REFL:PRES.PTCPL

In written Armenian (Eastern) as well as in the colloquial variety of the same language, the spatial interrogative ur serves as expression of WHITHER. This is the only function of ur in the written register whereas ur has the double rôle as spatial interrogative of Place and Goal in the informal spoken register.

340 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe This pattern of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is compulsory in the diaspora variety Armenian (Western). The examples in (96) show that spoken Armenian (Eastern) and Armenian (Western) share this characteristic while, at the same time, their WHENCE-constructions are dissimilar from each other. (96) (96.1)

(96.2)

(96.3)

Armenian (Western) Goal Ur gertas? P?/G? go:2SG ‘Where are you going?’ Place Ur e aystegh P?/G? be.3SG here ‘Where is the library here?’ Source Urge gu kas? S? PRES come:2SG ‘Where do you come from?’

[Sakayan 2000: 75]

kərataranə? library:DEF

[Sakayan 2000: 107]

[Sakayan 2000: 118]

The spatial interrogative of Source of Armenian (Western) is evidentially formed on the basis of the syncretic ur ‘where = whither’ just like the equivalent spatial interrogative of Source of the eastern varieties can be formally identified as the ablative of the spatial interrogative of Place of the written standard, namely orteł ‘where’ + -ic’ {ablative} → ortełic’ ‘whence’. In contrast to the Greek case discussed above, the Armenian WHERE =WHITHER-syncretism cannot be understood as an innovation because it can be shown to be in existence already in Old Armenian 1,500 years ago when owr ‘where = whither’ was used to express both Place and Goal (Schmitt 2007: 250). However, there also was a distinct WHITHER-construction yo ‘whither’ which gave rise to overabundance in the cell of WHITHER. The spatial interrogative of Source was also slightly different from its modern successors, cf. (97). (97) (97.1)

(97.2)

Old Armenian Goal [Minassian 1976: 101] Yo erkas? G? go:2SG ‘Where are you going?’ Source [Minassian 1976: 124] Owrti en č’arik’ mardkan? S? be.3PL evil:NOM.PL man:PL:GEN ‘Where does the evil of men come from?’

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 341

The distinct Old Armenian WHITHER-construction has not survived into modern times. On the other hand, the spatial interrogative of Place of the literary standard of Armenian (Eastern) reflects the univerbation of a syntagm or ‘which’ + tełi ‘place’ > orteł ‘where’ on which, in turn, the WHENCE-construction ortełic’ ‘whence’ is based. Thus, the paradigm of written Armenian (Eastern) hosts two innovations. Only the spatial interrogative of Goal ur ‘where = whither’ is a direct heritage from the classical period. The close phonological resemblance of or ‘which’ and ur ‘where = whither’ notwithstanding, we are dealing with a suppletion which results from the combination of two historically different (pronominal) stems. Table 244 surveys the paradigms of the four Armenian varieties discussed in the previous paragraphs. This survey shows clearly that Armenian (Western) resembles the classical languages most in the sense that it not only shares the property of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism but also has in common with Old Armenian the use of one and the same Q-stem throughout the paradigm. What is missing from all three of the contemporary varieties is overabundance – a trait that is attested in the cell of WHENCE of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Old Armenian. Table 244: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four varieties of Armenian. Spatial relation

Old Armenian

Armenian (Western)

Armenian (Eastern) colloquial

LPP-variety

Place

owr

ur

ur

orteł

Goal

owr ~ yo

ur

ur

ur

Source

owrti

urge

ortełic

ortełic

The written standard of Armenian (Eastern) deviates the most from the classical pattern. One might object that both Old Armenian and the LPP-variety provide three distinct constructions. However, modern written Armenian (Eastern) has remodelled the entire paradigm in such a way that WHITHER appears to be the unmarked member thereof whereas WHERE and WHENCE bear the marks of higher formal complexity. Modern written Armenian (Eastern) has developed inversely to what has happened in the diachrony of Greek (cf. above). This means that the creation of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is not the only possible terminus of language change processes in the realm of the systems of spatial interrogatives.

342 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 3.4.2.3 Albanian With the discussion of the Albanian situation we open an especially intriguing chapter of the topic of our study. Superficially, the evidence from the two LPPvarieties of Albanian – Tosk and Gheg – does not seem to have anything special about it. The current standard of Albanian is based on the Tosk variety. The Albanian (Tosk) sample sentences in (98) are suggestive of WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism. (98) (98.1)

(98.2)

(98.3)

Albanian (Tosk) [LPP Albanian (Tosk, 289] Source Po ti, o burri im i vogël, nga vjen? but you oh man:DEF my M.SG small G?/S? come:2SG ‘But you, oh my little man, where do you come from?’ Place Ku e ke stëpinë? P?/G? 3SG.ACC have.2SG house:ACC.DEF ‘Where do you have the house?’ Goal Dhe ku kërkon ta shpiesh and P?/G? try:2SG 2SG.DAT.3SG.ACC take_away:2SG.SBJV vallë këtë qengjin tim? PTCL this lamb:ACC.DEF my ‘And where are you trying to take this lamb of mine?’

The morpheme glosses which we employ for the spatial interrogatives reflect the problem which will occupy our minds not only in this subsection but also in Section 5 below. In Table 1 in the introductory section, we have reproduced the Albanian (Tosk) data as presented in Wąsik (1982). According to the Polish scholar’s analysis, the Albanian (Tosk) paradigm of spatial interrogatives consists of two distinct syncretic word-forms ku ‘where = whither’ and nga ‘whither = whence’, i.e. he assumes overabundance in the cell of WHITHER without a distinct WHITHER-construction. Yet more striking is the idea that the two dynamic spatial relations are represented by identical means in the case of nga ‘whither = whence’. Since WHERE does not participate in this syncretic pattern, the Albanian (Tosk) paradigm is at variance with the general predictions which preclude the possibility that Goal and Source are formally the same (cf. Section 1.2.2 above). Similar cases have been discussed with reference to Kölsch, Limburgish (North), and Swiss German (Bern) in Section 3.2.2.1 above. The Germanic parallels with WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism bear clear signs of a recessive phenome-

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 343

non. The question to be raised in what follows is whether or not the position of WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism is equally weak in Albanian. To answer this question, we first have a closer look at the spatial interrogatives as they are employed in the Albanian (Gheg) translation of Le Petit Prince. The sentences in (99) are fully in line with the pattern identified for the Tosk variety in (98) above since there is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism which combines with a distinct multi-word construction of the spatial interrogative of Source. (99) (99.1)

(99.2)

(99.3)

Albanian (Gheg) [LPP Albanian (Gheg), 16] Source Prej kah je ti vocrrak? from/to direction be.2SG you little_boy ‘Where are you from, little boy?’ Place Ku asht “shtëpija jote”? P?/G? be.3SG house:DEF your ‘Where is your house?’ Goal Ku don me e çue delen time? P?/G? want:2SG with 3SG.ACC take sheep:ACC.DEF my ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

There is no need to elaborate on Albanian (Gheg) ku ‘where = whither’ which is identical to Albanian (Tosk) ku ‘where = whither’. What is more interesting for the issue at hand is the WHENCE-construction. The Gheg multi-word construction prej kah ‘whither = whence’ is the functional equivalent of the Tosk mono-word construction nga ‘whither = whence’. In the morpheme glosses of (99.1), we have identified the constituents of the Gheg construction which is a PP whose complement is the noun kah ‘direction’. Interestingly, in both varieties under scrutiny, the preposition prej ‘from, to’ is semantically ambiguous as to the directionality because it can be used either with an ablative meaning or with an allative meaning. This ambiguity is a characteristic of long standing as example (100) shows which is drawn from one of the oldest documents written in Albanian. (100) (100.1)

Albanian (17th century) question Ku ve, vëllā hoi? P?/G? go.2SG brother my ‘Where do you go, my brother?’

[Demiraj 2002: 289]

344 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (100.2)

answer Prej Stambolli, ndë pëlqeftë from/to Instanbul if please:OPT.PRES.3SG ‘To Istanbul, if it pleases Our Lord…’

Tinëzot […] Our_Lord

The preposition prej which is used with an ablative reading in (99.1) represents an allative relation in (100.2). This is a property prej ‘from, to’ shares with Tosk nga ‘from, to’ and Gheg kah ‘from, to’. Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 381) state that the Source relation is expressed primarily by these two prepositions. Dhrimo (1976: 340–341) specify that the primary meaning associated with nga is that of an ablative preposition whereas the secondary – and less frequent – function of the same preposition is that of indicating Goal. We will address the directional ambiguity of Albanian spatial prepositions in more detail in Section 5. At this point, it suffices to observe that the spatial interrogatives of Source – Tosk nga ‘whither = whence’ and Gheg kah ‘whither = whence’ – are identical to directionally ambiguous prepositions, namely nga ‘from, to’ and Gheg kah ‘from, to’ with the latter being grammaticalized from the noun kah ‘direction’ (cf. above).37 We have already encountered spatial interrogatives which are formally indistinguishable from spatial prepositions in e.g. Macedonian, a direct neighbor of Albanian in the Balkans (cf. Section 3.3.2 above). This means that these spatial interrogatives are represented by constructions which do not contain any morpheme which expresses interrogativity. The bare spatial preposition suffices to fulfill the task of the spatial interrogative. Furthermore, spatial-interrogative constructions which involve elements like prej or nga must be understood to allow generally two different readings as to directionality. With a view to clarify the issue of the neutralization of directionality with dynamic spatial relations under interrogation, we adduce further evidence from the standard variety first. To this end, we exploit the Albanian (Tosk) translation of the first book of the Harry-Potter series. The pair of sentences in (101) is instructive. (101) (101.1)

Albanian (Tosk) [HP I Albanian (Tosk), 134] nga Nga ç’ anë shkuan, Ngac? from/to which side go:AOR.3PL Peeves ‘Where (lit. to which side) have they gone, Peeves?’

|| 37 Buchholz et al. (1977: 209) treat kah as full synonym of nga.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 345

(101.2)

ku Thuajmë ku kanë tell.IMP:IO.1SG where have:3PL ‘Tell me where they have gone!’

shkuar! go:PTCPL

The warden Filch utters both sentences to get information from Peeves about the whereabouts of Harry Potter and his friends. In (101.1), the preposition nga ‘from, to’ forms part of an interrogative construction of the type [Prep ç’ N]interrogative. This construction type as such is not discussed further in this study because it does not involve a spatial pro-form which corresponds to the canonical model of a spatial interrogative. Nevertheless, the example (101.1) shows that nga can function as allative preposition although it has an ablative function in (98.1) above. The semantic overlap of nga and ku is underlined by example (101.2). This sentence is not a direct question. However, the employment of ku as representative of the Goal relation is telling since the intended meaning of (101.1) and (101.2) is the same, i.e. ku and nga (ç’anë) are synonymous expressions. It is worth noting that nga (ç’anë) ‘to which side’ is used repeatedly in the Albanian version of Harry Potter I whereas elsewhere in the same text ku ‘where = wither’ is employed, cf. (102). (102) (102.1)

(102.2)

Albanian (Tosk) – Goal nga [HP I Albanian (Tosk), 171] Nga ç’ anë duhej të shkonte? from/to which side shall:REFL.PRES.3SG SUBORD go:IMPERF.3SG ‘Where (lit. to which side) should he go?’ ku [HP I Albanian (Tosk), 220] Hej… ku po shkoni? Hey P?/G? PROG go:2PL ‘Hey…where are you going?’

Our corpus of Albanian prose does not provide clear evidence of nga being used as a proper mono-word spatial interrogative of Goal. However, we have found evidence in several dictionaries such as those in (103) which stem from the Albanian-German dictionary compiled by Buchholz et al. (1977: 352). (103) (103.1)

Albanian (Tosk) Source Nga vjen ti? G?/S? come.2SG you ‘Where do you come from?’

[Buchholz et al. 1977: 352]

346 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (103.2)

Goal Nga po shkon? G?/S? PROG go:2SG ‘Where are you going?’

This directional ambiguity is also registered in the monolingual Albanian dictionary of the Academy of Sciences (Kostallari et al. 1980: 1238). The situation is rendered more complicated by the information on spatial interrogatives provided by Hetzer (1978: 348) who assumes a system with three distinct constructions without, however, illustrating them with sentential examples. We summarize the above observations in Table 245 which surveys the different paradigms which have been postulated for the Tosk-based standard of Albanian. Table 245: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four varieties of standard Albanian (Tosk). Spatial relation LPP

Wąsik 1982; Buchholz et al. 1977 HP

Hetzer 1978

ku

ku

ku

Place

ku

Goal

ku

ku ~ nga

ku (~ nga ç’anë)

nga

Source

nga

nga

nga

prej nga

It is unclear to us on which basis Hetzer (1978) reconstructs the system of spatial interrogatives. His multi-word WHENCE-construction resembles that of the LPPvariety of Albanian (Gheg) (cf. (99.1) above). In the remainder of this subsection, we glance at data from nonstandard varieties of Albanian. It is by no means easy to get a clear picture of what is the case in the nonstandard varieties of Albanian. The Gheg variety is exceptional in the sense that it boasts a separate translation of the sample text. In all other cases, we have to rely on the extant descriptive linguistic material and/or on the analysis of text anthologies. Italo-Albanian varieties are generally believed to belong to the Gheg branch of Albanian. One such variety is that of Greci in the Italian Provincia di Avellino. According to the description provided by Camaj (1971), this variety displays identical fillers for the three slots of the paradigm, namely ku ‘where = whither = whence’, cf. (104). (104) (104.1)

Albanian (Greci/Avellino) Source Ku vi’ɛn? P?/G?/S? come.2SG ‘Where do you come from?’

[Camaj 1971: 111]

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 347

(104.2)

(104.3)

Place Ku i’an ‘karli P?/G?/S? be.3PL Karli ‘Where are Karli and Frangu?’ Goal Ti ku ‘vɛta? you P?/G?/S? go.2SG ‘Where do you go?’

ɛ and

‘frangu? Frangu

[Camaj 1971: 101]

[Camaj 1971: 96]

This indistinct system with a general spatial interrogative that is insensitive to directionality brings to mind two interesting parallels. The first of those is recorded in the Albanian-German dictionary by Buchholz et al. (1977: 256 and 352) where it is assumed that a) ku can also be used as spatial interrogative of Source as in Ku e di ai? ‘lit. Where do you know this?’ which is equivalent to German Woher weißt du das? ‘lit. Where do you know this from?’, b) nga can also be used as expression of Place in indirect interrogative clauses such as Nuk dinte nga është vera ‘lit. S/he did not know where the wine was from/to’ meaning ‘S/he did not know where the wine was’. If we take these dictionary entries at face value, two alternative paradigms arise with WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism. In the case of (a), ku would do the triple job of spatial interrogative of Place, Goal, and Source whereas in the case of (b) nga would claim the same functional domain. Secondly, the situation as depicted in (a) is also reported for the Italo-Albanian variety of Falconara Albanese in the Provincia di Cosenza (Camaj 1977). The crucial sentence is reproduced here as (105). (105)

Albanian (Falconara/Cosenza) ‘ku e-‘di ‘zot’rota? P?/G?/S? 3SG.F-know lord ‘How (= whence) do you know, your Honor?’

[Camaj 1977: 114]

This example corresponds neatly to the one given in the Albanian-German dictionary as referenced in (a) above. Norbert Boretzky (p.c.) confirms that in colloquial and nonstandard Albanian nga, kah, ka, and ku can be neutral as to directionality,38 i.e. they may express Place, Goal, and Source and have to dis|| 38 In connection to the spatial interrogatives, Norbert Boretzky (p.c.) also mentions the spatial adverb ngaha ‘whence’ which, according to the Albanese-German dictionary, should be employed exclusively for the relation of Source (Buchholz et al. 1977: 353).

348 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe ambiguated by the context. The evidence on which this assumption is based consists of a majority of examples which illustrate the use of the above terms in indirect questions or as spatial relatives. The supposed examples of directionality neutralization in direct questions are mostly similar to the case in (106). (106)

Albanian (Drenica) [Norbert Boretzky, p.c.] Ku me ja gjetë çiftin e saj? P?/G? with 3SG.DAT.3SG.ACC find bridegroom:DEF.ACC 3SG.ACC POR.3SG.F ‘Where should I find a husband for her?’

It is doubtful that we are dealing with a proper case of Source. Example (106) reflects the same problem that we have discussed in connection with the Low German examples in (50) above. The verbal semantics are such that two interpretations of directionality make sense to the speakers. Events of finding, taking, knowing, etc. may be construed with a focus either on the locus where the actor makes contact with the undergoer or on the actor as deictic center to which the undergoer is moved. To our mind, (106) is a clear case of WHERE – the interpretation as WHENCE is motivated, however, by an inference, namely that the future husband metaphorically moves to where the deictic center is, i.e. the future bride. It is the benefactive relation that induces our correspondent to assume a motion interpretation. In connection to example (105), we assume that it is a peculiarity of the verb di ‘to know’ to trigger the spatial interrogative of Place when one wants to inquire about the source of somebody’s knowledge. This means that we doubt that the WHERE-construction can be used randomly for questions about Source. Whether or not there are more verbs in the varieties of Albanian which behave similar to di ‘to know’ needs to be studied in depth separately.39 As to the problem posed by (b) above, we are of the opinion that the spatial relation is not a genuine Place relation at all – at least not prototypically. The German and English translations suggest that nga functions as equivalent of wo and where. However, it seems to be more appropriate to translate nga as indicating direction so that it could be taken to mean something like ‘to which side’ or ‘in what direction’. These translations are more in line with the other functions associated with nga. Moreover, the example from the dictionary does not illustrate the use of nga in a direct question and thus falls outside the scope of this study.

|| 39 Note also examples like the following from the Gheg variety as spoken in Drenica (Çetta 1963: 135): Kah jé ti? ‘Where are you from?’ cannot possibly get a reading as Place (also the copula verb is static, of course) or Goal relation.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 349

It is not for the first time that we remark on the scarcity of WHENCEconstructions in the text anthologies we have consulted for this study. In the case of Italo-Albanian, for instance, we have found several dozens of examples of WHERE and WHITHER. In contrast, on the 585 pages of ’s (1967) Novellistica Italo-Albanese, there is only a single example of a spatial interrogative of Source, namely in one of the texts which illustrate the Italo-Albanian variety of Eianina in Calabria, cf. (107). (107) (107.1)

(107.2)

(107.3)

Albanian (Eianina/Cosenza) Source [Perrone 1967: 69] Kumba’, nji ka jé mbjidhe ndë kët hér? friend PTCL S? be.2SG come at this hour ‘Well, where do you come from at this hour, friend?’ Place [Perrone 1967: 73] Nji ku ján pulat e pipat? PTCL P?/G? be.3PL hen:DEF.PL and capercaillie:DEF.PL ‘Well, where are the hens and the capercaillies?’ Goal [Perrone 1967: 72] Ku jé vete, ti pjakez? P?/G? be.2SG go you old_woman ‘Where are you going, old woman?’

This variety reflects the Gheg system. In contrast to the Gheg LPP-variety, however, the WHENCE-construction does not need to be reinforced by a preposition. The mono-word construction ka ‘whence’ is sufficient to fulfill the task. In the absence of further WHENCE-constructions the possibility is barred to generalize over the entire cluster of the Italo-Albanian varieties in Calabria. In connection to this problem, it is worth taking note of the use of ka as spatial interrogative of Place and general locative preposition in the variety spoken in Farneta. In the anthology of texts in the Albanian variety of Drenica (Gheg) edited by Çetta (1963) there is ample evidence of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and of kah ‘wither = whence’ being employed as spatial interrogative of Source. Examples of kah in the function of a spatial interrogative of Goal are less easy to come by although they pop up once in a while, cf. (108). (108) (108.1)

Albanian (Drenica) Source [Çetta 1963: 83] Kah po ja mani, bre burra t‘ fórt? G?/P? but 3SG.DAT.3SG.ACC take:3PL PTCL man:PL PL strong ‘Where do you take it for them, oh strong men?’

350 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (108.2)

(108.3)

(108.4)

Place Ku jon burrat? P?/G? be.3PL man:PL:DEF ‘Where are the men?’ Goal Ku po shkoni, more P?/G? PROG go:2PL PTCL ‘Where are you going, oh men?’ Goal Kah po shkon kshtu? G?/S? PROG go:2SG thus ‘Where are you going in this way?’

[Çetta 1963: 125]

burra? man:PL

[Çetta 1963: 134]

[Çetta 1963: 217]

On the other hand, there is no convincing evidence of ku being used as WHENCE nor is there any example of kah functioning as WHERE in the text anthology which we have scrutinized. This cannot be the final word on the spatial interrogatives in Albanian varieties – be they standard or nonstandard. The empirical facts are far too rich to call the case closed. For the purposes of this study, however, it suffices to summarize the findings for the Gheg varieties surveyed above in Table 246. Table 246: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four varieties of Albanian (Gheg). Spatial relation

Drenica

LPP (Gheg)

Eianina

Falconara

Place

ku

ku

ku

ku

Goal

ku ~ kah

ku

ku

ku

Source

kah

prej kah

ka

ku

It is likely that the relatively recent process of standardization (and the shift from a Gheg-based norm to a Tosk-based norm in the 1970ies) is responsible for the high degree of variation which can be observed across Albanian corpora and Albanian varieties. The importance of the factor language policy notwithstanding, prescriptive grammarians cannot be blamed for artificially creating WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism since this pattern is firmly established in nonstandard varieties. Within the Albanian domain, several syncretic patterns co-exist, viz. the totally indistinct WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE, the typical Romance pattern (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE which combines repeatedly with WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) via overabundance. With the exception of Hetzer (1978), none of our

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 351

sources suggests that the pattern Albanian-speaking domain.

WHERE

≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE has a place in the

3.4.2.4 Indo-Aryan Three Indo-Aryan languages are represented among the LPP-varieties of Europe, viz. in alphabetic order Kurmanji, Lovari, and Zazaki. They are representatives of three branches of Indo-Aryan (to which Ossetic must be added – a language we touch upon in passing at the end of the subsection devoted to IndoIranian). For practical reasons, we start with the Indic branch and compare the Lovari data to those of other members of the Romani languages which do not boast a translation of the sample text. It additionally makes sense to start with Lovari because this Romani language is spoken in Hungary and thus happens to be located in the greater geographic area in which Albanian is situated.

3.4.2.4.1 Romani The Lovari LPP-variety is an example of a language with WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism. The examples in (109) show that there is a syncretic spatial interrogative kaj ‘where = whither’ which forms a paradigm with the distinct WHENCEconstruction kathar ‘whence’. (109) (109.1)

(109.2)

(109.3)

Lovari [LPP Lovari, 25] Source Kathar avilan muro manushoro? S? come:2SG my:M man:DIM ‘Where do you come from, my little man?’ Place Kaj si kodo “khere”? P?/G? be.3SG DEM at_home ‘Where is this “home”?’ Goal Kaj kames te ingres tusa mure bakres? P?/G? want:2SG SUBORD carry:2SG 2SG:INS my:OBL sheep:OBL ‘Where do you want to take my sheep along?’

The data from North-Russian Romani which we have presented in Table 20 (in Section 2.2.3) above are at variance with those reported for Lovari because in the North-Russian variety, all of the three cells of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives are filled by distinct mono-word constructions. Thus, it can be assumed

352 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe that the Romani languages do not behave as one when it comes to organizing their paradigms of spatial interrogatives. However, the pattern illustrated by Lovari seems to be relatively common throughout the Romani languages. Boretzky (1993: 48, 1994: 271–272) provides paradigms for the spatial interrogatives of Bugurdži and Kalderash which are identical to that of Lovari. Furthermore what connects these Romanic varieties to some of the cases discussed in previous sections is the double life of the spatial interrogatives, in a manner of speaking. These spatial interrogatives are formally identical to spatial prepositions – a situation which calls to mind the discussion of Albanian and Macedonian above. This double function is a trait that is shared by many Romani languages. According to Boretzky & Igla (1994: 132 and 137), kaj ‘where = whither’ corresponds to the preposition kaj ‘at, to’ whereas katar ‘whence’ corresponds to katar ‘from, through’. This does not seem to hold for the Latvian variety of Romani whose lexicon is documented in Mānušs et al. (1997: 70–71), cf. (110). (110) (110.1)

(110.2)

(110.3)

Romani (Latvia) Source Kār�īg tu san? S? you be:2SG ‘Where are you from?’ Place Káj jov dzīvíni? P?/G? he live:3SG ‘Where does he live?’ Goal Kaj kaná tumé P?/G? now you:PL/HON ‘Where do you want to go now?’

[Mānušs et al. 1997: 71]

[Mānušs et al. 1997: 201]

[Mānušs et al. 1997: 70] kamén tè-džán? want:2SG SUBORD-go:2SG

First of all, the spatial interrogative of Source is kārī́g ‘whence’. There is a homophonous preposition kārīg ‘to(wards)’ which, however, has an allative meaning and thus does not fit the Source function of the spatial interrogative of the same phonological shape. Note that karík ‘whither’ in North-Russian Romani is the spatial interrogative of Goal. This coincidence is intriguing because of the ambiguity as to the directionality of spatial interrogatives and spatial prepositions discussed in connection with Albanian in the foregoing section. In the case of Latvian Romani, the directionality associated with a certain construction changes according to the sentence modality: kārīg has an ablative reading under interrogation but an allative reading in declarative clauses. In the Latvian

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 353

variety, there is a cognate of the above katar, namely the adverb katýr ‘from where’ which does not function as spatial interrogative though – at least that is what the reader of the dictionary is forced to conclude on the basis of the information provided by Mānušs et al. (1997). The syncretic kaj ‘where = whither’ also seems to be barred from being employed prepositionally. Table 247 summarizes the by far incomplete survey of paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Romani languages. Table 247: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four varieties of Romani. Spatial relation

LPP (Lovari)

Kalderash

Latvia

North-Russian

Place

kaj

kaj

kaj

kai̯

Goal

kaj

kaj

kaj

karík

Source

kathar

katar

kārīg

katḯr

We emphasize that this table cannot be considered to exhaust the range of variation. There is an urgent need for further research on the topic of spatial interrogatives in the domain of the Romani languages. This task, however, cannot be tackled in this study. For our purposes it is sufficient to make a mental note of two things, namely a) that there is structural heterogeneity among the Romani languages, and b) that there is a very interesting shift of directionality in connection with WHITHER and WHENCE.

3.4.2.5 Indo-Iranian The LPP-variety of Kurmanji provides evidence of a tripartite paradigm of spatial interrogatives with three distinct constructions the unmarked member of which being the spatial interrogative of Goal, cf. (111). (111) (111.1)

(111.2)

Kurmanji [LPP Kurmanji, 21] Source Tu ji ku derê hatîyî, kurrê delal? you from Q place:OBL come:PERF:2SG son:DIM:EZ.M dear ‘Where do you come from, dear son?’ Place “Li bal te” yanî li ku derê? at near 2SG.OBL that_is at Q place:OBL ‘Where is “at your place”?’

354 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (111.3)

Goal Tu ê berxê min bi ku derê de you 3SG.OBL lamb:EZ.M 1SG.OBL with Q place:OBL then ‘Where do you want to go with my lamb then?’

bibî? FUT:go

In each case, we are dealing with multi-word constructions. Two elements are common to the three constructions. There is a Q-marker ku which is widely used in Kurmanji in all kinds of contexts which are associated with subordination or relativization. Suitable translations of ku in isolation are ‘that’ and ‘which’. This Q-marker is followed by the relational noun der ‘place’ which in turn hosts the case-suffix of the oblique -ê. The combination of the Q-marker and the inflected relation noun is not only the multi-word WHITHER-construction but also functions as basis for the WHERE-construction and the WHENCE-construction. The latter two are formed on the basis of WHITHER by way of adding a locative and an ablative preposition, respectively. The formula for all three constructions is as follows: [(Prep) Q der-ê]spatial interrogative. Therefore, the Kurmanji spatial interrogatives reported in the LPP-version may be translated literally into English as ku derê ‘to which place’, li ku derê ‘at which place’, and ji ku derê ‘from which place’. Note that the absence of a preposition conveys an allative meaning which is perhaps inherent to the oblique case. Bedir Khan & Lescot (1986: 235) provide a list of five WHERE-constructions the least complex of which is simple kû ‘where’. There is no mention of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. This is perhaps explicable insofar that the original of the grammar is in French – a language which does not formally distinguish WHERE from WHITHER as we know perfectly well since the beginning of this study. No rules are put forward which govern the distribution of the competing constructions. In another chapter of their Kurmanji grammar, Bedir Khan & Lescot (1986: 210) give sentential examples of the spatial interrogatives which are perfectly in line with the data in (111), namely kû derê ‘whither’, li kû derê ‘where’, and ji kû derê ‘whence’. Wurzel (1997: 28–29), however, assumes short and long alloforms for all of the spatial interrogatives, cf. (112)–(114). (112) (112.1)

(112.2)

Kurmanji – Place short Ew lı ku ye? he at Q be.3SG ‘Where is he?’ long I Ew lı kuderê he at Q:place:OBL ‘Where is he?’

[Wurzel 1997: 28]

ye? be.3SG

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 355

(112.3)

long II Ew lı he at ‘Where is he?’

(113) (113.1)

Kurmanji – Source short Ew jı ku tê? he from Q come ‘Where does he come from?’ long I Ew jı kuderê he from Q:place:OBL ‘Where does he come from?’ long II Ew jı kêderê he from Q:place:OBL ‘Where does he come from?’

(113.2)

(113.3)

(114) (114.1)

(114.2)

(114.3)

kêderê Q:place:OBL

Kurmanji – Goal short Ew dıçe ku? he PRES:go Q ‘Where does he go?’ long I Ew dıçe kuderê? he PRES:go Q:place:OBL ‘Where does he go?’ long II Ew dıçe kêderê? he PRES:go Q:place:OBL ‘Where does he go?’

ye? be.3SG [Wurzel 1997: 29]

tê? come tê? come [Wurzel 1997: 29]

The two long forms assumed by Wurzel (1997) differ from each other as to the Qmorpheme they involve. In addition to the familiar ku ‘which’, there is also kê which is the oblique of the interrogative pronoun ki ‘who’. The short form lacks the relational noun der ‘place’. Our source does not explain the systematicity of the alternation of short and long forms. It is unclear whether or not there are pragmatic factors which regulate the distribution of the otherwise synonymous constructions. The three varieties which can be reconstructed on the basis of the above data are surveyed in Table 248. We notice at once that overabundance is a com-

356 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe monality in the DGB-varieties of Kurmanji. In the variety based on Wurzel’s (1997) description, overabundance affects all of the cells of the paradigm. Table 248: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three varieties of Kurmanji. Spatial relation

LPP

Bedir Khan & Lescot (1986) Wurzel (1997)

Place

li ku derê

kû ~ bi kû de ~ kû derê ~ li kû ~ li kû derê

lı ku ~ lı kuderê ~ lı kêderê

Goal

ku derê

kû derê

ku ~ kuderê ~ kêderê

Source

ji ku derê

ji kû ~ ji kû derê

jı ku ~ jı kuderê ~ jı kêderê

In addition to the mismatch of overabundance, there is also syncretism in the variety described by Bedir Khan & Lescot (1986). This pattern of WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism is not reported elsewhere. It is interesting that the mono-word construction ku/kû receives different interpretations. In the case of Bedir Khan & Lescot (1986), this construction serves as spatial interrogative of Place whereas it is a spatial interrogative of Goal in the interpretation by Wurzel (1997). Since we do not have sufficient corpus-based data handy, we have to refrain from settling this issue in this study. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that once again there is the possibility of a shift or ambiguity in connection to directionality. In Anatolia in the vicinity of Kurmanji, Zazaki – an Iranian language which does not belong to the Kurdish cluster – is spoken. The LPP variety of this language testifies to a certain degree of variation. To better grasp this variation, we first introduce the habitual sample sentences in (115). (115) (115.1)

(115.2)

(115.3)

Zazaki [LPP Zazaki, 16] Source Tı koti ra yenê, phındırrê mı? DIR come:PRES:2SG little_man:EZ.M 1SG.OBL you P? ‘Where do you come from, my little man?’ Place Welatê to koti dero? home:EZ.M 2SG.OBL P? LOC:be.3SG.M ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Tı na miya mı kamta benê? take:PRES:2SG you CONT.PROX sheep:OBL 1SG.OBL G? ‘Where are you going to take my sheep?’

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 357

The paradigm which results from the analysis of the above sentences has to be revised as soon as we take account of further questions about spatial configurations in the Zazaki translations of the sample text. First of all the WHENCEconstruction attested in (115.1) can be replaced by the one given in (116). (116)

Zazaki – Source Tı kamca ra DIR You G? ‘Where do you come from?’

yenê? come:PRES:2SG

[LPP Zazaki, 53]

We do not know for sure that kamca in (116) and kamta in (115.3) are free variants of each other. According to Selcan (1998: 311), -ca ‘place’ is an enclitic element that attaches to deictic elements. There is no information about a potential clitic -ta. However, on the basis of what we have come to learn about Zazaki more generally, we assume that this is indeed the case. This means that the WHENCE-construction is either derived from the WHERE-construction as in the case of koti ra ‘whence’ ← koti ‘where’ and on the WHITHER-construction in the case of kamca ra ‘whence’ ← kamta ‘whither’. As to the spatial interrogative of Place, the evidence in (117) suggests that the WHERE-construction in (115.2) does not enjoy a monopoly because there is a short form ko ‘where’ which is equivalent of the long form koti ‘where’. (117) (117.1)

(117.2)

Zazaki – Place Nê insani koti DEM.PL men P? ‘Where are the men?’ Nê insani DEM.PL men ‘Where are the men?’

derê?

LOC:be.3PL

koyê? P?:be.3PL

[LPP Zazaki, 60]

[LPP Zazaki, 62]

Moreover there is also indirect evidence of a potential Goal reading of koti as can be shown in (118). The answer (118.2) involves koti although the question was about kamta in (118.1). (118) (118.1)

(118.2)

Zazaki – Goal Question Kamta bızavo G? SBJV:go:3SG.M ‘Where should it go?’ Answer ke raşt Koti REL right where ‘Wherever it goes.’

[LPP Zazaki, 16] ke? that

ame. come:3SG

358 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe That the situation is an intricate one results from a comparison of the LPP-based paradigm with the description of the Dersin variety of Zazaki by Selcan (1998). The Dersin variety is also called the northern dialect of Zazaki. It is possible that the LPP-variety is closer to southern Zazaki or that it is a compromise of the two varieties. According to Selcan (1998: 295–297), the postposition -ra is ambiguous as to directionality in the sense that it expresses both allative and ablative meanings. This ambiguity is illustrated exclusively with examples of declarative sentences. According to Selcan (1998: 643) the use of koti-ra ‘whence’ is restricted to that of the spatial interrogative of Source. On the other hand, he reports a pattern of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and a case of overabundance in the cell of WHITHER, cf. (119). (119) (119.1)

(119.2)

(119.3)

(119.4)

Zazaki (Dersim) Source Ti koti-ra yena? you Q-DIR come:2SG ‘Where do you come from?’ Place İ koti gureenê? they Q work:PRES:3PL ‘Where do they work?’ Goal A sona koti? she go:3SG.F Q ‘Where is she going?’ Goal A kata sona? she G? go:3SG.F ‘Where is she going?’

[Selcan 1998: 643]

If we follow these data, koti must be considered the Q-stem common to all three spatial categories. There is suppletion too because the special spatial interrogative of Goal kata ‘whither’ is based on a different stem, namely on the interrogative pronoun kam ‘who’ (Selcan 1998: 329). In (120) we contrast two WHEREconstructions to each other. (120) (120.1)

Zazaki (Dersim) – Place koti U koti-y-o? he Q-be-3SG.M ‘Where is he?’

[Selcan 1998: 643]

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 359

(120.2)

ku Ku-y-o? P?-be-3SG.M ‘Where is he?’

[Selcan 1998: 310]

The short WHERE-construction is only possible in combinations with the enclitic copula. This means that it cannot be employed as a spatial interrogative of Goal or Source because no motion event can be inquired about in this way. At the same time, the specialized spatial interrogative of Place ku ‘where’ is a partial synonym of the syncretic koti ‘where = whither’ exactly like kata ‘whither’ is a partial synonym of the same syncretic koti ‘where = whither’. For the Zazaki varieties of Çermik-Siverek, Paul (1998: 72) postulates a different paradigm of spatial interrogatives. In this paradigm, there is a common Q-marker kotī. The WHITHER-construction is an example of zero-marking whereas both WHERE and WHENCE involve overt marking of directionality by enclitic postpositions. As in the Dersim variety, there is also mention of a dedicated spatial interrogative of Place ku ‘where’ (Paul 1998: 304) as well as the predicative kā(ni) ‘where is/are’ which is said to be a borrowing from Kurdish (Paul 1998: 73). Sentential examples are given for two of the competing WHERE-constructions, WHITHER, and WHENCE, cf. (121). (121) (121.1)

(121.2)

(121.3)

(121.4)

Zazaki (Çermik-Siverek) Goal Dēw šīyo kotī? Diw go:3SG G? ‘Where has Diw gone?’ Place Dēw o kotī-di? Diw he G?-LOC ‘Where has Diw gone?’ Place Kānī bizēki? P?:be goat:DIM ‘Where is the little goat?’ Source Lā ti kotī-rā but you G?-ABL ‘But where have you come from?

[Paul 1998: 73]

[Paul 1998: 73]

[Paul 1998: 73]

[Paul 1998: 231]

omē? come.PRET:2SG

In his grammar of Çermik-Siverek Zazaki, Paul (1998: 336) also provides isolated examples of individual spatial interrogatives of several other Zazaki varieties such

360 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe as Eğil kurā ‘where = whither’, Qulb čā ‘where = whither’, and Tunceli ku ‘where’. However, the author does not indicate how the WHENCE-constructions in these varieties look like. It is intriguing to see that the spatial interrogative of Place and Goal in Eğil kurā resembles suspiciously a hypothetical spatial interrogative of Source *ku-rā [Q-ABLATIVE]whence. The data cannot be part of the comparative survey below. What one may say nevertheless is that some of the varieties of Zazaki display features which are reminiscent of those of Kurdish (cf. above). The three varieties of Zazaki which are documented more fully yield three different paradigms of spatial interrogatives as can be gathered from Table 249. Table 249: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three varieties of Zazaki. Spatial relation

LPP

Dersim

Çermik-Siverek

Place

koti

ku ~ koti

ku ~ kā ~ kotī-di

Goal

kamta ~ koti

kata ~ koti

kotī

Source

koti ra ~ kamca ra

koti-ra

kotī-rā

The differences are striking in the sense that each of the three varieties attests to overabundance but in each case different cells are affected. The Dersim variety and that of Çermik-Siverek resemble each other as far as overabundance with WHERE goes. However, in the Dersim variety, overabundance also occurs in the cell of WHITHER whereas the LPP-variety of Zazaki gives evidence of overabundance both with WHITHER and WHENCE. The Çermik-Siverek variety is special because it is the only variety to disallow for syncretism in the paradigm. At the same time, all three of the varieties have distinct spatial interrogatives of Place, Goal, and Source. Another property shared by all three of the Zazaki varieties is the use of koti or a variant thereof as member of the paradigm. Suppletion is present in each of the paradigms. In the variety of Çermik-Siverek, the WHITHERconstruction is the basis for the formation of other spatial interrogatives (except those which are suppletive). WHENCE is explicitly marked for directionality in all three of the varieties, WHITHER behaves similarly in two varieties, and WHERE is marked for directionality but once. In sum, the stems of the spatial interrogatives of the three varieties are certainly cognates. However, their employment in the paradigms differs from variety to variety. To conclude this section on Indo-Iranian languages, we present the Ossetic data in Table 250 (adapted from Arys-Djanaïéva 2004: 101).

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 361

Table 250: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Ossetic. Spatial relation

construction

word-forms

Place

[Q-æm]where

kæm

Goal

[Q-dæm]whither

kædæm

Source

[Q-cæj]whence

kæcæm

The morphological exponents of the three spatial relations bear evident resemblance to the regular spatial cases. On nouns and pronouns the ablative ends in æj. As to the locative, this case is expressed by -m in the paradigm of demonstratives. The allative of the interrogative či ‘who’, however, is kæmæ ‘to whom’ (ArysDjanaïéva 2004: 94). The formation of the spatial interrogative of Goal with -dæm thus is special. Nevertheless, it is by no means a singularity since it is also used with other adverbs such as ardæm ‘hither’. The Ossetic evidence speaks in favor of an inflexionally organized paradigm of spatial interrogatives.40 All three spatial relations are overtly marked the spatial interrogative of Place being represented by the shortest morph in terms of segments. The two dynamic spatial interrogatives yield constructions of equal phonological complexity.

3.4.2.6 Celtic For convenience, we start our discussion of the Celtic facts with looking more closely at the Welsh data. Thereafter, we continue with the other representatives of the Brythonic branch of Celtic before we switch to the Goidelic languages.

3.4.2.6.1 Brythonic The Welsh LPP-variety provides evidence of a ternary paradigm with three distinct constructions, i.e. the maximally distinct pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE is attested in this variety, cf. (122).

|| 40 Note that Hettich (2010: 42–44) assumes that there is no distinct locative case in Ossetic. The functions of this putative case are fulfilled by the inflexional genitive. This, however, cannot be true for the interrogative pronouns whose paradigms host formally distinct locatives and genitives – an issue which Hettich (2010) skips in his grammatical sketch of Ossetic.

362 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (122) (122.1)

(122.2)

(122.3)

Welsh [LPP Welsh, 16] Source O ble rwyt ti ‘n dod fy monheddwr bach i? from P? be:2SG you PROG come my prince little 1SG ‘Where are you coming from, my little prince?’ Place Ble mae dy gartre di? P? be.3SG your home 2SG ‘Where is your home?’ Goal I ble rwyt ti am fynd â nafad i? to P? be:2SG you about go with sheep 1SG ‘Where are you about to go with my sheep?’

The spatial interrogative of Place ble ‘where’ is the basis of the WHITHERconstruction i ble ‘whither’ and the WHENCE-construction o ble ‘whence’ both of which reflect the construction type [Prep Q]dynamic spatial interrogative. The prepositions used in this construction frame are i ‘to, for’ and o ‘from’. These two prepositions belong to the class of prepositions which trigger the so-called soft mutation in Welsh, i.e. the initial consonant of their complement regularly undergoes sonorization (if it is a voiceless plosive or liquid), fricativization (if it is a voiced plosive or /m/), or aphaeresis in the case of an original initial /g/ (Thorne 1996: 40 and 52). Accordingly, we would expect to find the WHITHER-construction to be *i fle and the WHENCE- construction to be *o fle because the under soft mutation an initial /b/ turns into /v/ (= orthographic ). Since this expectation is not met by the attested word-forms, something must be “wrong”, in a manner of speaking. As a matter of fact, the initial voiced bilabial plosive of ble ‘where’ is not original. In Welsh grammars such as Williams (1980: 145), we find several alternatives of ble ‘where’, namely ple ~ pa le ‘where’. Not only is there an initial voiceless bilabial plosive /p/ in lieu of the /b/ of the LPP-variety, but there is also evidence of the coexistence of mono-word constructions and multi-word constructions. Wiliam (1960: 46) concurs with Williams (1980: 145) insofar as both sources mention three WHERE-constructions and take the multi-word construction pa le ‘where’ to be the common reference point. The older grammar specifies that p’le ‘where’ is a literary form whereas ble ‘where’ is common across registers in Modern Welsh. The free morpheme pa ‘what, which’ is a general interrogative adjective that precedes a noun which in turn indicates the class of entities a member of which is inquired about. The general interrogative adjective pa ‘what, which’ triggers the soft mutation on the noun on its right (Thorne 1996: 51). Le is the lenited form of the noun lle ‘place’. This means that

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 363

we are facing the diachronic process of univerbation from original pa + lle → pa le ‘which place’ via apocope and cliticization p’le and coalescence ple to ble ‘where’. We assume that the voiced plosive is the effect of analogical leveling within the paradigm of spatial interrogatives because the prepositions which are employed for the dynamic spatial interrogatives cause soft mutation: i + ple → i ble ‘whither’ and o + ple → o ble ‘whence’. Voicing thus has spread from the WHITHER-construction and the WHENCE-construction to the WHERE-construction.41 Ultimately, the newly established ble ‘where’ must be considered to be exempt from the workings of the Welsh mutation system because the general rules fail to capture the behavior of the spatial interrogatives. In this way, an exception has arisen. Most of the examples of the multi-word construction pa le ‘where’ are taken from the Bible or from older Welsh literature. In contemporary prose, ble ‘where’ seems to be without rival. However, Thorne (1996: 264) mentions yet another mono-word construction of which he has found several examples in texts produced in the 1990ies, cf. (123). These texts are said to mimic informal spoken Welsh. (123) (123.1)

(123.2)

(123.3)

Welsh Place Lle mae ’r pils? P?/G? be.3SG DET pill:PL ‘Where are the pills?’ Goal Lle yn y byd oedd P?/G? in DET world be.PAST:3SG ‘Where on earth has Eleri gone?’ Source O lle doist from P?/G? come:PAST.2SG ‘Where have you come from?’

[Thorne 1996: 264]

Eleri wedi Eleri after

mynd? go

ti? you

The noun lle ‘place’ takes over the function of syncretic spatial interrogative of Place and Goal whereas it is the complement of the preposition o ‘from’ in the WHENCE-construction. In these constructions, there is no dedicated Q|| 41 Another factor which might have played a role in the seemingly unmotivated voicing of the initial segment of ple ‘where’ is the obligatory soft mutation after the interrogative particle a in yes/no-questions. This particle is optional whereas the soft-mutation of the sentence-initial word (usually the finite verb) cannot be dispensed with (Thorne 1996: 64).

364 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe morpheme. Note that the mutation of the voiceless lateral fricative /ɬ/ (= orthographic ) to the lateral approximant /l/ (= orthographic ) after the preposition o ‘from’ does not affect lle ‘place’ in (123.3). The above cases are thus multiply remarkable. The use of lle ‘place’ as spatial interrogative of Goal is also attested in the Welsh translation of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series – however, only in the speech style of the character Hagrid whose utterances bear evident signs of nonstandard grammar. In addition, there is also multiple evidence of ble being used as expression of WHITHER as in (124). (124)

Welsh Ble wyt P?/G? are:INTERR:2SG ‘Where are you going?’

ti you

’n PROG

[HP Welsh, 210] mynd? go

In the same corpus text, WHITHER is also expressed by the expected construction i ble ‘whither’. The single occurrence of a WHENCE-construction is also in line with the above account because it has the expected form of o ble ‘whence’. In Table 251, we postulate four varieties of Welsh whose paradigms of spatial interrogatives differ from each other to different degrees. Table 251: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four varieties of Welsh. Spatial relation

LPP

Written/formal Welsh

HP

Informal Welsh

Place

ble

pa le ~ ple ~ ble

ble

lle

Goal

i ble

i ble

ble ~ i ble ~ lle

lle

Source

o ble

o ble

o ble

o lle

Overabundance is confined to the cell of WHERE in the formal register of Welsh. The phenomenon recurs in the Harry-Potter translation, this time, however, exclusively with WHITHER. The LPP-variety and that of written/formal Welsh are in agreement among each other as to providing distinct constructions for each of the members of the paradigm. In informal Welsh as well as in the Welsh version of Harry Potter, however, WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism applies. This syncretic pattern makes informal Welsh look similar to English although the grammaticalized noun lle ‘place’ is not a direct translation of English where. The HarryPotter translation is even closer to the English model since ble ‘where = whither’ is used syncretically like its English translation equivalent. What remains con-

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 365

stant across all three of the Welsh varieties is the overt coding of directionality with WHENCE. For the Middle Welsh predecessors of today’s constructions, the reader is referred back to Section 2.2.4 above. In Table 23, there is overabundance and suppletion in each of the cells. Alongside the WHERE-construction pa le ‘where’ (literally ‘which place’), the WHITHER-construction pa tu ‘whither’ (literally ‘which side’), and the WHENCE-construction pan ‘whence’, there are the alloforms cw ~ cwd ~ cwt ‘where = whither = whence’ which neutralize all spatial distinctions, i.e. they reflect WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism. Of this earlier stage of Welsh, nothing much has survived into modern times. No traces of the spatially neutral stem are left. Likewise, the WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism has disappeared from the paradigm. The Middle Welsh constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE have been replaced by PPs. The sole survivor of the Middle Welsh period is the spatial interrogative of Place albeit with new allomorphs. This means that the Welsh paradigm of spatial interrogatives has undergone substantial changes since the Middle Welsh period. The evidence from the Breton LPP-variety ties in with the situation reported for informal Welsh above. The sample sentences in (125) show that there is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism in the Breton LPP-variety – a pattern that fits in with the data in (123) above although the constructions which are employed in Breton and colloquial Welsh are not the same structurally. (125) (125.1)

(125.2)

(125.3)

Breton [LPP Breton, 16] Source Eus pelec’h e teuez, va boulomig? from P?/G? PTCL come:2SG my gentleman:DIM ‘Where do you come from, my little gentleman?’ Place Pelec‘h emaout o chom? P?/G? be_located:2SG PTCPL rest ‘Where are you living?’ Goal Pelec’h e fell dit kas va dañvad? P?/G? PTCL want to:2SG take my sheep ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

The syncretic pelec’h ‘where = whither’ is a univerbation of pe ‘what, which’ + lec’h ‘place’ and thus is structurally identical to the Welsh WHERE-construction pa le ~ ple ~ ble ‘where’. The spatial interrogative of Source of the Breton LPP-variety comes in the usual shape of a PP which comprises the ablative preposition eus

366 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe ‘from’ and the Q-stem which is identical to the syncretic WHERE=WHITHERconstruction. The Breton LPP-variety conforms to the pattern known from its longterm partner in language contact, French, as well as to those of English and colloquial Welsh. Like in the Welsh case, the Breton LPP-variety does not exhaust the possibilities of organizing the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of the language under scrutiny. What we can observe is a considerable degree of variation which gives rise to several varieties of Breton in this realm. In the Breton grammar by Kervella (1995: 308), a distinction is made between standard Breton and the majority of the regional varieties on one side and the Gwened variety on the other. The distinction is based on the use of different stems, namely pelec’h (and variants thereof) and men. For each of these stems, full sets of combinations with prepositions are given without any further comments. Going by the formal distinctions alone, one is led to believe that there are paradigms with three distinct constructions, i.e. syncretism fails to apply. This picture corresponds largely to Press’s (1986: 173) statement that the interrogative pelec’h ‘where?’ may be preceded by any appropriate preposition: e, a, eus, da, dre, evit, war, etc. The basic form may be seen as pelec’h, though e pelec’h is sometimes preferred.

This quote is suggestive of overabundance in the cell of WHERE. According to the description provided by Favereau (1997: 125–126), not only is pelec’h ‘where = whither’ subject to phonological variation across speech-styles and regional varieties, but there is also a register-based distinction of a paradigm with WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism which is typical of informal and spoken Breton as opposed to a paradigm without syncretism which is associated with written Breton. The pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE is said to be obligatory in the Gwened variety whereas the Pélem variety attests to a maximally indistinct paradigm with a spatial interrogative which is neutral as to directionality. In the written register, all three of the spatial relations are marked overtly for directionality. This for instance is the case for Place in (126). (126)

Breton – Place E-pelec’h emaint? in-Q be_located:3PL ‘Where are they?’

[Favereau 1997: 125]

In a paradigm with three distinct constructions each of which is marked for directionality, pelec’h must be considered to be the common Q-stem. This interpretation is impossible, however, for the paradigm of spatial interrogatives that

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 367

results from the analysis of the data from the Breton translation of the HarryPotter corpus text, cf. (127). (127) (127.1)

(127.2)

(127.3)

Breton Source Eus p’lec’h ’maout from P? be_located:2SG ‘Where do you come from?’ Place Pelec’h emañ da P? be_located:3PL your ‘Where are your parents?’ Goal Da b’lec’h ‘maout to P? be_located:2SG ‘Where are you going?’

’tont come dud? people ‘vont? go

[HP I Breton, 33] ’ta? then [HP I Breton, 85]

[HP I Breton, 273]

In agreement with the literary paradigm of spatial interrogatives, the Breton translation of Harry Potter (volume I) provides evidence of three distinct constructions. In contrast to the formal written register, however, the WHEREconstruction of the Harry-Potter translation is zero-marked for directionality. This means that the two dynamic spatial interrogatives derive their constructions directly from that of the spatial interrogative of Place whereas, in the case of the literary standard, the three distinct constructions are based on a common Q-stem which has no word-status of its own. In Table 252 we provide an overview of the major differences of the spatial interrogatives within the Breton cluster of varieties. The table does not take account of the regular phonological changes in allegro speech and informal spoken Breton (which lead to short forms like p’lec’h ~ p’le’ ‘where’). We also skip the variant palec’h ‘where’ attested in local varieties of Breton (Favereau 1997: 125). Table 252: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in five varieties of Breton. Spatial relation Pélem

LPP

HP

Written/formal Breton Gwened e-pelec’h ~ ba pelec’h

Place

‘ven

pelec’h

pelec’h

Goal

‘ven

pelec’h

da belec’h da belec’h

Source

‘ven

eus pelec’h eus pelec’h eus pelec’h

e-men(n) da-ven(n) a-ven(n) ~ a-beban

368 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe It is easy to see that the Breton varieties form a relatively heterogeneous group whose paradigms of spatial interrogatives differ to a remarkably high degree. In the Breton cluster, some varieties like that of Pélem do not distinguish formally the spatial relations from each other while other varieties boast a paradigm with two or three distinct constructions. WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is peculiar to the LPP-variety. The three remaining varieties all follow the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. The varieties of Gwened and Pélem are similar to each other insofar as they use the same Q-stem which differs from that of all other varieties in Table 252. Written Breton allows for overabundance with WHERE. In the Gwened variety it is the cell of WHENCE which hosts two synonymous constructions. In this case, overabundance cooccurs with suppletion because the WHENCEconstruction a-beban ‘whence’ reflects a stem that differs from the stem of all other members of the same paradigm. Except the Pélem variety, all of the varieties of Breton concur as to the overt marking of directionality with WHENCE. Directionality is not marked at all in the variety of Pélem and thus constitutes a case of general zero-marking. Selective zero-marking of directionality is attested in two varieties. In both of these varieties, the spatial interrogative of Place is unmarked for directionality – once this property is shared via syncretism by the spatial interrogative of Goal. For the prior diachronic stage of Middle Breton, Lewis/Piette (1990: 31-2) assume a paradigm of spatial interrogatives which allows for overabundance in the cell of WHITHER, cf. Table 253. Table 253: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Middle Breton. Spatial relation

Construction

Spatial interrogative

Place

[Q lech]where

pe lech

Goal

[Q du]whither ~ [Q Prep lech]whither

pe du ~ pe en lech

Source

[Q-ban]whence

peban

This paradigm conforms largely to the paradigm of Middle Welsh presented in Table 23 above. Remarkable is the alternative WHITHER-construction pe en lech ‘whither’ with the preposition en being intercalated between the general interrogative pe ‘what, which’ and the noun lech ‘place’. It is possible to capture one of the changes from Middle Breton to Modern Breton in the following formula: [Q (Prep) lech]where/whither > [(Prep) Q-lec’h]spatial interrogative. The Middle Breton WHENCEconstruction peban ‘whence’ has survived in the variety of Gwened where abeban ‘whence’ (< a ‘from’ + peban ‘whence’ (< pe ‘what, which’ + pan ‘when’)

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 369

(Favereau 1997: 126)) is one of two options (cf. above). The diachronically most stable item, however, is the WHERE-construction. In other words, Breton and Welsh display remarkably similar developments after the Middle Breton and Middle Welsh period. To complement this section on the Brythonic branch of the Celtic languages, we take the daring step to look at data from (Neo-)Cornish. We are perfectly aware of the problems which are connected to including material from a revitalized language the speech-community of which consists almost exclusively of non-native speakers. We judge that these problems are as grave as those posed by the inclusion of data taken from the anachronistic translations of our sample text(s) into Latin, Ancient Greek, Old High German, Middle High German, Old English, and Middle English (cf. above). No matter how artificial the textual basis might look, the Cornish examples in (128) have the merit at least to give us some orientation for the ensuing discussion. (128) (128.1)

(128.2)

(128.3)

Cornish [LPP Cornish, 16] Source A ble’th esos ta ow tos, gwas byhan? from P?/G? be:2SG you PTCPL come young boy ‘Where do you come from, young boy?’ Place Ple’th os ta trigys? P?/G? be:2SG you stay ‘Where do you live?’ Goal Ple fyn ’ta hembronk ow davas? P?/G? want you lead my sheep ‘Where do you want to lead my sheep?’

The above examples illustrate WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. The word-forms ple ~ ple’th ‘where = whither’ are phonologically conditioned allomorphs of each other which are in complementary distribution. The short form is used in front of a consonant-initial word to the right whereas the long form occurs to the left of a word which starts with a vowel (Pool 1979: 35). The WHENCE-construction has the familiar structure of a PP. The preposition a ‘from’ triggers lenition of the initial segment of ple(‘th), cf. Scheme 19. All cells of the paradigm are thus multiply filled. These examples of overabundance, however, are predictable because they obey a morphonological rule. The strictness of this rule is perhaps doubtful since Nance (1979: 207) states spe-

370 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe cifically that a-blē ‘whence’ “takes no th before vowels in bōs [‘to be’] and mōs [‘to go’].” If this was actually the case, then example (128.1) cannot be correct. ple a ble

/ __ #C

Spatial interrogative → ple’th

/ __ #V

a ble’th Scheme 19: Allomorphy of Cornish spatial interrogatives.

Beyond these simple phonological facts, the situation in Cornish is not absolutely clear in each and every aspect. There is for instance an alternative WHENCE-construction in the Cornish version of Le Petit Prince, cf. (129). (129)

Cornish – Source [LPP Cornish, 53] Py le y teudh dhyworto? what place REL come:2SG from:3SG.M ‘Where/what place do you come from?’

The stranded preposition dhyworto ‘from him’ invokes an English model for the construction although English from is neither inflected nor resumptive. Since the Cornish-English dictionary compiled by Nance (1979: 194) lists a-byla ‘whence’ among the translations of English whence, it is likely that the multiword construction py le (…dhywort-) ‘whence’ is indeed a regular WHENCEconstruction: a-byla is made up of the preposition a ‘from’ + the mutated general interrogative py ‘what, which’ + le ‘place’. This means that a ble(‘th) ‘whence’ is only a syncopated variant of a-byla ‘whence’. The noun lē ‘place’ turns to -la if used as a “suffix” (Nance 1979: 263). On the basis of the many synonyms of the spatial interrogatives mentioned in the Cornish-English dictionary, we are able to distinguish two Cornish varieties, cf. Table 254.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 371

Table 254: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Cornish. Spatial relation

LPP

Dictionary

Place

ple(‘th)

py(th) ~ plē(th) ~ pyla ~ py lē

Goal

ple(‘th)

py(th) ~ plē(th) ~ pyla

Source

a ble(‘th) ~ py le […] dhywort-

a-blē ~ a-byla

There is a plethora of additional word-forms for which it is not clear, however, whether or not they function as interrogatives. They are therefore left unmentioned. It is also uncertain that the construction py lē ‘where’ can only be used as spatial interrogative of Place. We assume that it is just as syncretic as the other occupants of the cell of WHERE. However, we lack substantial proof. WHERE= WHITHER-syncretism is typical of both varieties in Table 254. Overabundance is especially strong in the DGB-variety reconstructed from the dictionary entries. The syncretic patterns seem to be old. In Middle Cornish, the construction p(y) le ‘where = whither’ can be used both as spatial interrogative of Place and as spatial interrogative of Goal (Lewis 1990: 34). In the same handbook, Lewis (1990: 33) mentions the mono-word construction pe ~ py ‘where’ which seems to be attested exclusively as a spatial interrogative of Place as in pe feste? ‘where have you been?’. At least in the dictionary of (Neo-)Cornish, py(th) ‘where = whither’ can also function as spatial interrogative of Goal. In the Middle Cornish grammar we have consulted no example of a WHENCE-construction is given. We conclude the discussion of the Brythonic situation by saying that the three languages reviewed above display an unexpectedly high degree of variation. It is astonishing to see how many different options may coexist within the frame of a common diasystem. It is almost a rule that with each new source a different paradigm of spatial interrogatives surfaces. This is not to say that there are no common features across the Brythonic varieties. These similarities notwithstanding, it is a fact that we are facing a high degree of structural heterogeinity of genetically closely related languages. The next subsection will reveal to us whether the Goidelic languages behave similarly.

3.4.2.6.2 Goidelic The Irish LPP-version marks the starting point of the subsequent presentation of the Goidelic facts. The examples in (130) show that there is WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism. Moreover, the WHENCE-construction is derived from the syncretic construction of WHERE = WHENCE.

372 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (130) (130.1)

(130.2)

(130.3)

Irish [HP Irish, 9] Source Cá has duit, a mhaicín bhig? VOC pet little P?/G? from to:2SG ‘Where do you come from, oh little pet?’ Place Cá bhfuil an baile seo agat? P?/G? be:DEP DET place DEM.PROX at:2SG ‘Where is this place of yours?’ Goal Cá bhfuil tú ag dul le mo chaora? P?/G? be:DEP you at going with my sheep ‘Where are you going with my sheep?’

This constellation of structural facts is nothing out of the way as the previous sections have amply shown. The only factor which contributes some “noise” to the relatively straightforward picture is illustrated by example (131). (131)

Irish – Goal Ach cén áit a rachadh sí, but which:DEF place REL go:COND she ‘But where would it go, do you think?’

[LPP Irish, 9] meas tú! estimate you

In this example, we find an alternative construction for the spatial interrogative of Goal. The multi-word construction cén áit ‘which place’ is structurally similar to several constructions which we have discussed in connection with the spatial interrogatives of the Brythonic languages in the foregoing subsection. The wordform cén is polymorphic since it is made up of the general interrogative cé ‘what, which’ + definite article (a)n (Bammesberger 1983: 61). According to the official school dictionary (Foclóir Scoile 1998: 198), cén áit is synonymous to cá and cá háit all three of which are instances of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. Thus, there is overabundance in the cells of WHERE and WHITHER. The interrogative cá ‘where = whither’ may coalesce with the copula to yield word-forms like cár ~ cárb (Bammesberger 1983: 87). This is an automatic morphonological process which does not create a new allomorph of the spatial interrogative as such, cf. (132) taken from the Irish translation of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series. (132)

Irish Cár chóir decent P?/G?:COP ‘Where should he go?’

dó to.3SG.M

dul? going

[HP I Irish, 174]

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 373

There does not seem to be any other trace of structural variation in the sources of Modern Irish to which we had access. In Scots-Gaelic, the situation is very similar to that observed for Irish. Of course, this is largely unsurprising. Superficially, the sample sentences in (133) seem to indicate that there is no WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. We underline the interrogative in (133.2) because its status needs to be reconsidered subsequently. (133) (133.1)

(133.2)

(133.3)

Scots-Gaelic [LPP Scots-Gaelic, 16] Source A dhuin’ uasail bhig, co às a tha thu? VOC man noble little P?/G? from REL be.PRES you ‘Oh little gentleman, where are you from?’ Place e an ‘t-àite agamsa‘ seo Cò what he DET your-place at:1SG:EMPH DEM.PROX air a bheil thu a’ dèanamh iomradh? REL be.DEP you PROG making account on ‘What ( ~ where) is this home of yours to which you are referring?’ Goal Cà’l thu ‘g iarraidh mo chaora a thoirt leat? P?/G?:be.DEP you PROG desiring my sheep REL take with:2SG ‘Where do you wish to take my sheep?’

The crucial case is that of the spatial interrogative of Goal in (133.3). The word-form cà’l is a contraction of càite ‘where = whither’ + the dependent verbal form bheil (Mark 2004: 110). The coalescence of the spatial interrogative and the verb-form is automatic if the two are direct syntagmatic neighbors (like in the parallel case reported for Irish above). The univerbation is blocked if the relative particle separates the spatial interrogative from the verb-forms as in the two sentences in (134). (134) (134.1)

(134.2)

Scots-Gaelic Goal [LPP Scots-Gaelic, 18] Ach càit’ a bheil thu a’ smaointeachadh a but P?/G? REL be:DEP you PROG considering REL thèid i? go:FUT she ‘But where do you think that she will go?’ Place [LPP Scots-Gaelic, 62] Càit’ a bheil na daoine? P?/G? REL be.DEP DET.PL man.PL ‘Where are the men?’

374 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe The above examples prove that càite ‘where = whither’ is syncretic because it can be used indiscriminately for Place and Goal relations. The short form càit’ ‘where = whither’ is triggered morphonologically by the initial vowel of the word on the right of the spatial interrogative. On the other hand, càite ‘where = whither’ itself is another case of univerbation, namely of the general interrogative cò ‘what, which’ + noun àite ‘place’. In point of fact, the question in (133.2) does not contain a proper spatial interrogative. The interrogative pronoun cò ‘what, which’ alone cannot be employed spatially. In none of the grammars of Scots-Gaelic we have consulted is cò ‘what, which’ ever mentioned as spatial interrogative of Place and/or Goal. Therefore, we have to cancel (133.2) from the collection of examples of spatial interrogatives. What constitutes a complication is the WHENCE-construction co às ‘whence’ in (133.1) because it involves the general interrogative cò ‘what, which’ + adposition às ‘from’. On the basis of this evidence, one might get the impression that, in isolation, cò functions as WHERE-construction. This, however, is a hypothesis which is not corroborated by the empirical facts (but cf. Old Irish below). In the descriptive linguistic material on Scots-Gaelic, another WHENCEconstruction is mentioned which also involves cò ‘which, what’ and an inflected form of the ablative preposition bho ‘from’, cf. (135). (135)

Scots-Gaelic – Source Co bhuaithe a thàinig an what from:3SG.M REL come:PAST DET ‘Where did that money come from?’

[Mark 2004: 148] t-airgead sin? DEF-money DEM.DIS

In addition, Mark (2004: 132) states that constructions which consist of the interrogative pronoun cia ‘who, what, which’ + spatial prepositions are “rarely used” in contemporary Scots-Gaelic, namely cia ‘n taobh ‘whither’ (literally ‘which side’) and the two WHENCE-constructions cia às ~ cia uaithe ‘whence’ with às ‘from’ and uaithe ‘from him’, respectively. The slightly outdated Scots-Gaelic grammar by Calder (1980: 173) – originally published in 1923 – has two additional WHITHER-constructions: ceana ~ cia ionadh ‘whither’ the latter of which consists of cia ‘which’ + ionad ‘place’. We do not have examples of any of these additional constructions being made use of as spatial interrogative of Place. However, on the basis of what we have learned so far about the spatial interrogatives of the Celtic languages, it makes sense to assume that the additional WHITHER-constructions are syncretic, i.e. they can also be employed as WHEREconstructions.

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 375

For the moribund Manx of the second half of the 20th century, Broderick (1984a: 67–69 and 121) reports a system of spatial interrogatives which is in line with what we have said with reference to Irish and Scots-Gaelic. There is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and, at the same time, also overabundance, cf. (136)–(137). (136) (136.1)

(136.2)

(136.3)

(137) (137.1)

(137.2)

Manx Place [Broderick 1984b: 102] Cre vel my chirree? P?/G? be.DEP my sheep ‘Where are my sheep?’ Goal [Broderick 1984b: 103] Cre ‘n boayl t’ ou goll mooie? P?/G? DET place COP you going out ‘Where are you going out to?’ Source [Broderick 1984b: 103] Cre ‘n boayl ta shiu cheet woish? P?/G? DET place COP you coming from ‘Where are you coming from?’ Manx [Broderick 1984b: 99] Place As c’ raad t’ eh nish? and what road COP he now ‘And where is he now?’ Goal C’ raad t’ ou goll jiu, Nell? what road COP you going today Nell ‘Where are you going today, Nell?’

It is not entirely clear to us whether or not the mono-word construction cre ‘where’ can also be used freely as spatial interrogative of Goal. The same holds for the employment of the multi-word construction cre’n boayl ‘whither’ in the function of WHERE. On the basis of the undisputable WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism illustrated by the examples in (137), we assume that cre and cre’n boayl, too, are syncretic (although we do not have tangible proof of this). The stranded preposition woish ‘from’ in (136.3) is also noteworthy. It can be compared to the Cornish example of prepositional stranding in (129) above. We consider language contact with English to be the best explanation for this syntactic phenomenon. There are several hypotheses which we are uncertain about. For this reason, we put several constructions in brackets in Table 255.

376 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 255: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in five Goidelic varieties. Spatial relation

Irish

Scots-Gaelic

Manx

LPP

DGB

LPP

DGB

Place

cá

cá ~ cá háit ~ cén áit

càite

càite (~ cia’n taobh ~ ceana ~ cia ionadh)

cre ~ c’raad (~ cre’n boayl)

Goal

cá ~ cén áit

cá ~ cá háit ~ cén áit

càite

càite ~ cia’n taobh ~ ceana ~ cia ionadh

(cre ~) cre’n boayl ~ c’raad

Source

cá has

cá has

co às

co às ~ co bhuaithe ~ cia às ~ cia uaithe

cre’n boayl woish

The many open questions notwithstanding, it is not too difficult to judge the Goidelic situation. Overabundance is a relatively common phenomenon. Similarly, WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is a pan-Goidelic feature. Multi-word constructions dominate statistically even if we discount the bracketed cases. It is unsurprising that all examples of WHENCE-constructions are of the multi-word type. For Old Irish, Lewis & Pedersen (1961: 230) report the existence of a monoword WHENCE-construction can ‘whence’. This construction is also mentioned in Thurneysen’s (1975: 289) grammar of Old Irish. This author, however, also argues that occasionally the general interrogative co ‘which, what’ can be employed as spatial interrogative. In connection to this statement, he observes that, in this function, co ‘which, what’ combines with dú ‘side’ to yield the word-form codu ‘where, whither’ (Thurneysen 1975: 290). This diachronic fact might make it necessary to reconsider our decision to discard Modern Irish có ‘which, what’ in (133.2) as an example of a spatial interrogative. However, to verify this possibility we need a better empirical basis. In the absence thereof we have to refrain from clarify this question in this study. Furthermore, Thurneysen (1975: 287) lists several other constructions of which we assume that they are meant to be syncretic, namely cía airm ~ cairm ~ cisi airm ~ cía dú ‘where = whither’ all of which involve the full form or the reduced form of an so-called “adjectival” general interrogative cía ~ cisi ‘which, what’ and a noun airm ‘place’ and dú ‘side’, respectively. The multi-word character of the constructions of WHERE and WHITHER has been bequeathed upon the modern Goidelic varieties – and also on those of the Brythonic branch. There is thus continuity from the distant past to contemporary times. On the other hand, the erstwhile spatial interrogative of Source can ‘whence’ has been ousted from the paradigm by the multi-word constructions attested throughout the Goidelic branch. The Brythonic languages too have lost the former mono-word WHENCE-constructions. This means that the Celtic languages have experienced relatively similar developments as to their paradigms of spatial inter-

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 377

rogatives. The loss of the mono-word WHENCE-constructions and their replacement with multi-word constructions has caused an increase of the “naturalness” of the paradigm in the sense that the modern paradigms are more in line with the general patterns of marking asymmetries stated for the bulk of the Indo-European languages hitherto reviewed.

3.4.2.7 Baltic The LPP-varieties of the two major Baltic languages of today, Lithuanian and Latvian, yield slightly different pictures. The Lithuanian LPP-variety, for instance, is a bona fide representative of the type of languages which do not formally distinguish WHERE from WHITHER, cf. (138). (138) (138.1)

(138.2)

(138.3)

Lithuanian [LPP Lithuanian, 11] Source Iš kur tu atvykai, vaikuti? from P?/G? you arrive:PAST:2SG guy:DIM:VOC ‘Where have you come from, little man?’ Place Kur tavo namai? P?/G? your house:NOM.PL ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Kur gabensi mano avį? P?/G? transport:FUT:2SG my sheep:ACC ‘Where are you going to take my sheep?’

The pattern of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is observed throughout our sample text as is the overt marking of directionality with WHENCE. This is exactly what we expect to find on the basis of the information provided in descriptive grammars of Lithuanian such as Senn (1966: 312). In the Lithuanian translation of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series, there is an interesting pair of sentences (to which have already referred repeatedly in connection with other languages above), cf. (139).42

|| 42 There is no need to discuss cases like [HP I Lithuanian, 231] …bet kurgi jis prapuolė? ‘…but where then has it wound up?’ with the spatial interrogative kur ‘where’ serving as host of the enclitic =gi which gives a slightly adversative flair to the question (Senn 1966: 302), i.e. kurgi ‘where then’ is not an additional WHERE-construction.

378 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (139) (139.1)

(139.2)

Lithuanian – Goal ILLATIVE

Kurion pusėn jie nubėgo, which:ILL side:ILL they run:PAST.3SG ‘To which side have they run, Peeves?’ kur Kur jie nubėgo? P?/G? they run:PAST.3 ‘Where have they run?’

[HP I Lithuanian, 128] Akilanda? Peeves.VOC

The two questions are semantically equivalent. With (139.2) the character Filch only reformulates his own question (139.1) which was uttered only seconds earlier. Both questions are addressed to the same addressee and refer to the same situation. The English original has which way in the case of (139.1) and where in the case of (139.2). It is therefore very likely that the variation of the original has induced the translator to make use of two different constructions too. The use of the morphological illative in (139.1) is stylistically marked since the so-called secondary spatial cases of Lithuanian – to which the illative belongs – are considered regional traits mainly of eastern and southern varieties of Lithuanian. This is perhaps a way of characterizing Filch as a protagonist. In our interpretation, the multi-word construction kurion pusėn ‘to which side’ is not a full-blown allomorph of kur ‘where = whither’ but represents a different class of constructions, namely that of interrogatives which inquire about specific spatial relations (in contrast to those spatial interrogatives which focus on general spatial relations). The exclusion of the above multi-word construction notwithstanding, the use of the illative in (139.1) provides a welcome opportunity to direct the reader’s attention to the spatial interrogative of Goal kanà ‘whither’ – the illative of the interrogative pronoun kàs ‘who, what’ – which is attested in Old Lithuanian and in the contemporary variety of Zíetala (Senn 1966: 438), cf. kanà einì ‘where are you going?’ (Zinkevičius 1966: 319). Note that this nonstandard item is specialized to expressing the Goal relation and thus is at odds with the WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism of the standard language. In this context we also have to mention the locative kamè ‘where’ of the same interrogative pronoun kàs ‘who, what’ which is characterized as a dedicated WHERE-construction by Senn (1966: 437). Wąsik (1982), however, assumes that kamè neutralizes the distinction of Place and Goal, cf. Table 1 above. In the first volume of the Lithuanian Academy Grammar, Valeckienė (1965: 653) claims that kamè is rarely employed as a replacement of kur without indicating, however, whether this means that kamè itself can function as spatial interrogative not only of Place but

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 379

also of Goal. In the chapter on spatial adverbs by Ulvydas (1971: 444), we find a single example of kamè being used as a spatial interrogative, cf. (140). (140)

Lithuanian [Ulvydas 1971: 444] Na, kame jūsų tie instrumentai yra? well P?(/G?) your.PL DEM.DIS:NOM.PL instrument:NOM.PL be.3 ‘Well, where are these instruments of yours?’

According to the classification by Ulvydas (1971: 443), it can be concluded that kamè is syncretic as to WHERE and WHITHER. However, there is no example of this spatial interrogative being used for the purpose of expressing the Goal relation. In the dialectological survey of Lithuanian, Zinkevičius (1966: 319) makes a distinction between those regional varieties – eastern and western Aukshtaitish – in which kamè ‘where = whither’ replaces kur ‘where = wither’ in all of the latter’s functions and the bulk of the other regional varieties which neatly distinguish static kamè esì ‘where are you?’ from dynamic kur einì ‘where are you going?’. This means that there is a major divide of the Lithuanian cluster of varieties into two groups, viz. varieties with WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism vs. varieties which reflect the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. In nonstandard Lithuanian, there is also a short form kam͂ < kamè ‘where = whither’ (Zinkevičius 1966: 404). Zinkevičius (1966: 406) identifies another spatial interrogative of Goal which is reported for the Southwest of the Aukshtaitish area. We are alluding to the illative kamiñ ‘whither’. Moreover, the Lithuanian Academy Grammar introduces yet another construction which seems to be a dedicated WHITHER-construction, cf. (141). (141)

Lithuanian Dievaži, į kur jį Dievažis.VOC in P?/G? 3SG.F.ACC ‘Dievažis, where have they taken her?’

[Ulvydas 1971: 444] atvedė? guide:PAST.3

This multi-word construction has the same structural shape as the regular WHENCE-construction iš kur ‘whence’, namely that of a PP of the type [Prep kur]dynamic spatial interrogative. The same structure is realized with the alternative WHENCE-construction nuo kur ‘whence’ illustrated in (142). (142)

Lithuanian [Ulvydas 1971: 446] Nuo kur tamsta esi kilęs? from P?/G? you.HON be:2SG originate:PTCPL.M.SG ‘Where do you come from (originally)?’

On the basis of the information provided in the Lithuanian Academy Grammar, it is impossible to tell whether or not the two prepositions iš ‘from’ and nuo

380 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe ‘from’ can freely replace each other in combination with kur without change of meaning – no matter how subtle the changes may be. The overview of the Lithuanian data in Table 256 is indicative of a highly diversified situation. There is heterogeneity which is mostly connected to the question whether or not WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism applies in a given variety. Table 256: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in six Lithuanian varieties. Spatial relation

LPP

Academy

Aukštaitian Southwest

Zíetala

Samogitian

Place

kur

kur ~ kame

kame

kamè

kamè

kamè

Goal

kur

kur ~ kame ~ į kur

kame

kamiñ

kanà

kur

Source

iš kur

iš kur ~ nuo kur

iš kur

iš kur

iš kur

iš kur

The pan-Lithuanian homology as to the WHENCE-construction is probably only an effect of the scarcity of information on this category in the descriptive material (especially that which focusses on regional varieties). We are also unsure about the status of the multi-word WHITHER-construction į kur ‘whither’ because the preposition į ‘in, at, to, into’ is neutral as to the distinction of Place and Goal. It is thus possible that this construction may function also as spatial interrogative of Place. Overabundance is clearly the prerogative of the standard set by the Academy. It strikes the eye that many regional varieties diverge from this norm insofar as they disallow for WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. This observation leads us to evaluating the situation in Lithuanian’s sisterlanguage Latvian. The sample sentences in (143) are suggestive of a paradigm of spatial interrogatives, from which syncretism is banned. (143) (143.1)

(143.2)

Latvian Source No kurienes tu nāc, from Q:GEN you come.2SG ‘Where do you come from, my boy?’ Place Kur ir tavas P?/G? be.3 your:NOM.PL.F ‘Where is your home?’

[LPP Latvian, 14] manu my

zēn? boy.VOC

mājas? house:NOM.PL

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 381

(143.3)

Goal Kurp tu gribi aizvest G? you want:2SG take:INF ‘Where do you want to take the little lamb?’

jēriņu? lamb:DIM:ACC

There are two distinct constructions for WHERE and WHITHER the latter reflecting the erstwhile allative in -p (another of the above mentioned secondary local cases attested in the Baltic languages). However, kurp ‘whither’ is not compulsory to express the Goal relation. On the same page of the Latvian translation of Le Petit Prince, there is a pair of sentences which prove that kur ‘where = whither’ can replace kurp ‘whither’ in the function of spatial interrogative of Goal, cf. (144). (144) (144.1)

(144.2)

Latvian question Bet kur tad lai but P?/G? then let ‘But where should it go then?’ answer Vienalga, kur. all_the_same where ‘Anywhere.’

[LPP Latvian, 14] viņš he

iet? go:INF

In the Latvian Harry-Potter version, the two constructions have equal shares of all cases of WHENCE in the book. They seem to replace one another freely as the examples in (145) suggest. (145) (145.1)

(145.2)

Latvian – Goal kur Kur tu skriesi? P?/G? you run:FUT:2SG ‘Where are you going to run?’ kurp Ej, kurp jūs skrien43? Hey G? you.PL run ‘Hey, where are you running?’

[HP I Latvian, 258]

[HP I Latvian, 260]

|| 43 The finite verb-form skrien is grammatically incorrect as it can only be used with a subject in the 3rd persons. With a 2nd person plural, we expect the verb-form skrienat. Since the example is uttered by the character Hagrid, we assume that the incorrectness is intended to characterize the protagonist as uneducated.

382 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe What makes Latvian additionally noteworthy is the existence of a distinct stem kuriene which combines with prepositions. The WHENCE-construction is thus no kurienes ‘whence’ with the ablative preposition no ‘from’ governing the genitive on the Q-morpheme. The whence-construction is not only a multi-word construction but also counts four syllables or nine segments and thus is by far more complex than the constructions of WHERE and WHITHER. However, kuriene is not confined to combinations with no ‘from’. It is also compatible with uz ‘to’ – a preposition which governs the accusative and thus yields the multi-word construction uz kurieni ‘whither’, cf. (146). (146)

Latvian [Bendiks 1980: 501] Nevarēja būt šaubu, aiziet NEG:can:PAST.3 be:INF doubt:GEN.PL go_away:INF būtu vislabākais, bet uz kurieni? be:COND SUPER:good:COMP:DEF:NOM.SG.M bet to Q:ACC ‘There could be no doubt going away would be the best, but where?’

This example has been drawn from the normative dictionary of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. On the basis of the illustration of the use of the spatial interrogatives in the said dictionary, it is not possible to formulate any rules as to the distribution of the competing constructions. According to the Latvian Academy Grammar, the mono-word constructions and the multi-word constructions can be considered to be members of one and the same functional paradigm (Blinkena 1962: 151). Kurp ‘whither’ and uz kurieni ‘whither’ are presented as two fully equivalent constructions. In the DGB-variety of the Latvian norm, there is thus overabundance in the cell of WHITHER. As to the regional varieties of Latvian, Rudzīte (1964: 230) reports that in a number of cases the spatial interrogative kur is replaced by multi-word constructions with the preposition iekš ‘in’ + either the accusative kuo or the dative kam of the interrogative pronoun kas ‘what, who’. For Latgalian, Bukšs & Placinskis (1973: 327) set up a paradigm of spatial interrogatives which deviates from the model of the Latvian standard insofar as the WHITHER-construction kurp ‘whither’ is absent its function being fulfilled by uz kurīni ‘whither’. Furthermore, the paradigm includes kymā ‘where = whither’ – the locative of the interrogative pronoun kas ‘what, who’. The authors of the grammar discourage speakers of Latgalian to use the word-form kamā ‘where = whither’ since it is isolated in the paradigm as it is the only word-form to mark feminine gender overtly (Bukšs & Placinskis 1973: 145). Nau (2011: 37–38) argues that this gender distinction has been lost in modern Latgalian texts. At the same time, she re-

Micro-level variation in sundry Indo-European languages of Europe | 383

ports that there are also gender-sensitive word-forms in the plural, namely masculine kimūs vs. feminine kimās. The above data are recapitulated in Table 257. The Latvian situation is almost as diversified as that described for Lithuanian above. Table 257: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four Latvian varieties. Spatial relation

LPP

Academy

Latgalian

Zemgalian

Place

kur

kur

kur ~ kymā/kamā/kimūs/ iekš kuo ~ iekš kam kimās

Goal

kur ~ kurp

kur ~ kurp ~ uz kurieni

kur ~ kymā/kamā/ kimūs/kimās ~ uz kurīni

iekš kuo ~ iekš kam

Source

no kurienes

no kurienes

nu kurīnes

no kurienes

In all four of the varieties, there is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. However, in three of these varieties, this syncretic pattern coexists with the maximally distinctive pattern with three dedicated constructions. The coexistence gives rise to overabundance – a mismatch which is reported across the above varieties in the cell of WHITHER. Multi-word constructions form part of the paradigm in each of the varieties. The WHENCE-construction always consists of two words. In three out of four varieties, at least one of the WHITHER-constructions is a multi-word construction. In some Zemgalian varieties, all of the spatial interrogatives are represented by multi-word constructions. Furthermore, suppletion applies equally in all four of the varieties. The combination of the stems kur and kuriene can be classified as a case of (relatively) weak suppletion whereas the combination of kur with case-forms of the interrogative pronoun kas ‘what, who’ is certainly an instance of strong suppletion. The only representative of the western branch of the Baltic languages that is documented to some extent is the extinct Old Prussian. The texts written in this language are scarce in number. This restricted corpus does not provide the data which are needed to identify all of the members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. The best one can do is trying to reconstruct the paradigm. And that is exactly what Mažiulis (1993: 40–42 and 327) does in his etymological dictionary of Old Prussian. Two word-forms are attested, namely quei ‘where’ and isquendau ‘whence’. The problems these word-forms pose are manifold. For a start, it is unclear whether quei has been used also as WHITHER-construction. As to isquendau, we do not have undisputable evidence of its employment as proper spatial interrogative. As far as we understand the philological particulars, it

384 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe is attested only in the function of a relative. On the basis of internal and external evidence, Mažiulis (1993: 40) discusses the pros and cons of postulating a reconstructed paradigm with the three constructions *kvei ‘where’ ≠ *kvendau ‘whither’ ≠ *iskvendau ‘whence’ for Old Prussian. The WHERE-construction reflects the old locative case -ei, whereas the WHITHER-construction reflects the illative case -en which is followed by an enclitic particle -dau. The WHENCEconstruction, in turn, is derived from that of WHITHER to which the prefix is‘from’ attaches. For lack of textual proof, this scenario remains speculative. Nevertheless, the reconstructed paradigm fits the general tendency towards a markedness hierarchy WHERE < WHITHER < WHENCE. With these brief remarks on the Old Prussian situation we have reached the terminus of the survey of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives in the IndoEuropean languages of Europe. The results will be compared to those of the subsequent section on the non-Indo-European languages of Europe in a separate section (cf. 3.6). For the time being, it suffices to keep in mind that the domain of the spatial interrogatives which we have reviewed so far gives evidence of a very high degree of structural variation. This variation, however, is not absolutely random since it seems to be limited in the sense that the basic principle according to which there is a difference in markedness which separates WHENCE on the one hand from WHERE and WHITHER on the other is hardly ever violated against. It remains to be seen whether this is a property which is typical of Indo-European languages or a pattern which recurs crosslinguistically independent of the genetic affiliation of the languages under scrutiny.

3.5 Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe 3.5.1 Non-Indo-European LPP-varieties 3.5.1.1 Mismatches 3.5.1.1.1 Syncretism The twenty-one non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe form a group which is genetically as heterogeneous as that of the previous section. It consists of eight Uralic languages, four Turkish languages, three South Caucasian languages, two Afroasiatic languages, two varieties of the isolate Basque, and one representative each of Northwest Caucasian and Northeast Caucasian. Accordingly we do not expect the results to be very homogeneous in the first place.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 385

The data in Table 258 meet this expectation because there are three different syncretic patterns. Twelve of the LPP-varieties or 57% of the languages presented in Table 258 do not allow for any syncretism. Six languages (= 28.5%) attest to the familiar pattern of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism whereas the remaining three languages (= 14.5%) – all of which happen to be varieties of Saami – give evidence of the rarely attested WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism. Overabundance is attested only in three languages of different genetic affiliation, namely Megrelian, Aramaic, and Tatar, cf. the next subsection. Table 258: Spatial interrogatives in versions of LPP non-Indo-European languages of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Saami (Inari)

kost

kuus

kost

16

Saami (Skolt)

ko’st

koozz

ko’st

16

Saami (North)

gos

gosa

gos

16

Kazakh

ķajda

ķajda

ķajdan

14

Georgian

sad

sad

saidan ([!])

13

Laz

so

so

solen

16

Megrelian

so

so

son ~ solešen

16

Abkhaz

aba-

aba-

abant-

14

Maltese

fejn

fejn

mn’ejn

8

Aramaic

ayko ~ hayko ([!]) layko ([!])

mayko ([!])

13

Basque

non

nora

nondik

15

Basque (Souletin)

non

norat

nontik

16

Chechen

mičax‘

miča

mičara

13

Estonian

kus

kuhu

kust

12

Finnish

missä

minne

mistä

16

Hungarian

hol

hová

honnét

17

Mari (Hill)

kyšty

kyšky

kyšec

12

Udmurt44

ki̮ti̮n

ki̮ti̮

ki̮ti̮

no pagination

Azerbaijani

harda

hara

hardan

394

|| 44 The Udmurt translation of Le Petit Prince has been published in a newspaper. In our analysis of the data, we rely on a photocopy of this text. The quality of the photocopy is of very bad quality so that for some of the sample sentences the reading is difficult. This means that we cannot be absolutely sure that the word-forms are not subject to variation.

386 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

LPP

Tatar

kajda

kaja

kajdan ~ kajan

13

Turkish

nerede

nereye

nereden

16

What strikes the eye is that there is a scarcity of multi-word constructions. Those three cases of potential multi-word constructions in Aramaic together with the Georgian WHENCE-construction are doubtful as to their status and will be discussed below. Moreover, with the scarcity of overabundance, the number of attested constructions exceeds that of the calculated minimum only by a narrow margin, cf. Table 259. Table 259: Attested constructions in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties (Europe). WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Sum

estimate

21

21

21

63

attested

22

21

23

66

increase

4%

0%

9.5%

4.5%

With 4.5% the surplus is hardly worth discussing. The percentage is low for WHERE and WHENCE. The value does not reach the 10%-mark. WHITHER is exempt from overabundance. Sixteen of the sixty-three cells are occupied by syncretic word-forms. This corresponds to a share of 25% of all cells of Table 258. A quarter of all word-forms occur twice in a given paradigm. The values calculated for the Romance phylum (= 26%) and the Slavic phylum (= 22%) are similar, whereas those of the Germanic phylum (= 3 %) fail to come anywhere near those. In contrast, the share of syncretic word-forms is twice as big in the case of the sundry Indo-European languages of Europe (cf. Section 3.4.1.1.1 above).

3.5.1.1.2 Overabundance Overabundance is attested in genetically diverse languages. In Table 260, there is a Turkish language which attests to the phenomenon alongside with an Afroasiatic language and a South Caucasian language. All three of these languages are located in the easternmost sectors of Europe (which is not a fully distinctive property within the group of non-Indo-European languages of Europe since their vast majority is situated in the European east). A language with WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is affected by overabundance as are two languages which do not allow syncretism at all.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 387

Table 260: Overabundance in paradigms of spatial interrogatives of non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

Aramaic

ayko ~ hayko

layko

mayko

Megrelian

so

so

son ~ solešen

Tatar

kajda

kaja

kajdan ~ kajan

WHENCE

Diagram 90 summarizes what we already know from the discussion above. WHERE and WHENCE are similarly, i.e. moderately prone to be affected by overabundance. WHITHER, however, escapes the phenomenon of overabundance. The turnout of overabundance is similar to that of the sundry IndoEuropean languages (cf. Diagram 75 above). However, the distribution over categories is different. As in the cases of the sundry Indo-European languages and the Slavic languages, the small number of instances precludes the possibility of generalizing over the data. What can be said nevertheless is that overabundance as such is not a very “popular” mismatch in the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. This lack of popularity of overabundance is a feature which is shared also by other genetically-defined groups of LPP-varieties. whither 0 0% where 1 33% whence 2 67%

Diagram 90: Shares of spatial interrogatives of overabundance in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

388 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 3.5.1.1.3 Suppletion With the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe, suppletion is even less common than overabundance. In point of fact, there is only one clear example of strong suppletion (the explanation is given further below). This example is provided by Maltese (cf. Table 261). Table 261: Strong suppletion with spatial interrogatives in Maltese (LPP). Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Maltese

fejn

fejn

mn’ejn

In addition, we find a couple of cases for which the label weak suppletion is appropriate. The underlined word-forms in Table 262 display stems whose phonological shape differs from that of the other two members of the paradigm in exactly one segment, namely Basque non- vs. no- and Basque (Souletin) non- vs. no-. Table 262: Weakly suppletive spatial interrogatives in versions of LPP in non-Indo-European languages of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Basque

non

nora

nondik

Basque (Souletin)

non

norat

nontik

In all other cases of segmental variation in Table 258, we are dealing with regular morphonological processes. If we continue to follow the previous practice of counting exclusively cases of strong suppletion, the turnout for this mismatch is negligible, cf. Diagram 91. The picture would not alter much if we included the cases of weak suppletion. Under this lax interpretation of the concept of suppletion, also the category of WHERE remains unaffected by the phenomenon. As to the mismatch of suppletion, the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe yield a result which is similar to that of the Germanic LPP-varieties which, however, give absolutely no evidence of strong suppletion at all (cf. Section 3.2.1.1.3 above).

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 389

where

whither

0

0

0%

0%

whence 1 100%

Diagram 91: Shares of spatial interrogatives of strong suppletion in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

3.5.1.1.4 Periphrasis Neither periphrasis nor anti-periphrasis is a characteristic property of the nonIndo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Moreover, it is doubtful that this parameter is active at all. Were it not for the Aramaic and Georgian spatial interrogatives in Table 263, we could simply declare that the criterion is not applicable for the languages under scrutiny. Table 263: Potentially periphrastic spatial interrogatives in Aramaic and Georgian. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Aramaic

ayko ~ hayko ([!])

layko ([!])

mayko ([!])

Georgian

sad

sad

saidan ([!])

The Aramaic spatial interrogatives hayko ‘where’, layko ‘whither’, and mayko ‘whence’ are instances of the construction type [Prep=Q]spatial interrogative. This means that syntactically they are PPs the head of which is a proclitic on the question word which in turn functions as the complement of the PP. Since the orthographic conventions the Aramaic translator of Le Petit Prince employs for the Latin transliteration require that a hyphen be used to connect clitics to their host – and no hyphen is ever used for the above spatial interrogatives, we consider the Aramaic spatial interrogatives to be mono-word constructions albeit

390 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe morphologically complex ones. This decision of ours has repercussions on measuring the complexity of the constructions (cf. below). Since our analysis of the Aramaic data has the character of a stipulation, we keep the doubly bracketed exclamation mark to signal that an interpretation different from ours would make perfect sense as well. The Georgian spatial interrogative of Source, saidan ‘whence’, raises a similar problem. The construction is complex and reflects the structure of a postpositional phrase of the type [Q-INSTRUMENTAL=Post]whence. The postposition is =dan ‘from’. It governs the instrumental case of the complement. The regular casesuffix of the instrumental is -it. However, in combination with the postposition it is subject to total assimilation with subsequent degemination: sait + =dan > *sait=dan > *saiddan > saidan.45 The postposition =dan belongs to the class of postpositions which coalesce completely with the complement noun whereas others behave like separate words (Fähnrich 1986: 142–145). This differential behavior of the postpositions has been interpreted in various ways in the literature on Georgian. Those postposition which behave like =dan may either be considered enclitics or secondary cases. The clitic analysis would require us to assume a multi-word construction. In contrast, the competing analysis as secondary case-forms allows us to assume a mono-word interpretation. We opt for the latter solution of the problem because the degree of boundedness of =dan and its morphonological integration with its host speak in favor of a mono-word construction. The Maltese spatial interrogative of Source mn’ejn ‘whence’ is an allographic rendering of the more common mnejn ‘whence’. The word-internal apostrophy does not mark a boundary. This case will be discussed in some detail in Section 3.5.2.4 when we take account of evidence that does not stem from our sample text. In connection to this and the two cases above, we admit that

|| 45 Diachronically =dan itself is the product of assimilation. Hewitt (1996: 40) assumes that it originates from the combination of the postposition =gan ‘from’ with the compelement noun in the instrumental. The combination -it + =gan gave rise to *-id=gan (voice assmilation) > *-iddan (place assimilation) > -idan (degemination) (Tschenkéli 1958: 35) so that Hewitt (1996: 40) postulates a postposition -(i)dan for modern Georgian which fully incorporates the erstwhile marker of the instrumental. According to this analysis, one can no longer speak of a postposition that governs the instrumental case. Since postpositions which govern the absolutive or the bare stem are not reported for Georgian, Hewitt’s analysis might be understood to argue for a new morphological ablative case. Since animacy restrictions determine the distribution of the putative ablative in -idan and its synonymous allomorph =gan ‘from’ (which attaches to the genitive form of its host), the discussion of this issue would require too much time and space to be conducted in this study.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 391

the reliance on the orthographic principle is a simplification of the often rather intricate linguistic facts. Nevertheless, it helps to establish a kind of order in an otherwise highly diverse domain. Independent of the tenability of the above analyses, what comes to the fore in this section is that the question of whether we are dealing with mono-word constructions or multi-word constructions arises four times in connection with dynamic spatial interrogatives, namely WHITHER and WHENCE in Aramaic, WHENCE in Georgian, and WHENCE in Maltese, whereas the static spatial interrogative of Place is affected only once (Aramaic hayko ‘where’). We take this to be circumstantial evidence of the higher markedness especially of WHENCE as opposed to WHERE. The difficulty the Aramaic and Georgian cases pose notwithstanding, it is obvious that periphrasis is largely alien to the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Thus, a very strong contrast separates this group of languages from the four Indo-European groups discussed previously because in the latter, periphrasis is generally a well-established feature.

3.5.1.1.5 Fused exponence Once more the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe behave in such a way that the parameter is simply inapplicable for the attested word-forms. This inapplicability also holds for the suppletive Maltese mn’ejn ‘whence’ which can be shown to be morphologically complex (cf. below). The result is the same as that of the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe, namely there is no straightforward instance of fused exponence. On this parameter, the two genetically mixed groups differ considerably from the genetically homogeneous groups of Indo-European LPP-varieties which attest to several cases of fused exponence each (Germanic: 5, Romance: 11, Slavic: 15).

3.5.1.1.6 Results The scarcity of certain mismatches shows clearly in the synopsis (cf. Diagrams 92–93). Only three of five mismatches are attested with suppletion being unique to Maltese. Syncretism is the only mismatch which involves all three spatial interrogatives. According to Diagram 92, WHENCE is responsible for three mismatches, WHERE is involved in two, and WHITHER allows exclusively for syncretism to apply. The total of WHERE equals nearly that of the totals of mismatches of WHITHER and WHENCE added up. This outstanding position of WHERE is largely the effect of WHERE being involved in each of the syncretic patterns attested in the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

392 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 100% 90%

3

80% 70% 60%

5

2 whence

50%

1

whither

40% 30% 20%

9

2

syncretism

overabundance

where

10% 0% suppletion

0

periphrasis

0

fused exponence

Diagram 92: Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

Diagram 92 also shows that WHERE accounts for almost half of all mismatches whereas WHITHER and WHENCE display shares which come close to or slightly exceed a quarter of the attested cases. There are so many instances of a value of nil, that it is impossible to identify any significant correlations. The most we can deduce from the synopsis is that WHENCE is affected by all of the mismatch-types that are attested in this group of languages. With three quarters of all cases to its credit, syncretism constitutes the statistically dominant mismatch in the group of non-Indo-European LPP-varieties in Europe. Neither overabundance nor suppletion can compete with syncretism in terms of frequency, cf. Diagram 93. For each of the categories, syncretism covers the biggest group of cases. No other share reaches the 50%-mark. The prominence of syncretism is a property the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties share with the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties and the Romance LPP-varieties. Given the generally low frequency of mismatches, it is difficult to formulate any predictions which are not simple trivialities. The following four observations are close to being trivial since they are obvious from the discussion above:  there is a probability of 100% that neither fused exponence nor periphrasis occurs,

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 393

 there is a probability of 95% that suppletion is ruled out as mismatch in a given language,  there is a probability of 75% that if a mismatch is attested it is an instance of syncretism,  there is a probability of 75% that if a mismatch is attested it excludes WHITHER. 100% 1

2

90% 80% 70%

2

60% 50%

5

overabundance

9

40%

suppletion

30%

3

20%

syncretism

10% 0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 93: Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

Since the overall turnout of mismatches is low, binary combinations of mismatches can hardly be expected to occur in particularly high numbers. Table 264 surveys the relatively meager results. Table 264: Combinations of mismatches in one and the same paradigm in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Sum Syncretism Overabundance Suppletion Periphrasis Fused exponence syncretism

2

overabundance 2 suppletion

1

0

periphrasis

0

0

1

0

0

3

0

0

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

0

6

0

fused exponence 0

0

0

0

Total

2

1

0

3

0

394 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Half a dozen combinations are reported for the LPP-varieties under review. These combinations boil down to three cases all of which involve syncretism. More generally, mismatches other than syncretism are disfavored by the non-IndoEuropean LPP-varieties of Europe. Their avoidance of mismatches contrasts with the behavior of the Indo-European LPP-varieties which are generally much more prone to being affected by mismatches among which periphrasis plays an important role. Since periphrasis is inexistent in the languages discussed in this section, we notice that there is a genetically-based difference between the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Indo-European LPP-varieties and non-IndoEuropean LPP-varieties in Europe.

3.5.1.2 Constructional complexity 3.5.1.2.1 Mono-word constructions vs. multi-word constructions As discussed in connection to periphrasis in Section 3.5.1.1.4, there are no bona fide multi-word constructions in the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. For the time being it suffices to state sweepingly that we cannot detect any difference in the complexity of the constructions of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE as to the number of words they involve. The average number of words per construction is 1.0, i.e. there are exclusively mono-word constructions, cf. Table 265. Table 265: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of words per construction) in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

words

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Under these circumstances, all of the categories are entitled to the same score, namely that of ‘0’. Note that this is a first because in the previous sections of this study we have always found that there is at least a minimal degree of asymmetry on this parameter.

3.5.1.2.2 Morphs On the level of morphs, the LPP-varieties under inspection display noticeably more variation than on the parameter of the number of words. However, this does not imply that there are patterns of asymmetry throughout the entire set of paradigms. What Table 266 shows instead is the preponderance of equal numbers of

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 395

morphs for two or even three members of one and the same paradigm. Those cells which host word-forms of identical numbers of morphs come with grey shading. If identical morphological complexity does not hold for all synonymous forms under overabundance, boldface additionally marks the item whose number of morphs is identical to that of another member of the same paradigm. Table 266: Number of morphs in spatial interrogatives of non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Laz

1

1

2

Megrelian

1

1

2~3

Basque

1

2

2

Basque (Souletin)

1

2

2

Aramaic

1~2

2

2

Kazakh

2

2

2

Saami (Inari)

2

2

2

Saami (Skolt)

2

2

2

Saami (North)

2

2

2

Maltese

2

2

2

Estonian

2

2

2

Finnish

2

2

2

Hungarian

2

2

2

Mari (Hill)

2

2

2

Udmurt

2

2

2

Azerbaijani

2

2

2

Tatar

2

2

2~2

Turkish

2

2

2

Abkhaz

2

2

3

Georgian

2

2

3

Chechen

3

2

3

Grey shading is given to fifty-seven out of sixty-three cells. This means that in 90% of all cases, the cells are occupied by word-forms which are morphologically equally complex as at least one other member of the same paradigm. In terms of word-forms, there are nine cases of word-forms with an individual morpho-

396 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe logical complexity as opposed to fifty-eight word-forms which are morphologically as complex as other word-forms of the same paradigm. The latter number of tokens is equivalent to 86.5% of all word-forms. There is thus a very strong tendency towards symmetry. Asymmetry is exceptional. It is worth noting that there is no paradigm in which each of the word-forms is different from its partners in the paradigm as to the number of morphs involved. The absolute numbers and the shares disclosed in Diagram 94 support this view. There are differences. However, these differences do not seem to be statistically significant.

whence

where

50

40

38%

31% whither 40 31%

Diagram 94: Share the spatial interrogatives have of the sum of morphs in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

Nevertheless, the relatively high share of WHENCE is consistent with the results of the analysis of the various Indo-European LPP-varieties. Similarly, the identical shares of WHERE and WHITHER are in line with comparable constellations discussed in the previous sections. No spatial interrogative counts more than three morphs. There is a striking preference for dimorphic constructions as the absolute numbers in Diagram 95 suggest. There is no trimorphic WHITHER-construction. On the other hand, WHENCE is never represented by a monomorphic construction. Monomorphism is associated overwhelmingly with the spatial interrogative of Place. The same statistical dominance holds for the share of WHENCE in the area of trimorphic constructions.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 397

100% 80%

2

19

60% 40%

4 19

whither

5

20%

whence

where

16

1

0% monomorphic

dimorphic

trimorphic

Diagram 95: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

Dimorphic constructions have the biggest share of each and all of the three spatial categories, cf. Diagram 96. This share amounts to 82% of all constructions leaving only minor shares for monomorphic and trimorphic constructions. In contrast to the computed general share of 12%, monomorphic constructions are responsible for more than a quarter of all WHERE-constructions. The share held by trimorphic constructions of all WHENCE-constructions is twice as big as the share of trimorphic constructions of all constructions. 100%

1

4

80% 60%

16

trimorphic

19 19

40%

dimorphic

monomorphic

20% 5 0% where

2 whither

whence

Diagram 96: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

398 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Since the spatial interrogatives of Place, Goal, and Source tend to be represented by constructions of two morphs, it can be assumed that the number of morphs is not a major factor for distinguishing the categories formally. This assumption is borne out by the fact as they present themselves in the statistics of the combination of constructions of equal/unequal number of morphs. Table 267 takes account of binary combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions. In eighteen out of twenty-three pairs of WHEREWHITHER the two constructions cannot be told apart on the basis of the number of morphs. This means that in 78% of all combinations equal size applies. In five cases, different numbers of morphs are involved. In four of these cases, WHERE is represented by the smaller number of morphs. Table 267: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHITHER in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. WHERE

WHITHER

monomorphic

Sum

dimorphic

monomorphic

2

3

5

dimorphic

0

16

16

trimorphic

0

1

1

Total

2

20

22

As to combinations of WHERE and WHENCE, the percentage of cases of equal size is lower than in the previous pairing of WHERE and WHITHER. Nevertheless, with seventeen out of twenty-five cases, equal size covers 68% of all combinations and thus constitutes the norm. Unequal size is attested eight times. In each of these cases it is the spatial interrogative of Place that is expressed by the smaller number of morphs, cf. Table 268. Table 268: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHERE and WHENCE in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. WHERE

WHENCE

Sum

dimorphic

trimorphic

monomorphic

5

1

6

dimorphic

15

2

17

trimorphic

0

1

1

Total

20

4

24

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 399

Table 269 shows that pairs of WHITHER and WHENCE also tend to involve constructions of an equal number of morphs. This situation is attested in 78% of all cases, i.e. eighteen times. There is no evidence of a WHENCE-construction being less complex morphologically than the corresponding WHITHER-construction. This means that the six examples of unequal size are all of the same kind, viz. the WHENCEconstruction exceeds the WHITHER-construction in size by at least one morph. Table 269: Combinations of monomorphic and polymorphic constructions of WHITHER and WHENCE in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

dimorphic

trimorphic

monomorphic

2

1

3

dimorphic

17

3

20

Total

19

4

23

The high frequency of equal size does not allow for very big differences of the spatial categories in the domain of morph numbers. What differences there are point in the familiar direction nonetheless. If the size of the constructions of a paradigm is unequal, the WHERE-construction is likeliest to comprise the smallest number of morphs. The WHITHER-construction behaves similarly in combinations with WHENCE-constructions. This tendency can also be seen from the averages given in Table 270. The average of WHITHER coincides with the general average whereas WHENCE exceeds the general average by a relatively narrow margin. It is by the same narrow margin that the average of WHERE fails to reach the general average. Table 270: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of morphs per construction) in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

morphs

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.7

1.9

2.1

1.9

The distances between the averages are not as pronounced as in some of the cases discussed in the sections dedicated to Indo-European LPP-varieties. In spite of their yielding averages which are relatively close to each other, it is possible to justify different scores for the three categories under review. The

400 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe scores correspond to the familiar pattern. This means that WHITHER scores ‘1’, and WHENCE is given the score of ‘2’.

WHERE

scores ‘0’,

3.5.1.2.3 Morphemes In this section, we could simply repeat the paragraph that we have used for Section 3.4.1.2.3 in connection to the group of sundry Indo-European languages of Europe. On the basis of our analysis, morph-numbers and morphemenumbers correspond perfectly to each other. It is thus superfluous to go through the pains of replicating what has been said in the foregoing section. The results are exactly the same (including the averages). Accordingly, WHERE scores ‘0’, WHITHER scores ‘1’, and WHENCE is given the score of ‘2’.

3.5.1.2.4 Zero-marking Zero-marking of directionality is attested in six non-European LPP-varieties of Europe. About a third of the languages of this group give evidence of the phenomenon at issue. The cases are presented in Table 271. Grey shaded cells host zero-marked word-forms. In case of overabundance the zero-marked wordforms are additionally printed in boldface. Table 271: Zero-marking of spatial interrogatives in versions of LPP in non-Indo-European languages of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

Chechen

mičax‘

miča

mičara

Laz

so

so

solen

Megrelian

so

so

son ~ solešen

Aramaic

ayko ~ hayko

layko

mayko

Basque

non

nora

nondik

Basque (Souletin)

non

norat

nontik

WHENCE

Spatial interrogatives of Source are excluded from zero-marking. Zero-marking is the privilege of WHERE and WHITHER. Two thirds of all zero-marked word-forms are representatives of WHERE. This share is almost twice as big as the share WHERE has of all constructions. The share WHERE holds of all constructions with overt marking of directionality, on the other hand, is remarkably low, cf. Diagram 97.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 401

100% 90% 3

80%

23

70% whence

60% 50%

18

40%

whither

5

30% 20%

where

17

10% 0% zero-marking

overt marking

Diagram 97: Distribution of spatial interrogatives across zero-marking and overt marking in non-Indo-European LPP varieties of Europe.

Nevertheless, the bulk of the constructions of all three of the spatial categories express directionality overtly, cf. Diagram 98. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

17

18

50%

23

40% 30% 20% 10%

5

3

0% where

whither zero-marking

whence

overt marking

Diagram 98: Distribution of zero-marking and overt marking across spatial interrogatives in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

402 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe This is the case for the WHENCE-constructions in their entirety. In the case of WHITHER, overt marking is six times as frequent as zero-marking. Overt marking of directionality outnumbers zero-marking with a ratio of three-to-one in the case of WHERE. Discounting the differences in the token frequency of zero-marking which separate WHERE from WHITHER, we assign the score of ‘0’ to both of these categories whereas WHENCE is given the score of ‘1’ because it never participates in zero-marking. 3.5.1.2.5 Syllables The number of syllables is identified for each construction separately in Table 272. Table 272: Number of syllables of spatial interrogatives in versions of LPP in non-Indo-European languages of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Saami (Inari)

1

1

1

Saami (Skolt)

1

1

1

Maltese

1

1

1

Megrelian

1

1

1~3

Laz

1

1

2

Georgian

1

1

3

Saami (North)

1

2

1

Estonian

1

2

1

Basque

1

2

2

Basque (Souletin)

1

2

2

Hungarian

1

2

2

Kazakh

2

2

2

Aramaic

2~2

2

2

Finnish

2

2

2

Mari (Hill)

2

2

2

Udmurt

2

2

2

Azerbaijani

2

2

2

Tatar

2

2

2~2

Abkhaz

2

2

3

Chechen

2

2

3

Turkish

3

3

3

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 403

Wherever identical number of syllables applies to two or three constructions of one and the same paradigm, the cells which host these constructions are marked by grey shading. In case of overabundance with word-forms which count a different number of syllables, the item which meets the criterion of equal size appears in boldface. The picture is relatively clear. Grey shading is dominant in Table 272. There are only eight cells which are not shaded grey. This corresponds to a share of slightly less than 13% of all cells. Of the sixty-seven word-forms, only nine boast an individual size in terms of syllables within a given paradigm. These nine word-forms yield a share of slightly more than 13% of all word-forms. In the vast majority of the cases, a given word-form will display a number of syllables which is identical to the number of syllables that make up the construction of at least one other member of the same paradigm. No paradigm consists of three constructions with different numbers of syllables. The maximum of syllables is three. There are monosyllabic, disyllabic, and trisyllabic constructions. The responsibility of half of all monosyllabic constructions lies with WHERE. Slightly more than half of all trisyllabic constructions go to the credit of WHENCE. As to the disyllabic constructions, the shares of the three categories are more but by no means completely balanced, cf. Diagram 99. 100% 90% 80%

6

11

70% 60%

6

50%

13

40% 30% 20%

whence

6

2

11

where

9

10%

whither

2

0% monosyllabic

disyllabic

trisyllabic

Diagram 99: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

404 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Monosyllabic constructions account for over 50% of all WHERE-constructions. Disyllabicity, however, is statistically dominant for both WHITHER and WHENCE. Trisyllabic constructions are relatively unimportant for all three of the spatial relations, cf. Diagram 100. 100% 90%

2

2 6

80% 70%

9

60%

trisyllabic

13

50%

11

disyllabic

40% 30% 20%

monosyllabic

11

10%

6

6

whither

whence

0% where

Diagram 100: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

Since disyllabicity is strong with WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE, we expect that there is a relatively substantial turnout of cases of equal size. This expectation is met by the combinations of WHERE and WHITHER, cf. Table 273. Seventeen out of twenty-three cases illustrate equal size in terms of the number of syllables. This means that in 74% of all combinations, it is impossible to distinguish WHERE from WHITHER on the basis of the number of syllables which are employed to form the constructions. The remaining six cases are all of one type, namely the combination of a monosyllabic spatial interrogative of Place with a disyllabic spatial interrogative of Goal. No WHITHER-construction counts less syllables than the corresponding WHERE-construction of the same paradigm.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 405

Table 273: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

σ

σσ

σσσ

σ

6

5

0

11

σσ

0

9

0

9

σσσ

0

0

2

2

Total

6

14

2

22

As to the combinations of WHERE and WHENCE, there are again seventeen cases of equal size. This number equals a share of 68% of the twenty-five pairings. The other eight cases involve a relatively short WHERE-construction in combination with a WHENCE-construction that is longer by up to two syllables. The opposite constellation is not attested, cf. Table 274. Table 274: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

σ

σσ

σσσ

σ

6

4

2

12

σσ

0

9

1

10

σσσ

0

0

2

2

Total

6

13

5

24

The situation is minimally different in the case of WHITHER-WHENCE pairs, cf. Table 275. First of all, there are the usual seventeen cases of equal size which yield a percentage of 74%. The remaining six cases can be divided in two classes. Four of these cases involve WHENCE-constructions which exceed the size of the corresponding WHITHER-construction by one or two syllables. On the other hand, there are also two instances of the opposite constellation, i.e. of combinations of a disyllabic spatial interrogative of Goal with a monosyllabic spatial interrogative of Source.

406 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 275: Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions according to their size in terms of syllables in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

σ

σσ

σσσ

σ

4

1

2

7

σσ

2

11

1

14

σσσ

0

0

2

2

Total

6

12

5

23

The preponderance of equal size notwithstanding, the above evidence speaks in favor of the relatively unmarked status of WHERE. The differences which separate WHITHER from WHENCE are not as pronounced as in several of the previous groups of LPP-varieties. The closeness of WHITHER and WHENCE results clearly from the calculated averages in Table 276. The distance between the average of WHITHER and that of WHENCE is 0.15. It is worth noting that both WHITHER and WHENCE exceed the general average. Table 276: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of syllables per construction) in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

syllables

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

1.5

1.8

1.9

1.7

In keeping to our rule that minimal differences are differences nevertheless we distribute the scores as follows. The score ‘0’ goes to WHERE, the score of ‘1’ is given to WHITHER, and the score of ‘2’ is ascribed to WHENCE.

3.5.1.2.6 Segments The degree of structural diversity increases further when we enter the realm of segments. The numbers in Table 277 are indicative of the number of segments employed for the constructions under scrutiny. We shade grey those paradigms which consist of three constructions of identical complexity as to the number of segments. This constellation of facts occurs in five languages, i.e. in slightly less than a quarter of all non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe 76% of which

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 407

are equipped with paradigms of spatial interrogatives which exploit the size of the phonological chains to distinguish constructions. Three different sizes per paradigm are attested in seven languages. These cases are identified via boldface. They account for a third of the group of languages under discussion. Some 43% of the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe distinguishes two different sizes per paradigm. Table 277: Segmental size of spatial interrogatives in versions of LPP in non-Indo-European languages of Europe. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Megrelian

2

2

3~7

Laz

2

2

5

Abkhaz

3

3

5

Georgian

3

3

6

Saami (North)

3

4

3

Estonian

3

4

4

Hungarian

3

4

5

Basque

3

4

6

Basque (Souletin)

3

5

6

Saami (Inari)

4

4

4

Saami (Skolt)

4

4

4

Maltese

4

4

5

Finnish

4

4

5

Aramaic

4~5

5

5

Tatar

5

4

5~6

Chechen

5

4

6

Azerbaijani

5

4

6

Mari (Hill)

5

5

5

Udmurt

5

5

5

Kazakh

5

5

6

Turkish

6

6

7

The lower limit is two segments whereas the upper limit is seven segments. All sizes in between the two extremes are realized in at least one of the LPP-varieties.

408 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Each of the spatial categories is represented by constructions of five different sizes. The size of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions ranges from two segments to six segments whereas the size of WHENCE-constructions covers the range from three to seven segments. There are thus zero-frequencies at the two extremes: WHERE and WHITHER avoid the maximum size of seven segments and WHENCE is never represented by a construction with the minimum size of two segments. WHERE is strong especially in connection to constructions with a size of two and three segments. WHITHER, however, stands out in the category of constructions of four segments. WHENCE dominates in the domain of the more sizable constructions of five segments and beyond, cf. Diagram 101 below. 100% 2

90% 80% 70%

2

3 9

2

60%

11

50%

30% 20% 10% 0%

2

5

40%

whence

7

whither

7 2

where

5

7

1 1

2 segments 3 segments 4 segments 5 segments 6 segments 7 segments Diagram 101: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

In the light of the above insights, it cannot surprise much to see that more than half of the WHITHER-constructions fall under the rubric of constructions with four segments. For the other two spatial categories the statistics are less clear. In both of these cases, none of the construction sizes accounts for much more than a third of all constructions. As to WHERE, constructions of three segments and constructions of five segments are statistically of identical importance. Similarly, constructions of five and six segments have the biggest shares of all WHENCEconstructions, cf. Diagram 102 below.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 409

100%

1

1

90% 80%

2 7 segments

7

5 7

70%

6 segments

60% 50%

5 11

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7 segments

5 segments

9 4 segments

7 2

3

2

2

2

where

whither

whence

0

0

2

6 segments

1

1

7

5 segments

7

5

9

4 segments

5

11

3

3 segments

7

2

2

2 segments

2

2

0

3 segments

2 segments

Diagram 102: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of segments in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

There is thus a certain preference of spatial interrogatives of Place for relatively short constructions as opposed to the spatial interrogative of Source which favors relatively long constructions. In the middle, there is WHITHER which prefers being represented by constructions of medium size. These different preferences induce us to expect that the profile of combinations of constructions is not as leveled as that of the foregoing section on syllables. The grey shading in Tables 278–280 highlights those cells which host the frequency values of combinations of equal size. In the case of WHERE and WHITHER, thirteen pairs involve equal number of segments for both constructions. With 56% more than half of all WHERE-WHITHER pairs attest this pattern. The nine remaining cases are distributed as follows. The WHITHER-construction outsizes the WHERE-construction six times whereas it is the other way round in three cases, cf. Table 278.

410 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 278: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions of different segmental size in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. WHERE

Sum

WHITHER

2

3

4

5

6

2

2

0

0

0

0

2

3

0

2

4

1

0

7

4

0

0

4

1

0

5

5

0

0

3

4

0

7

6

0

0

0

0

1

1

Total

2

2

11

6

1

22

Equal size is the exception in the case of combinations of WHERE and WHENCE. Identical numbers of segments is attested seven times and thus applies to 29% of all combinations. The majority of eighteen pairings (= 71%) consists of combinations of a segmentally less complex WHERE-construction with a segmentally more complex WHENCE-construction. There is no example of a WHERE-construction that counts more segments than the corresponding WHENCE-construction, cf. Table 279. Table 279: Combinations of WHERE-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. WHERE

Sum

WHENCE

3

4

5

6

7

2

1

0

1

0

1

3

3

1

1

2

3

0

7

4

0

2

3

0

0

5

5

0

0

4

4

0

8

6

0

0

0

0

1

1

Total

2

3

10

7

2

24

Similarly, equal size accounts only for six (= 26%) of WHITHER-WHENCE combinations. Of the other seventeen pairs of these categories, sixteen realize the pattern of a segmentally relatively simple WHITHER-construction with a segmentally more extended WHENCE-construction. This constellation is representative of 70%

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 411

of all combinations in Table 280. There is only an isolated example of a spatial interrogative of Goal which is represented by a construction which exceeds the construction of the spatial interrogative of Source by a segment. Table 280: Combinations of WHITHER-constructions and WHENCE-constructions of different segmental size in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. WHITHER

Sum

WHENCE

3

4

5

6

7

2

1

0

1

0

1

3

3

0

0

1

1

0

2

4

1

3

4

4

0

12

5

0

0

3

2

0

5

6

0

0

0

0

1

1

Total

2

3

9

7

2

23

The above values are suggestive of a relatively narrow gap between WHERE and WHITHER. In contrast, the gap between these two and WHENCE is certainly much bigger. This hypothesis is borne out by the averages in Table 281. The averages of WHERE and WHITHER are separated from each other by just 0.2 points. WHENCE, on the other hand, is distanced from WHITHER by a value of 1.0 and is the only category that goes beyond the general average. Table 281: Average size of spatial interrogatives (number of segments per construction) in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

segments

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Spatial interrogative

4.0

4.2

5.2

4.4

The values in Table 281 can be translated directly into the following scores: WHERE = ‘0’, WHITHER = ‘1’, and WHENCE = ‘2’.

412 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 3.5.1.2.7 Results in the realm of complexity Except on the parameter of the number of words, the non-Indo-European LPPvarieties are well-behaved in the sense that they yield scores which are largely in conformity with the majority of scores of the majority of the Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe (the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe constituting a notable exception), cf. Table 282. Table 282: Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Level

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

words (!)

0

0

0

morphs

0

1

2

morphemes

0

1

2

zero-marking

0

0

1

syllables

0

1

2

segments

0

1

2

Total

0

4

9

Since Table 282 reflects a pattern that is already known from the Romance LPPvarieties and the Germanic LPP-varieties (cf. Tables 97 and 153 above), it is unnecessary to go into the details. According to the scores in Table 199, the Slavic LPP-varieties diverge marginally from the general tendency. Therefore, the Diagram 103 resembles the Diagrams 13 and 56 very much, the major difference being that the total is slightly lower in the case of the non-Indo-European LPPvarieties of Europe. 10 8 6 4 2 0 where

whither

whence

Diagram 103: Scores of complexity of non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 413

In sum, the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties conform very much to the picture painted on the basis of the Romance and Germanic LPP-varieties – and to some extent also on the basis of the Slavic evidence. Put differently, the non-IndoEuropean LPP-varieties of Europe are in line with the overall patterns whereas the sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe behave very differently.

3.5.1.3 Derivation (synchronic analysis) The majority of the word-forms organized in paradigms of spatial interrogatives in the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe are not in a direct derivational relationship among each other. In fourteen paradigms, the three spatial interrogatives realize the construction pattern [Q-DIRECTIONALITY]spatial interrogative. This means that they are derived from a basis which is not part of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives itself. This leaves us with a minority of ten paradigms which host word-forms at least some of which are derivationally interrelated, cf. Table 283. Table 283: Derivational patterns in non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. Pattern

Frequence

Share

A/A/A+z

4

40%

A(+x)/A+y/A+z

2

20%

A/B/A+z

2

20%

A/A/C

1

10%

B+x/B/B+z

1

10%

Total

10

100%

For some 57% of all paradigms no internal derivational relationship can be identified. In the context of the Indo-European LPP-varieties, this percentage is remarkably high. For Indo-European LPP-varieties it is relatively normal that the members of a paradigm show some kind of derivational relation. In contrast, this situation is clearly in the minority in the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties of Europe. The subsequent sections will reveal whether or not this and similar differences are also identifiable with the DGB-varieties.

414 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 3.5.2 About qualities In this section, the main focus is on broadening our empirical horizon by way of including into the discussion fresh data from varieties which do not form part of the sample of languages which boast a translation of Le Petit Prince. Four such languages are Kalmyk (Mongolian), Lezgian (East Caucasian), Ubykh (Northwest Caucasian), and Yurak (= Nenets) (Uralic) whose paradigms of spatial interrogatives can be found in Sections 1 and 2 above in Tables 31, 10, 33, and 26, respectively. To enlarge our empirical basis, we start with the presentation of data from further Uralic languages.

3.5.2.1 Uralic The Balto-Finnic language Livonian is on the verge of extinction if it has not become completely obsolete already. Throughout its history, Livonian has been under the influence of neighboring varieties of Latvian. This long-term neighborhood relation has left a clear mark on the structure and lexicon of Livonian which has undergone heavy Balticization (Larsson 2001: 249–50). The structure of the Livonian paradigm of spatial interrogatives also bears evidence of contact-induced changes. According to De Sivers (2001: 50), there is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism in Livonian, cf. (147). (147) (147.1)

(147.2)

(147.3)

Livonian Place Kus sa uod? P?/G? you be:2SG ‘Where are you?’ Goal Kus sa lǟd? P?/G? you go:2SG ‘Where do you go?’ Source Kust sa tulad? S? you come:2SG ‘Where do you come from?’

[De Sivers 2001: 50]

The spatial interrogative of Source is recognizable as an interrogative pronoun inflected for the elative which regularly ends in -st. As to the formally identical WHERE and WHITHER, it is the regular inessive suffix -s which is added to the Qstem. This is remarkable because in the bulk of the Livonian declensions – be the

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 415

nominal or pronominal – the two cases are formally distinct as in INESSIVE suks vs. ILLATIVE suggõ (← sug ‘parent’), INESSIVE īts vs. ILLATIVE īdõ (← ikš ‘one’), INESSIVE sīes ~ siessõ vs. ILLATIVE sīezõ (← sīe ~ se ‘this’). In some cases the distinction of the two cases rests exclusively on the voiced-voiceless contrast of the word-final sibilant as in INESSIVE eņtšõs vs. ILLATIVE eņtšõz (← iž ‘self’) or syncretism applies as in INESSIVE = ILLATIVE mingizõs (← mingi ‘which, what kind’) (De Sivers 2001: 39–49). We do not assume that the WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism has been caused by sound change alone. It seems much more likely that the Latvian patterns (as captured by Table 257 above) have been copied into Livonian so that the frequent albeit not compulsory WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism of the dominant Baltic languages has been transferred also to the Balto-Finnic minority language. Our interpretation of the Livonian facts receives support from the Uralic LPP-varieties. Five of those (= Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Mari [Hill], and Udmurt) display tripartite paradigms of the type WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. The Hungarian sample sentences in (148) are representative of this pattern so that it is unnecessary to provide additional proof from any of the other four languages of this type. (148) (148.1)

(148.2)

(148.3)

Hungarian [LPP Hungarian, 17] Source Honnét jöttél, emberkém? S? come:PRET.2SG man:DIM:1SG ‘Where have you come from, my little man?’ Place Hol van az az odahaza? P? be.3SG DEM.DIS DET DIR:home ‘Where is that home of yours?’ Goal Hová akarod magaddal vinni a bárányomat? G? want:2SG self:COM take:FUT DET lamb:1SG:ACC ‘Where do you want to take my lamb?’

As far as we can tell on the basis of our corpus texts and the information given in the descriptive linguistic literature, there is no variation in Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, and Udmurt as to the formal distinctions within the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. The reference grammars we have consulted (i.e. Tauli 1983, Karlsson 1984, Tompa 1972, and Winkler 2011) do not suggest that the

416 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe spatial interrogatives yield paradigms in which mismatches occur.46 Livonian thus behaves markedly differently from this group of genetically related languages, cf. Table 284. Table 284: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in five Uralic languages. Spatial relation

Estonian

Finnish

Hungarian

Udmurt

Livonian

Place

kus

missä

hol

ki̮ti̮n

kus

Goal

kuhu

minne

hová

ki̮ti̮

kus

Source

kust

mistä

honnét

ki̮ti̮

kust

In the case of Mari the situation is also slightly different from that of the above LPP-varieties. Alhoniemi (1993: 86) provides the paradigms of spatial interrogatives for the two major varieties of Mari, namely Mari (Hill) (aka Western Mari) and Mari (Meadows) (aka Eastern Mari). Note that the LPP-variety of Mari is supposed to reflect the structures of the Hill variety of Mari. We reproduce these paradigms in Table 285. Table 285: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three varieties of Mari. Spatial relation

LPP

Mari (Hill)

Mari (Meadows)

Place

kyšty

kə̂štə̂ ~ kə̂šak ~ kə̂šaken

kušto ~ kušan ~ kušak ~ kušakə̂n

Goal

kyšky

kə̂š ~ kə̂škə̂ ~ kə̂šak ~ kə̂šaken

kuš ~ kuško ~ kušan ~ kušak ~ kušakə̂n

Source

kyšec

kə̂šec

kuše

The homogeneous character of the LPP-variety is not reflected in the regional varieties of Mari. Not only is there overabundance in the cells of WHERE and WHITHER but there is also clear evidence of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. The spatial interrogatives reflect the construction type [Q-CASE]spatial interrogative. The spatial || 46 In addition to kus ‘where’, kuhu ‘whither’, and kust ‘whence’, Tauli (1983: 314) mentions a second ternary set of spatial interrogatives, namely the doubly inflected kuspool ‘where (in which direction)’, kuhupoole ‘whither (in which direction), and kustpoolt ‘whence (from which direction)’ for which he claims that they may replace the primary set of spatial interrogatives. We do not assume that the two sets are fully synonymous functionally and thus exclude the members of the second set from the further discussion.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 417

interrogative of Source hosts the case exponent of the elative. The distinct wordforms of WHERE and WHITHER are identical to the regular inessive and illative, respectively. In contrast, the syncretic word-forms of WHERE and WHITHER are inflected for the lative case. It is worth noting that one of the allomorphs of the spatial interrogative of Goal is monosyllabic whereas all other word-forms are polysyllabic. This means that WHITHER boasts the least complex construction. Since kə̂š ~ kuš ‘whither’ is formally identical with the Q-stem, one might also speak of zero-marking although the short allomorph of the illative for instance on nouns and adjectives is -š (vs. long -škə̂ in the western variety) (Alhoniemi 1993: 48), i.e. the case suffix and the final segment of the Q-stem are phonologically the same. Since geminates are not tolerated in word-final position and geminates tend to be simplified on the morpheme boundaries (Alhoniemi 1993: 27), it can be assumed that *-šš# is degeminated to -š#. Given that this scenario describes the facts accurately, it may be argued that the monosyllabic wordforms of the spatial interrogative of Goal are dimorphemic so that there is no zero-marking at all. For obvious reasons, we cannot pursue this investigation any further since we are not knowledgeable enough in the synchronic and diachronic phonology of the Uralic languages to solve the problem adequately. What suffices here is that Livonian is not absolutely isolated within the Uralic language family as to the pattern of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. Mari and Livonian do not yield fully identical results because the two DGB-varieties of Mari combine syncretism with formal distinctivity via overabundance whereas Livonian does not seem to allow for two different patterns to coexist. The other case of syncretism which is attested in the Uralic languages deserves to be investigated more closely. The three Saami LPP-varieties give evidence of WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism. The examples in (149) are taken from the Saami (North) translation of Le Petit Prince. They are representative of all Saami varieties discussed in this study. (149) (149.1)

(149.2)

Saami (North) [LPP Saami (North), 16] Source Gos don leat eret, uhcaalbmaš? P?/S? you be:2SG away little_child:1SG ‘Where are you from, my little child? Place Gos lea du ruoktu? P?/S? be.3SG you.GEN home:2SG ‘Where is your home?’

418 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (149.3)

Goal Gosa don áiggot doalvut dien G? you want:2SG guide:INF DEM:ACC ‘Where do you want to take this sheep?’

sávzza? sheep

Neither Bartens (1989: 236) nor Nickel (1990: 157) mentions any variation in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Saami (North). We assume that this absence of variation holds also for the other LPP-varieties of Saami, cf. Table 286. Table 286: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three Saami LPP-varieties. Spatial relation

Saami (Inari)

Saami (Skolt)

Saami (North)

Place

kost

ko’st

gos

Goal

kuus

koozz

gosa

Source

kost

ko’st

gos

The close association of WHERE and WHENCE is thus well established. It is also pervasive outside the realm of the spatial interrogatives so that Pantcheva (2011: 237– 241) concedes that the Saami case is perhaps an exception (albeit in her wording only a “spurious” one) to her rule according to which the pattern (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER is generally illicit. We come back to this issue in Section 5 below. What needs to mentioned at this point is that Pantcheva (2011: 237–238) argues against Place=Source-syncretism in the distantly related Veps because there are formal differences of the constructions employed for these functions. Superficially, in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives, no such formal distinctions seem to be identifiable. According to Laanest (1982: 201), the word-form miš ‘where = whence’ is ambiguous as to the Place or Source reading whereas the WHITHERconstruction mihe ‘whither’ is separate. However, the Veps-Russian dictionary yields different results (Zajceva & Mullonen 1972). It is therefore worth to check more generally how the minor Balto-Finnic languages behave. It must be said right at the start that the paradigms are characterized by relatively strong variation. In a number of cases, it is clear that we are facing regional differences, i.e. the varieties of different districts and villages make use of different constructions. The information provided by our sources does not always indicate in a sufficiently clear way to which sub-variety a given word-form belongs or whether free variation of allomorphs applies within one and the same sub-variety. The data in Table 287 give an impression of the range of variation reported for Veps and Votic alone. Veps A reflects the description given by

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 419

Laanest (1982: 201) whereas Veps B is based on Zajceva & Mullonen (1972: 245, 249, and 329). In the case of Votic, A is representative of the supposed standard. B subsumes the western varieties of Votic whereas the eastern varieties are constitutive of C (Adler & Leppik 1994: 269, 318, and 320–321). D is based on the data in Ariste’s (1968: 108) grammar of Votic. Table 287: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in varieties of Veps and Votic. Spatial relation

Veps

Votic

A

B

A

B

Place

miš

kus

kuza ~ kualla

kus ~ kuss ~ kusa ~ kuza kuus ~ kuall

Goal

mihe

kuna ~ mihe kuhõõ ~ kunnõ

kuhyõ ~kuhhõõ ~ kuhõ ~ kuhõm ~ kuhē̬ kuhõ ~ kuhe ~ kuõ ~ kuhõn ~ kuhõG ~ kuhoo ~ kunnõ kuhõt ~ kuhõGõ

Source

miš

kuspäi

kus ~ kuss ~ kust ~ kussa kusta ~ kualt ~ kualtõ

kussa ~ kualta

C

D kuza

kussa

Only Veps A and Votic D do not display overabundance. For the majority of the paradigms it seems that they are dominated by overabundance. However, the coexistence of several word-forms in a cell does not necessarily imply that the word-forms are used by speakers of the same sub-variety. Thus, the above wealth of synonymous word-forms must be taken with a grain of salt. It cannot be ruled out that several of the supposedly competing word-forms are unique to individual sub-varieties. More importantly, among a plethora of distinct wordforms, Votic B also yields identical constructions for the spatial interrogatives of Place and Source. There are the examples of kus ‘where = whence’ and kuss ‘where = whence’. All other allomorphs or regional options including the seven different expressions of WHITHER are non-syncretic. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether or not the identical word-forms of WHERE and WHENCE actually occur in the same paradigm of the same sub-variety. They are features of western Votic that much is clear. However, it is possible that we have binary combinations of distinct constructions according to the pattern kus ‘where’ ≠ kuss ‘whence’ or kuss ‘where’ ≠ kus ‘whence’ (the latter constellation was probably representative of the western Votic variety of Rudja in the 19th century). This means that the exact constellation of facts has to be established yet. As to Veps, Pantcheva (2011: 237–238) receives support from the dictionary entries. The Source relation is marked differently from that of Place. The WHENCE-construction is based on the WHERE-construction. However, the WHENCE-

420 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe construction hosts an additional morph -päi which is suffixed to the WHEREconstruction kus ‘where’ to yield kuspäi ‘whence’. This is exactly the same pattern like the one that distinguishes the elative from the inessive in the declension of nouns in Veps. The evidence of WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism is thus very weak in Veps and Votic. The situation is not much different in the case of Ingrian, Karelian, and Ludian. First of all, we have not been able to find a complete paradigm of spatial interrogatives for Ingrian since our sources do not mention any WHENCEconstruction at all. What can be ascertained on the basis of Saar (2011: 65–67) is that Ingrian has distinct spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal, namely kus ‘where’ and kuhu ‘whither’. As to Karelian, there is again a multitude of regional varieties to be distinguished. As in the Votic case above, it is next to impossible to reconstruct the full paradigm for each of the individual varieties. The Karelian data are taken from Virtaranta (1974: 476) and Saar (2011: 65–67). There is no evidence of syncretism in any of the Karelian varieties.47 For Ludian, however, Kujola (1944: 175) assumes that WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism applies generally across all regional varieties so that each of the many allomorphs of WHERE is also an allomorph of WHENCE and vice versa, cf. Table 288. Table 288: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three Uralic languages. Spatial relation

Karelian

Ludian

Place

kušš ~ kuz ~ kusbo

kus ~ kuz ~ kuss ~ kuš ~ kus’

Goal

kuh ~ kus ~ kunnebo

kuhu ~ kuhę

Source

kuštapäi ~ kuštaba ~ kuzbopäi

kus ~ kuz ~ kuss ~ kuš ~ kus’

Unfortunately, the sentential examples provided by Kujola (1944) do not always involve the syncretic items in their function as spatial interrogatives in direct questions. The only example of a Source relation, for instance, is an indirect question. Therefore, the evidence of WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism is again but || 47 With reference to the Karelian data, it must be noted that all of the three WHENCEconstructions give evidence of secondary morphological incrementation. There is the additional -päi as in the examples from Veps. The form kuzbopäi ‘whence’ is especially intriguing since it involves kuzbo (~ kusbo) ‘where’ which, in turn, consists of kuz ‘where’ + the morphological increment -bo. Stoebke (1968: 128) claims that the element -päi is a spatial postposition which combines with the illative, elative, and ablative “zur Betonung der Kasusfunktion”. This would mean that the use of -päi is not necessarily confined to expressions of the Source relation. In Votic, however, -päi is said to always trigger a Source reading (Stoebke 1968: 145).

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 421

weak. Nevertheless, nothing precludes the possibility that this pattern which is well established in the Saami languages also shows up occasionally in languages which are only distantly related to the Saami branch of Uralic. Further traces of WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism have not been identified in the Uralic languages of Europe. Komi, Mordvin, and Tundra Nenets (= Yurak) are equipped with paradigms which are organized according to the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. They thus resemble the LPP-varieties of Estonian, Finnish, and Hungarian. The Mordvin examples in (150) show that there is neither syncretism nor overabundance. (150) (150.1)

(150.2)

(150.3)

Mordvin Place Koso erät? P? be:2SG ‘Where do you live?’ Goal Kozoń monen erävi G? I:DAT be:POT ‘Where do I have to go?’ Source Ton kostoń? You S? ‘Where are you from?’

[Djordjević & Léonard 2006: 224]

[Djordjević & Léonard 2006: 224] sams? go:INF [Djordjević & Léonard 2006: 217]

This is probably also the case with Tundra Nenets although Nikolaeva (2014: 50) mentions a ternary set of basic spatial interrogatives which fail to show up in the accompanying texts and the sentential examples throughout the grammar. What we find instead are more complex word-forms which are identical to those reported for Yurak (= Nenets) in Table 26 above. There is ample evidence of these more complex word-forms in the Tundra Nenets text anthology, cf. (151). (151) (151.1)

(151.2)

Tundra Nenets Place [Nikolaeva 2014: 266] T’en’ana Wera t’ukuo ti-m xən’ana xada-sa-da? yesterday Wera this reindeer-ACC P? kill-INTERR-3SG>SG.OBJ ‘Where did Wera kill this reindeer yesterday?’ Goal [Nikolaeva 2014: 442] S’aq pado-wexoh xən’ah xanotəŋa-xoh? face paint-PERF.PTCPL.DU G? go.FUT-3DU ‘Where could the Tunguses go?’

422 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (151.3)

(Goal +) Source [Nikolaeva 2014: 469] o o Xən’ah xǣ-bc’ -də-m’i xən’ad xo-ŋku-dom? G? go-N-PRED-ACC.1SG S? find-FUT-1SG ‘How [lit. whence] can I find out where I should go?’

We assume that there is overabundance in each of the cells of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Tundra Nenets although the textual evidence of the short allomorphs is nil. In the case of Komi (Avril 2006: 52), overabundance is restricted to the spatial interrogative of Place. Table 289: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in three Uralic languages of Europe. Spatial relation

Komi

Mordvin

Tundra Nenets

Place

kytön ~ köni ~ kön

koso

xuna ~ xən’ana

Goal

kytčö

kozoń

xuh ~ xən’ah

Source

kytys’

kostoń

xudo ~ xən’ado

To conclude the survey of the Uralic languages of Europe, we emphasize that this group is relatively heterogeneous as to the syncretic patterns since there is evidence of three different patterns. Beside paradigms with three distinct constructions, there are also paradigms which allow for WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism or WHERE=WHENCE syncretism. Overabundance too is a relatively frequent phenomenon especially in those varieties which lack a normative standard or are in a situation of imminent language death. That there is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism could not have been told from analyzing the sample text alone. Similarly, overabundance is a phenomenon that can be identified best on the basis of the DGBvarieties. In many cases, all of the spatial relations are expressed overtly because the constructions consist of a Q-stem which hosts (spatial) case inflexions. If there are differences in the number of syllables and segments in a given paradigm, the spatial interrogative of Place turns out to be represented by a monosyllable which consists of the lowest number of segments of all members of the paradigm in fourteen cases. The spatial interrogative of Goal fulfills these requirements only six times. The spatial interrogative of Source displays the necessary properties nine times albeit it mostly does so if it is syncretic with WHERE.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 423

3.5.2.2 Turkic The four Turkic LPP-varieties of Europe do not behave homogeneously (also in terms of the etymology of the Q-stems). Turkish and Azerbaijani illustrate paradigms with three distinct word-forms. Each of the spatial relations is overtly expressed. Tatar and Kazakh differ from this pattern insofar as both of the languages give evidence of overabundance albeit in different cells. Moreover, Kazakh allows for WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. The short allomorph of the spatial interrogative of Place is a good example of zero-marking, cf. Table 290. Table 290: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in the four Turkic LPP-varieties of Europe. Spatial relation

Turkish

Azerbaijani

Tatar

Kazakh

Place

nerede

harda

kajda

ķajda

Goal

nereye

hara

kaja

ķajda

Source

nereden

hardan

kajdan ~ kajan

ķajdan

In her grammar of Turkish, Ersen-Rasch (2012: 79) states that there is also a short allomorph of the spatial interrogative of Place nerede ‘where’, namely nerde ‘where’. She argues that this syncopated word-form is typical of the spoken register. However, this does not mean that nerde ‘where’ is excluded from written Turkish. To the contrary, according to Ersen-Rasch (2012: 79) even highquality writers employ the short allomorph extensively because there is a functional difference. The long form nerede ‘where’ always refers to a concrete spatial object whereas the short form nerde ‘where’ may also be used in metaphorical contexts. It remains unclear whether pairs of short and long forms exist also in the case of WHITHER and WHENCE. Since the domains of nerede ‘where’ and nerde ‘where’ overlap without being absolutely identical, it may be argued that we are not dealing with a genuine case of overabundance but rather with a case of overdifferentiation (Corbett 2007: 30). A given category – in this case that of WHERE – allows for more distinctions than other members of the same paradigm. Since similar constellations are also reported for other Turkic languages, we proceed as follows. Wherever the facts seem to indicate that overdifferentiation might apply, we exclude the surplus word-forms from the paradigm to avoid an overestimation of the incidence of overabundance – or in case of doubt brackets are used to mark the word-forms as doubtful candidates. We are aware of the danger of misunderstanding the by no means always transparent facts. The situation in Azerbaijani is slightly different. We first look at the data from the sample text in (152).

424 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (152) (152.1)

(152.2)

(152.3)

Azerbaijani [LPP Azerbaijani, 394] Source Balaca, sän hardan gälmisän? little you S? come:PERF:2SG ‘Where have you come from, little one?’ Place Sänin evin harda-dır? you:GEN house:POSS P?-be.3SG ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Sän mänim quzumu hara aparmaq istäyirsän? you my lamb:ACC.DEF G? bring:INF want:PRES:2SG ‘Where do you want to take my lamb?’

The spatial interrogatives as they are attested in the Azerbaijani translation of Le Petit Prince differ from those of the contemporary standard which is reflected in the pedagogical grammar by Rahmati & Buğday (1998). The most important difference involves the word-form hara which has the function of WHITHER in the LPP-variety but that of WHERE in the grammar. Since there are two allomorphs of WHERE, the DGB-variety of Azerbaijani also attests to overabundance whereas the LPP-variety does not allow for overabundance. A further difference is connected to the number of syllables of the constructions. Disyllabicity is the rule for all members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives in the LPP-variety. In contrast, three of four constructions in Rahmati & Buğday (1998) are trisyllabic because the Q-stem ends in -a. This vowel does not undergo syncope under suffixation. In the LPP-variety, the Q-stem is the bound stem har-, meaning: all spatial relations are marked overtly. In contrast, the spatial interrogative of Place hara ‘where’ of the DGB-variety is identical to the Q-stem and thus may be considered a case of zero-marking. The variation in paradigms of spatial interrogatives of Turkish and Azerbaijani are presented synoptically in Table 291. Table 291: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Azerbaijani. Spatial relation

Azerbaijani

Turkish LPP

Ersen-Rasch 2012

LPP

Rahmati & Buğday 1998

Place

nerede

nerede (~ nerde)

harda

hara ~ harada

Goal

nereye

nereye

hara

haraya

Source

nereden

nereden

hardan

haradan

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 425

In contrast to Turkish and Azerbaijani, the Tatar LPP-variety attests to overabundance. There are two different WHENCE-constructions the first of which is illustrated in (153.1) and the second alternative is given in (154). (153) (153.1)

(153.2)

(153.3)

Tatar Source Kaydan kildeŋ soŋ S? come:PRET:2SG end ‘Where have you come from, little one?’ Place Öeŋ kayda? house:2SG P? ‘Where is your house?’ Goal Minem bäränne kaja alïp my lamb:1SG.ACC G? take:CONV ‘Where are you going to take my lamb?’

[LPP Tatar, 13] sin, bala? you little

kitmäkče bulasïŋ? go:INF:ACTOR be:2SG

The second whence-expression can be understood as the short allomorph of kaydan ‘whence’ because its chain of segments kayan ‘whence’ is shorter by exactly one element: the initial dental plosive /d/ of the exponent of the ablative -dan is missing, cf. (154). (154)

Tatar – Source Sin kajan? you S? ‘Where are you from?’

[LPP Tatar, 55]

The coexistence of the two allomorphs of the spatial interrogative of Source is explicitly acknowledged in Ersen-Rasch (2009a: 40). For Bashkir – a very close relative of Tatar, however, the same author does not mention overabundance in her practical course of Bashkir (the course being structured very similarly to that of Tatar). Bashkir differs further from Tatar as well as from Turkish and Azerbaijani because it gives evidence of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism, cf. (155) (cf. Benzing 1959b). (155) (155.1)

Bashkir Place Heð kayða yäšäyhegeð? you.PL P?/G? live:2PL ‘Where do you live?’

[Ersen-Rasch 2009b: 25]

426 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (155.2)

(155.3)

Goal Kayða barahïɣïð? P?/G? go:2PL ‘Where do you go?’ Source Kem kayðan? who S? ‘Who is from where?’

[Ersen-Rasch 2009b: 39]

[Ersen-Rasch 2009b: 38]

The Kazakh LPP-variety reflects the pattern of Bashkir in the sense that the translation of Le Petit Prince gives evidence of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism, cf. (156). (156) (156.1)

(156.2)

(156.3)

Kazakh [LPP Kazakh, 14] Source Balaķaj, sen ķajdan keldiņ? boy you S? come:PRET:2SG ‘Little one, where have you come from?’ Place Ùjìņ ķajda? house:2SG P?/G? ‘Where is your house?’ Goal Menìņ ķošaķanymdy ķajda alyp ketpekšìsìņ? my lamb:1SG:ACC P?/G? take:CONV go:FUT:2SG ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

The account of the system of spatial interrogatives in the grammatical sketch of Kazakh by Landmann (2012: 27) tells a different story: the author mentions a parallel set of multi-word constructions of the type [Qwhich žer-CASE]spatial interrogative. This construction involves the noun žer ‘place, ground’ and the interrogative pronoun ķaj ‘which’. From Landmann’s presentation of the data, it seems relatively clear that the mono-word constructions and the multi-word constructions are fully synonymous so that the latter cannot be excluded from our study although they are structurally similar to those “secondary” constructions we have discounted as pieces of evidence in Sections 1–2 above. Since we do not have sentential examples of the employment of the multi-word constructions in Kazakh, there remains a wide margin of doubt as to the correctness of our interpretation. Given that our analysis captures the structural facts adequately, Kazakh boasts two constructions in each of the cells of its paradigm of spatial interrogatives. The mono-word constructions are further characterized by WHERE=WHITH-

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 427

ER-syncretism

whereas the multi-word constructions do not tolerate any syncretism at all. Bashkir is described as a language without overabundance. The same can be said for Chuvash. Benzing (1959c: 736) identifies the spatial interrogatives of Chuvash which he considers to be etymologically opaque. This problem notwithstanding, the Chuvash spatial interrogatives yield a paradigm which is organized like that of neighboring Bashkir, i.e. in Chuvash WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism applies too, cf. (157). (157) (157.1)

(157.2)

(157.3)

Chuvash Place [Benzing 1943: 69] Zav zyn ăzta-rah purănatj? that man P?/G?-still live:3SG ‘Where does that man live?’ Goal [Benzing 1943: 33] Ăzta kajatan? P?/G? go:2SG ‘Where do you go?’ Source [Benzing 1943: 117] Ăztan züreje văl, züreimes. S? go:INF it go:NEG:FUT ‘How [lit. whence] should it work, it doesn’t work?’

Several of the more easterly Turkic languages of Europe thus share the feature of encoding the relations of Place and Source identically under interrogation, cf. Table 292. Table 292: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Tatar, Kazakh, Bashkir, and Chuvash. Spatial relation

Tatar

Kazakh

Bashkir

Chuvash

Place

kayda

ķajda ~ kay žerde [!]

kayða

ăśta

Goal

kaya

ķajda ~ kay žerge [!]

kayða

ăśta

Source

kaydan ~ kayan

ķajdan ~ kay žerden [!]

kayðan

ăśtan

The data in Table 293 show that syncretism is not a majority feature of the Turkic languages in Europe. A western variety like Gagauz (Karanfil 2010) and a Turkic language spoken in the Caucasian region, Balkar (Pritsak 1959b: 357 and 359), lack evidence of any kind of syncretism. In contrast, Kumyk (Benzing 1959a: 402; Doniyorova & Qahramonil 2004: 28–29 and 70–71) seems to replicate the above paradigm of Kazakh. All three of the languages surveyed in Table

428 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 293 give evidence of overabundance though different cells are affected in Gagauz, Balkar, and Kumyk. Table 293: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Gagauz, Kumyk, and Balkar. Spatial relation

Gagauz

Balkar

Kumyk

Place

näända ~ neredä ~ nerdä

qayda

ne (y)erde [!] ~ qajda

Goal

näänı ~ nerey ~ nereyä

qayrï

ne (y)erge [!] ~ qajda

Source

neredän

qalaytin ~ qaydan

ne (y)erden [!] ~ qajdan

The absence of syncretism from the paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Gagauz does not mean that more westerly varieties of Turkic are generally immune against this kind of mismatch. Prokosch (2006: 126–127 and 306–307) describes the paradigms of the spatial interrogatives for two varieties of Crimean Tatar, cf. Table 294. Table 294: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Crimean Tatar. Spatial relation

Written standard

Dobrudja

Place

qayda ~ qana

kayda

Goal

qayda

kayda

Source

qaydan

kaydan

In both varieties, there exist further mono-word constructions which, superficially, seem to fit the definition of spatial interrogative. However, these elements seem to be more specific semantically. Prokosch (2006: 127) mentions qayaqda ‘where’, qayärgä ‘whither’, qayärinä ‘whither’, and qayärdan ‘whence’ for the standard variety. In the case of the Crimean Tatar spoken in the Dobrudja, he adds kayĭrde ‘where’ and kayĭrge ‘whither’ to the list (Prokosch 2006: 307). On the basis of the odd remark of Prokosch’s, we assume that these interrogatives invite a reading which might be paraphrased as “where/whither/ whence in a narrowly circumscribed area” (in Prokosch’s [2006: 307] own wording: “innerhalb eines bestimmten Areals”). We therefore exclude these lookalike cases from the further discussion of spatial interrogatives in Turkic because they are examples of overdifferentiation in lieu of overabundance.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 429

The two varieties of Karaim – Troki and Halič – yield slightly different paradigms according to the description by Pritsak (1959a: 333). Only in Halič do we find overabundance since there are pairs of long and short allomorphs in each of the cells of the paradigm. Neither of the two varieties gives evidence of syncretism, cf. Table 295. Table 295: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Karaim. Spatial relation

Troki

Halič

Place

qayda

qayda ~ qaa

Goal

käyrä

qayirï ~ qayrï

Source

qaydan

qaydan ~ qaan

Overabundance was already a characteristic trait of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Old Turkic in Table 296. We will return to the Old Turkic data below when we discuss the evidence from languages spoken in Asia. At this point it suffices to take note of the fact that the spatial interrogative of Goal is exempt from overabundance in Old Turkic. At the same time, there is no syncretism. One might speculate therefore that overabundance of WHITHER-constructions is a relatively late development in the history of the Turkic languages of Europe. Similarly, WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism must also be a feature that has been acquired after the Old Turkic period – perhaps via language contact. Table 296: Paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Old Turkic. Spatial relation

Gabain (1950: 99 and 326) and Gabain (1959: 34)

Place

qanta ~ qanda ~ qanï

Goal

qanča

Source

qanyuda ~ qand(ï)n

The Turkic languages of Europe yield a relatively heterogeneous picture. Table 297 accounts for the parallel occurrence of overabundance and syncretism in the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of the Turkic varieties discussed in this section. We do not distinguish LPP-varieties from DGB-varieties in this table.

430 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 297: Distribution of mismatches over Turkic varieties of Europe.

syncretism

Combination of features

Overabundance yes

no

yes

Kazakh, Kumyk, Crimean Tatar (Standard)

Bashkir, Chuvash, Dobrudja

no

Azerbaijani, Balkar, Gagauz, Halič, Tatar, Turkish

Troki

The above distribution notwithstanding, the Turkic languages of Europe conform largely to the general patterns established in the foregoing sections. Among other things we see that if there are different degrees of complexity of the constructions in a paradigm, it is usually that of the spatial interrogative of Source which exceeds the others in size. The three spatial relations are normally expressed overtly. In several languages, WHITHER is encoded more “economically” than WHERE. In Section 4 we will learn whether or not the Turkic languages spoken outside of Europe behave according to the above pattern.

3.5.2.3 The three Caucasian language families This section covers the three Caucasian language families without assuming that Northwest Caucasian, Northeast Caucasian, and South Caucasian are genetically related to each other. Only for purely practical purposes do we discuss these languages in a common section. However, each of the three language families is entitled to a separate subsection of its own. We start with Northwest Caucasian. Then we move to Northeast Caucasian to conclude this section by way of discussing the situation in South Caucasian.

3.5.2.3.1 Northwest Caucasian The sole LPP-variety which represents the Northwest Caucasian languages is the Abkhaz translation of Le Petit Prince. The morphological structure of Abkhaz is demanding for the researcher who is not familiar with languages of this genetic group. We are therefore uncertain whether our interpretation of the sample sentences in (158) is correct for each of the relevant aspects. (158) (158.1)

Abkhaz Source W-abanṭo-aay wara? 2SG-S?-COP:INTERR 2SG:come:FUT ‘Where do you come from.’

[LPP Abkhaz, 49]

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 431

(158.2)

(158.3)

Place Wəčənə aba-qaw? 2SG:house P?/G?-be:INTERR ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Y-aba-coy 3SG.M/NON_HUM-P?G?-EMPH:INTERR ‘Where might it go?’

[LPP Abkhaz, 14]

[LPP Abkhaz, 14] zwg ah wa wey? POT:INTERR:go:PRES it o

o

The spatial interrogatives of Abkhaz are embedded in a construction frame which reserves a prefix slot for pronominal elements and several suffix slots which host verbal morphology, pragmatic and interrogative markers. The syncretic aba- ‘where = whither’ and the WHENCE-construction abanto- ‘whence’ are morphologically complex themselves with a- as general spatial marker and -ba as interrogative marker (Hewitt 1989a: 49). The syncretic pattern of Abkhaz is consistent with that of Ubykh reported above in Table 33. The two Northwest Caucasian languages reflect WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. Their WHENCE-constructions are segmentally more complex than the syncretic spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal, cf. Table 298. Table 298: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Northwest Caucasian languages. Spatial relation

Abkhaz

Ubykh

Place

aba-

mạ̀-kˈ’a

Goal

aba-

mạ̀-kˈ’a

Source

abanto-

mạ̀-kˈ’a-wn

The above evidence is in conformity with the tendency of many languages of our sample to encode the spatial relations of Place and Goal identically in interrogative clauses. For other members of the Northwest Caucasian language family, the information to which we have access is fragmentary. What we can gather from the descriptions of Abaza, Abzakh, and Kabardinian is that the expressions of WHERE and WHITHER are identical in these languages, namely Abaza aba‘where = whither’ (Lomatidze & Klychev 1989: 149), Abzakh te ‘where = whither’ (Paris 1989: 248–249), and Kabardinian dene ‘where = whither’ (Jaimoukha & Malherbe 2009: 55). Examples of the spatial interrogative of Source are given in none of these grammatical sketches.

432 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe 3.5.2.3.2 Northeast Caucasian Chechen provides the sole LPP-variety of the Northeast Caucasian languages. In contrast to the above languages of the Northwest Caucasian family, the Chechen LPP-variety gives evidence of a ternary paradigm with three distinct constructions, cf. (159). (159) (159.1)

(159.2)

(159.3)

Chechen Source [LPP Chechen, 55] ḥo mičara vu? you S? CL1:be ‘Where are you from?’ Place [LPP Chechen, 13] mičaḥ du ḥan ċa? P? be:PRES you:GEN house ‘Where is your home?’ Goal [LPP Chechen, 13] Hara san əaxar miča biga vollu ḥo? this I:GEN lamb G? CL1:take CL1:put:PRES you ‘Where do you want to go with my lamb?’

The word-forms of the spatial interrogatives of Place and Source reflect socalled secondary cases of location -ḥ and source -ra (Nichols 1994a: 24) whereas the spatial interrogative of Goal hosts no inflexion. As a matter of fact, the WHERE-construction and the WHENCE-construction can be described as being derived from the WHITHER-construction by way of adding the secondary case endings to miča ‘whither’. Thus, in Chechen WHITHER is not only zero-marked but also the derivational basis of the constructions of the other members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Moreover, in her paragraph on questions, Nichols (1994a: 71) mentions a fourth construction in passing which is absent from the translation of Le Petit Prince, cf. (160). (160)

Chechen – Goal Stienga vüödu what:ALL CL1:go ‘Where is he going?’

iza? he.NOM

[Nichols 1994a: 71]

The sentence-initial stienga ‘whither’ is the allative of the interrogative pronoun hun ‘what’ whose oblique stem is stien- which undergoes gemination of the stem-final nasal to yield the oblique stem stienn- of the indefinite pronoun huʔa aʔ ‘something’ (Nichols 1994a: 35). We are unsure whether stienga ‘whither’ and

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 433

miča ‘whither’ are fully synonymous. In contrast, the description provided by Partchieva & Guérin (1997: 108–109, 204, and 220) seems to indicate that there is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism in Chechen because miča ‘where = whither’ serves as spatial interrogative of Place and Goal. Since in this grammatical sketch there is no example of a Place relation which is inquired about, this issue cannot be clarified in this study.48 That WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is not at all alien to the Northeast Caucasian languages can be gathered from the Hunzib examples in (161). The zeromarked spatial interrogative niyo ‘where = whither’ is syncretic whereas the WHENCE-construction is derived from this syncretic word-forms by way of suffixing the elative marker -s. (161) (161.1)

(161.2)

(161.3)

Hunzib Place [Van den Berg 1995: 151] Niyo gulun c’umibuwoč zuq’ur? P?/G? put:CL4.GER keep:CL4.PRES be:PRET ‘Where did she keep it?’ Goal [Van den Berg 1995: 207] Diye αbu niyo ẽλ’er? 1SG:GEN father P?/G? 1:go:PRET ‘Where did my father go?’ Source [Van den Berg 1995: 216] Wah, mə insan niyos bəʔi? wow you human_being:CL1 S? here ‘My, you, from where, human being, do you come?”

In yet other languages of the Northeast Caucasian stock, the paradigms are maximally distinct, i.e. they comprise three formally distinct constructions like Tsez (Alekseev & Radžabov 2004: 132), Hinuq (Forker 2013: 148), and Haspelmath (1993: 188 = Table 10), cf. Table 299. The syncretic word-forms also attest to zero-marking. Except Lezgian, all languages in Table 299 attest to zero|| 48 The situation in Chechen’s next-of-kin, Ingush is largely unclear to us. From Nichols (1994b: 139), it is possible to identify mɨča ‘whither’ as spatial interrogative of Goal. According to Partchieva & Guérin (1997: 204) the Ingush translation equivalent of French où ‘where = whither’ is mičax. There are several possibilities to interpret the formal differences of the constructions given in the two sources. Perhaps they are indicative of a paradigm which reflects the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE with WHITHER being zero-marked because Partchieva & Guérin (1997: 109) mention mičar ‘whence’ as spatial interrogative of Source. On this doubtful basis, we do not feel comfortable with reconstructing the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Ingush.

434 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe marking which involves WHERE (= Tsez and Hinuq), WHITHER (= Chechen according to Nichols 1994a) or both of these categories (= Hunzib, Tsez, and Chechen according to Partchieva & Guérin 1997). Table 299: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in five Northeast Caucasian languages. Spatial relation

Chechen

Hunzib

Tsez

Hinuq

Lezgian

ni

hina

Nichols

Partchieva & Guérin

Place

mičaḥ

miča

niyo

na:

Goal

miča

miča

niyo

na:ġor

nir ~ nido

hiniz

Source

mičara

mičar

niyos

na:y

niš

hinaj

Hinuq provides the only example of overabundance. However, it is possible that this interpretation has to be revised. Forker (2013: 148) mentions two different ablatives niš ‘whence’ and nižo ‘whence’ so that, superficially, there are grounds to assume the coexistence of two functionally identical spatial interrogatives of Source. The grammarian of Hinuq, however, argues that [t]he meanings of the First and Second Ablative forms are similar though not identical. Both can be translated as ‘from where’, but the Second Ablative form carries an additional connotation because it requests including in the answer not only the starting place but also by which way, along which street, bridge, through which village, etc. the motion takes place. (Forker 2013: 148)

We therefore exclude the so-called second ablative from the paradigm of spatial interrogatives since its meaning is obviously too specific to allow being classified as a question word which inquires about general location. It cannot be ruled out that the lative nir ‘whither’ and the directional nido ‘whither’ must be differentiated in the same way so that one member of this pair should be canceled from the above paradigm.

3.5.2.3.3 South Caucasian The Kartvelian or South Caucasian LPP-varieties behave homogeneously as to the organization of their paradigms of spatial interrogatives. Georgian, Laz, and Megrelian attest to WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. We illustrate the South Caucasian situation with examples from Megrelian. Megrelian is special in this group of LPP-varieties in the sense that it allows for overabundance in the cell of

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 435

WHENCE,

cf. (162.1) and (163). For the possible interpretation of the Georgian spatial interrogative of Source as a multi-word construction, we refer the reader back to Section 3.5.1.1.4 above. (162) (162.1)

(162.2)

(162.3)

(163)

Megrelian Source [LPP Megrelian, 16] Tak soleše morti čkim č̥ič̥e boši? here S? PREV:move:3SG.AOR my:NOM little:NOM boy:NOM ‘Where have you come from, my little boy?’ Place [LPP Megrelian, 62] ḳočepi so rena? man:PL:NOM P?/G? be:3PL.PRES ‘Where are the men?’ Goal [LPP Megrelian, 16] So oḳo iʔune čkim ḳiribi? P?/G? OBLIG BEN:guide:COND1 my:NOM sheep:NOM ‘Where must you take my sheep?’ Megrelian – Source Son rek? S? be:2SG ‘Where are you from?’

[LPP Megrelian, 52]

The two WHENCE-constructions are morphologically complex. They have the following internal structure: [Q-CASE(-CASE)]whence with so-le-šen {Q}-{ADVERBIAL/ DIRECTIONAL}-{ABLATIVE}‘whence’ and so-n {Q}-{ADVERBIAL} ‘whence’. Both allomorphs of WHENCE are more complex than the syncretic so ‘where = whither’. As to the spatial interrogatives of Georgian, Tschenkéli (1958: 198–199) argues that there are derivations based on sad ‘where = whither’ which could be interpreted as a kind of declension. Apart from the regular spatial interrogative of Source saidan ‘whence’, he also mentions: (a) sait ~ saitḳen ‘in which direction’ and (b) saidauri ‘originating from where’ both of which are semantically specified so that they cannot function as proper WHITHER-construction or proper WHENCE-construction. There is thus no overabundance. The modern Georgian paradigm of spatial interrogatives looks slightly different from that of Old Georgian. The grammars of Old Georgian by Schanidse (1982: 158) and Fähnrich (1994: 210) disagree on some points of interest. Most of the sentential examples provided in these and other sources are indirect questions – this is also true of the empirically rich Old Georgian dictionary compiled by Imnaishvili (1986). These problems notwithstanding, we venture an opinion about the possible shape of the Old Georgian paradigm of spatial interrogatives. In contrast to the

436 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe contemporary constellation fact, the Old Georgian situation involved overabundance, suppletion, and the coexistence of syncretic and non-syncretic wordforms, cf. Table 300. Table 300: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in four South Caucasian languages. Spatial relation

Georgian

Laz

Megrelian

Old

Modern

Place

sada

sad

so

so

Goal

sada ~ sadait ~ vidre

sad

so

so

Source

vinaj

saidan

solen

son ~ solešen

What we see is that the syncretic pattern WHERE = WHITHER is of long standing in the Kartvelian languages. However, on an earlier stage of Georgian, this pattern had to compete with a maximally distinct pattern. Moreover, the combination of different Q-stems caused the cell of WHITHER to be relatively “crowded”. With three options for the spatial interrogative of Goal, this spatial category seems to be particularly prone to experiencing changes. It cannot be ruled out that Old Georgian sadait ‘whither’ (= [Qwhere-INSTRUMENTAL]whither) is the predecessor of modern Georgian sait ‘in which direction’ (=[Q-INSTRUMENTAL]whither). If this is indeed the case, the question arises whether or not the constructions of Old Georgian and modern Georgian are functional equivalents too. If they are, Old Georgian sadait would also count as semantically specified and thus must be excluded from the paradigm (cf. above). Tamar Reseck (p.c.) corroborates that neither the Old Georgian vidre ‘whither’ nor the Old Georgian vinaj ‘whence’ are acceptable as spatial interrogatives for contemporary native speakers of Georgian since, nowadays, vin(a) ‘who’ and vidre ‘before’ have completely different functions. This means that in the course of Georgian language history suppletion has been abolished by way of semantic change of vinaj and vidre and the parallel creation of a WHENCE-construction according to the extant WHERE= WHENCE-construction. To wrap up the above observations, it can be said that WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism is a phenomenon that is shared by many languages of all families in the Caucasian region. Other morphological mismatches such as overabundance and suppletion are attested only occasionally without constituting a characteristic feature of a group of languages. For the bulk of the data reviewed above it is relatively clear that we are dealing with (sometimes fossilized erstwhile) caseinflected Q-stems. Zero-marking occurs with the usual suspects, i.e. with WHERE

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 437

and/or WHITHER. This is also the case with Laz and Megrelian whose syncretic spatial interrogatives of WHERE = WHITHER are monomorphic. In contrast, Georgian sad ‘where = whither’ can still be analyzed as [Q-ADVERBIAL]where=whither. If there are differences in the segmental complexity of the constructions of the paradigm, it is normally the WHENCE-construction which boasts excessive size. The Northwest Caucasian, Northeast Caucasian, and South Caucasian languages conform to the general picture of the languages of Europe in the area of the spatial interrogatives. This conformity is remarkable because the languages of the Caucasus are renowned for their structural properties which often are at variance with those of the other European languages.

3.5.2.4 Afroasiatic WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is also characteristic of the LPP-variety of Maltese. The data in (164) show that the spatial interrogative of Source combines with a syncretic WHERE=WHITHER-construction to form the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. (164) (164.1)

(164.2)

(164.3)

Maltese [LPP Maltese, 8] Source Mn’ejn int ġej ħabib ċkejken tiegħi? S? you come.AP friend small of:1SG ‘Where are you coming from, my little friend?’ Place Fejn hi „darek“? P?/G? she house:2SG ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Fejn trid tmur biha n-nagħġa tiegħi? P?/G? 2SG.IMPERF:want 2SG.IMPERF:go with:3SG.F DEF-sheep of:1SG ‘Where do you want to go with my sheep?’

Borg & Alexander-Azzopardi (1997: 211) provide a synopsis of the question words of modern Maltese. Their inventory involves the multi-word construction minn fejn ‘whence’ which reflects the construction frame [Prepablative Q]whence. The Maltese grammarians do not make any statement as to the relation of the multiword construction minn fejn ‘whence’ to the synonymous mnejn ‘whence’ the separate existence of which is not acknowledged in the paragraph to which we refer. One might assume that mnejn ‘whence’ is a contraction of minn fejn ‘whence’ – a view which finds support in the allography mnejn ~ mn’ejn because the apostrophe normally indicates that a graphic unit (in this case ) is miss-

438 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe ing. If this were true, Maltese would have a multi-word WHENCE-construction and thus behave like most of its Indo-European neighbors in the Mediterranean. According to Aquilina (1990: 847), however, mnejn ‘whence’ must be interpreted differently, namely as a morphologically incremented form of the preposition minn ‘from’ which hosts the element -ejn which is a cognate of Arabic ‘ayna ‘where’ (cf. Table 21 above). Note that fejn ‘where = whither’ (< fi ‘in’ + -ejn) and bejn ‘between’ (< bi ‘with’ + -ejn) reflect the same general pattern. The multiword construction minn fejn ‘whence’ is treated as historically distinct from mnejn ‘whence’ by Aquilina (1990: 833), cf. (165). (165)

Maltese – Source [Aquilina 1990: 833] Minn fejn ġej dar-riħ? from P?/G? come.AP DEM.PROX.M:DEF-wind ‘Where is this draught coming from?’

On this basis, it makes sense to distinguish two varieties of Maltese. The LPPvariety is characterized by WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and suppletion. The DGBvariety shares these traits with the LPP-variety and adds those of overabundance and periphrasis to the list of mismatches, cf. Table 301. Table 301: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Maltese. Spatial relation

LPP

DGB

Place

fejn

fejn

Goal

fejn

fejn

Source

mnejn

mnejn ~ minn fejn [!]

Two further Neo-Arabic varieties of Europe can be compared to the Maltese data. Borg (1985: 147) reports for Cypriot Arabic that there is WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism as in Maltese and a number of other related languages (to be discussed in Section 4). In contrast to Maltese, Cypriot Arabic has short and long allomorphs for the syncretic spatial interrogative of Place and Goal. The situation is different in the Arabic variety spoken at Çukorova in southern Turkey. Procházka (2002: 135) provides paradigms which follow the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE and are thus relatively similar to that of Modern Standard Arabic in Table 21 above. The data from Cypriot Arabic and Çukorova Arabic are given in Table 302.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 439

Table 302: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two Neo-Arabic varieties of Europe. Spatial relation

Cypriot Arabic

Çukorova Arabic

Place

áyn ~ an-

ayn ~ wayn ~ wēn

Goal

áyn ~ an-

la-ayn [!] ~ la-wayn [!] ~ la-wēn [!]

Source

mnayn

min(n)ayn ([!]) ~ minnēn

Overabundance in Cypriot Arabic is systematic whereas the coexistence of several realizations in the cells of the paradigm of Çukorova Arabic can be explained with reference to purely phonological variation of individual speakers and/or differences between village varieties, i.e. we are perhaps not dealing with proper overabundance but with different sub-varieties of Çukorova Arabic. What is interesting in terms of language contact studies is that Maltese and Cypriot Arabic resemble their most important partners in contact, namely Italian and Greek, respectively, whereas Çukorova Arabic organizes its paradigm of spatial interrogatives like the dominant Turkish language. The presence of Turkish on Cyprus does not impair the hypothesis that language contact might play a role in the above cases because the Greek influence on Cypriot Arabic started several centuries before the first Turkish settlers arrived. The examples from Çukorova Arabic give evidence of multi-word constructions for the dynamic spatial relations according to the model [Prep-Qwhere]dynamic spatial interrogative. Zero-marking is attested with WHERE. These patterns can also be identified in the Aramaic LPP-variety, cf. (166). (166) (166.1)

(166.2)

(166.3)

Aramaic [LPP Aramaic, 13] Source Mayko kotət ya u ṭalyunaydi? S? come:2SG oh and little_man:DIM:1SG ‘Where do you come from, oh my little man?’ Place Ayko kocayšət? P? live:2SG ‘Where do you live? Goal Layko kəbcət dməblət i cwonaydi? G? want:2SG take:2SG me sheep:DIM:1SG ‘Where do you want to take my lamb?’

440 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe The spatial interrogative of Place is identical with the Q-stem. This Q-stem is the complement of PPs in the case of WHITHER and WHENCE. The proclitic preposition m- ‘from’ attaches to ayko ‘where’ to yield mayko ‘whence’. Similarly, the proclitic preposition l- ‘to, for’ attaches to the Q-stem to yield layko ‘whither’. Example (167) shows, however, that there is a second WHERE-construction. (167)

Aramaic – Place Hayko-ne a noše? P?-then DET man.PL ‘Where are the men?’

[LPP Aramaic, 44]

The word-form hayko ‘where’ is attested twice in the sample text. We have not been able to clarify the status of the initial h-. There is no hard evidence of hbeing a spatial preposition. However, we cannot discard this possibility sweepingly since there is no evidence of a phonological rule of h-prosthesis either. For the time being, we therefore consider hayko ‘where’ to be structured like layko ‘whither’ and mayko ‘whence’, i.e. according to the pattern [Prep-Q]spatial interrogative. Given that this interpretation is correct, the most likely translation equivalent of Aramaic h- would be English in. The eastern Aramaic variety of Bēṣpən (southern Turkey) does not give evidence of an overtly marked spatial relation of Place (Sinha 2000: 156), cf. 303. Table 303: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Aramaic. Spatial relation

LPP

Bēṣpən

Place

ayko ~ hayko ([!])

ayka

Goal

layko ([!])

l-ayka ([!])

Source

mayko ([!])

m-ayka ([!])

All polymorphic constructions are marked as potential candidates for the status of multi-word constructions. The explanation for this practice is given above in the discussion of the data in Table 263. The Afroasiatic languages of Europe are divided into two groups, namely those languages which display WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and those which do not tolerate syncretism. In this the Afroasiatic languages are not different from most of the other language families surveyed so far. The tendency towards multi-word constructions also fits the general picture of the languages spoken on the northern shores of the Mediterranean.

Micro-level variation non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 441

3.5.2.5 Basque The genetic isolate Basque is the topic of this final empirical subsection of Section 3. The situation in Basque and its regional varieties is relatively straightforward so that we can be brief about the facts. All varieties of Basque make use of three distinct constructions in their paradigm of spatial interrogatives. The LPP-variety of Standard Basque is fully representative of the entire bundle of varieties, cf. (168). (168) (168.1)

(168.2)

(168.3)

Basque [LPP Basque, 16] Source Nondik zatoz, ene gizontxoa? S? 2SG:come:PRES my man:DIM:DEF ‘Where do you come from, my little man?’ Place Non dago zure bizitokia? P? 3SG:be:PRES your home:DEF ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Nora eraman nahi duzu ene arkumea? G? carry wish PRES:have:2SG my lamb:DEF ‘Where do you want to take my lamb?’

The constructions involve a Q-stem which is inflected for case according to the pattern [Q-CASE]spatial interrogative. The Q-stem can be identified as no- which is also used for the formation of further interrogatives like nor ‘who’, noiz ‘when’, nola ‘how’, etc. The WHERE-construction involves the inessive suffix -n (an allomorph of -an), the WHITHER-construction is based on the allative -ra (an allomorph of -tara), and the WHENCE-construction involves the elative suffix -dik (an allomorph of -tik) (Bendel 2006: 112). There is no evidence of any of the morphological mismatches under scrutiny. The Basque paradigm is not far removed from the canonical paradigm of spatial interrogatives. The distinction of the spatial categories by inflexional means is reminiscent of languages spoken at a distance from Basque, namely in the eastern half of the European continent (such as Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic, and some of the Northeast and South Caucasian languages). Table 304 contains the spatial interrogatives of the two LPP-varieties of Basque used for this study. The data from the Souletin version correspond to the grammatical description of this northerly variety given by Lafitte (1995: 96).

442 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 304: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Basque. Spatial relation

Standard

Souletin

Place

non

non

Goal

nora

norat

Source

nondik

nontik

The differences we can observe in Table 304 are of a phonological nature. Both paradigms are organized according to one and the same pattern. The Basque case closes our section on the spatial interrogatives of the nonIndo-European languages of Europe. As is to be expected from a genetically mixed group of languages, the results are heterogeneous. However, the heterogeneity is not much different from the heterogeneity which we have taken notice of with reference to the Indo-European languages of Europe. In Section 3.6 therefore, we will compare the results of the Indo-European languages and the non-Indo-European languages to determine whether or not there are any significant differences in their behavior. In case the differences turn out to be marginal, it can be justified to speak of pan-European patterns which cross genetic boundaries. Where genetic factors do not determine the behavior of a given language, areal factors and/or language contact might play a role. It is the task of the subsequent Section 3.6 to tackle these problems.

3.6 Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe In this section, we look back on the results of the analyses of the LPP-varieties in the foregoing subsections. These results are statistically compared to each other to determine whether there is any evidence of genetically-based and/or areally-based differences among our European sample languages. From the above discussion we know that the LPP-varieties and DGB-varieties of one and the same language do not always display identical properties as to the organization of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. This known variation notwithstanding, the evidence from the DGB-varieties cannot be quantified along the lines of the LPP-varieties because the DGB data lack a comparably systematic basis. Therefore, the DGB evidence will be made use of only occasionally (for instance, when the geographic distribution of certain phenomena is checked). We start the comparison on the level of the mismatches in Section 3.6.1 and continue with the constructional complexity in Section 3.6.2. The general con-

Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 443

clusions are drawn in Section 3.6.3 which also marks the terminus of our European tour. The LPP-sample comprises 140 varieties which distribute over the five groups as follows:  Romance: 47 languages = 34%  Germanic: 42 languages = 30%  Slavic: 17 languages = 12%  Sundry IE: 13 languages = 9%  Non-IE: 21 languages = 15% There is thus not only a very strong bias to the benefit of the Indo-European languages which account for 85% of the sample but also, within this language family, to the benefit of Romance and Germanic which together cover almost two thirds of the entire European sample and three quarters of the representatives of the Indo-European language family in this sample. Everything that is said below in connection to the comparison of the statistics therefore has to be taken with a grain of salt since the disproportions are simply too big. Nevertheless, we assume that the comparison will yield results which can serve as orientation for follow-up studies on this issue.

3.6.1 Mismatches 3.6.1.1 Comparative statistics The five mismatches on which we have focused in the above empirical subsections are surveyed in Table 305 in the following way. For each mismatch, the share it has of the LPP-variety of a given language family is identified. Those shares which exceed the 50%-mark are highlighted in boldface. The absence of a mismatch in a language family is marked by grey shading. In all tables of this section, the language families come in the order of the subsections 3.1 through 3.5 except otherwise stated. For convenience, we use the term language family in this section also for the genetically mixed groups of minor Indo-European languages and non-Indo-European languages. The percentages in Table 305 indicate a certain degree of heterogeneity of the sample languages. Syncretism and overabundance are the two mismatches which are attested in each of the language families whereas suppletion, periphrasis, and fused exponence fail to show up in one or two of the groupings. The occurrence of overabundance in each of the language families notwithstanding, this mismatch does not claim shares which exceed a quarter of the LPP-varieties

444 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe of a given family. For each of the other four mismatches, there is at least one language family in which a given mismatch reaches a share of 70% or beyond. In the case of periphrasis and syncretism, several high shares of this kind are reported. Table 305: Share of languages with mismatches per language family (LPP). Family

Syncretism

Overabundance

Suppletion

Periphrasis

Fused exponence

Romance

72%

Germanic

12%

23%

19%

83%

17%

9.5%

0%

71%

12%

Slavic

28%

6%

82.5%

23.5%

70.5%

Minor IE

77%

23%

46%

77%

0%

Non-IE

43%

14%

5%

0%

0%

Diagram 104 pictures the situation in such a way that we can see more clearly which of the language families display similar behavior in connection with which of the mismatches. 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% syncretism

overabundance

suppletion

periphrasis

fused exponence

Romance

Germanic

Diagram 104: Shares of mismatches compared.

Slavic

Minor IE

Non-IE

Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 445

All of the language families under scrutiny are characterized by a (mostly significant) drop of the shares from syncretism to overabundance. The LPP-varieties of Romance, Germanic, and non-Indo-European languages display similarities beyond this point insofar as they attest to a drop of the shares from overabundance to suppletion. As to periphrasis, however, these groups go separate ways. Romance and Germanic LPP-varieties join the minor Indo-European languages to yield particularly high percentages for periphrasis whereas the non-IndoEuropean languages are down to zero-frequency of this phenomenon. The zerofrequency of fused exponence with non-Indo-European LPP-varieties is mirrored by the absence of this mismatch from the minor Indo-European languages and to some extent also in the low shares of the same mismatch with Romance and Germanic LPP-varieties. Romance and Germanic show the highest degree of parallelism without yielding absolutely identical statistical results. Except in connection to suppletion, the minor Indo-European languages behave similarly to the two biggest groups of the European sample. On the other hand, the Slavic LPP-varieties and those of the non-Indo-European languages are characterized by individual behavior. In the case of the Slavic languages, we have high shares with suppletion and fused exponence – two mismatches which are widely underrepresented in the four other groups of LPP-varieties. At the same time, periphrasis is a minority solution in the Slavic domain whereas it is a favorite with the other IndoEuropean families. The non-Indo-European LPP-varieties stand out not only because none of the mismatches reaches the 50%-mark but also because two of the mismatches are unattested. In general terms, the non-Indo-European LPPvarieties are less prone to tolerating mismatches in their paradigms of spatial interrogatives than their Indo-European counterparts are.

3.6.1.2 Adjustments The above comparative statistics needs to be commented upon because the evidence from the DGB-varieties shows that not everything the analysis of the sample text suggests can be taken at face value. This is particularly evident in the case of overabundance. The lack of significance of this mismatch in the LPPvarieties is most probably an artifact of our methodology in the sense that the parallel corpus on which we base our quantitative exploration does not provide enough space for overabundance to show up more frequently. In contrast to the LPP-varieties, the DGB-varieties testify to overabundance being relatively widely common across the European linguistic landscape – especially but by no means exclusively in minor languages and regional varieties which do not boast

446 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe a firmly established written standard. The underrepresentation of overabundance in the original and the translations of Le Petit Prince might also have an effect on the shares of other mismatches if, for instance, a given mismatch cooccurs epiphenomenally with overabundance. By and large cases of this kind do not seem to be frequent enough to require the wholesale dismissal of the above statistics. On the other hand, overabundance is not always easily told apart from overdifferentiation and instances of regional variation if the descriptive grammars are not explicit about these issues. Periphrasis is interesting insofar as its distribution across the European sample languages yields an areally meaningful pattern. In spite of some nonIndo-European DGB-varieties giving evidence of periphrasis too, there is a clear preference for this mismatch to show up in the western half of the European continent. This is shown on Map 1.

Map 1: Periphrasis in Europe.

Map 1 includes selected DGB-varieties which attest to periphrasis. The languages which are marked as attesting to periphrasis on the map may or may not alternatively make use of non-periphrastic strategies as well (via overabundance). The West-East cline which results from Map 1 is in line with what authors like Haspelmath (2001) assume to be the areal make-up of Europe generally: In the European West, there is the center of the so-called Standard Average European (SAE) linguistic area whose member-languages have many properties in common which are alien to the languages spoken further eastwards. Whether or not this binary division of Europe is valid also in the domain of the spatial interrogatives

Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 447

cannot be determined straightaway since it is exceptional that a feature under inspection yields the same geolinguistic distribution as periphrasis. As to syncretism, what must be emphasized right from the start is that the empirical data disprove Creissels’ (2006: 20) hypothesis – quoted in full in the introductory paragraphs of Section 3 above – according to which there is evidence of only two patterns in Europe. In point of fact, there are twice as many patterns, namely four of the five logically possible options in Table 306 (cf. Table 2 above). Grey shading is used to highlight cases of zero-frequency. Owing to overabundance, several languages allow for two patterns to coexist so that the total number of attested patterns is slightly higher (~ 10%) than the total number of languages in the European LPP-sample. Table 306: Patterns as attested in Europe. Pattern

Romance Germanic Slavic Sundry IE

Non-IE

sum

WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE

12

39

13

9

12

85

(WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE

39

3

5

10

6

63

WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE)

0

2

0

0

0

2

WHITHER ≠ (WHENCE = WHERE)

0

0

0

0

3

3

(WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE)

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

51

44

18

19

21

153

Except the fifth option, i.e. the completely neutralized paradigm, all options are attested in Europe albeit with very different frequency. The two patterns which have been assumed to be without competitors in Europe are statistically predominant. Together they account for 97% of all attested cases. Maximally distinct paradigms have a share of 55% whereas WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism reaches a share of 42%. The two other syncretic patterns – WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism and WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism – add up to 3% of all cases. They must be classified as marginal phenomena. However, we are not dealing with singularities since both of the minor patterns are attested more than once. Via the inclusion of the evidence from the DGB-varieties the number of the marginal patterns increases only moderately. The Albanian DGB-varieties attest to WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism and some of the minor Balto-Finnic languages seem to behave like Saami so that the turnout of cases of WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism might increase. However, in the latter case, the empirical data are not absolutely water-tight. Like the LPP-varieties the vast majority of the DGB-varieties opt

448 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe either for syncretism-free paradigms or for WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. This means that Creissels’ hypothesis is incorrect in absolute terms but it captures the European situation insofar as it identifies the two statistically dominant patterns. Furthermore, Creissels talks about spatial relations in declarative sentences and not about spatial interrogatives in particular. Map 2 pictures the distribution of the syncretic patterns over the European continent. In analogy to the practice employed for Map 1, we complement the LPP-varieties with a selection of DGB-varieties in order to show where in Europe the minor syncretic patterns enjoy a certain prominence.

Map 2: Syncretism in Europe.

Map 2 is indicative of an especially strong position of syncretism (especially of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism) in the west which is far less visible in the East where languages tend to employ the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE.

3.6.2 Constructional complexity 3.6.2.1 The individual properties The areality of at least some of the phenomena which associate with spatial interrogatives is also evident in the case of zero-marking. Diagram 105 below contains the shares to which zero-marking can lay claim for the individual language families.

Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 449

100%

100%

90%

81%

80% 70%

61.50%

60% 50% 40%

28.50%

30%

23.50%

20% 10% 0% Germanic

Romance

Minor IE

Non-IE

Slavic

Diagram 105: Share of zero-marking in genetic groups.

All of the Germanic LPP-varieties give evidence of zero-marking. At the other extreme of the ranking order we find the Slavic LPP-varieties of which less than a quarter attest to zero-marking. The DGB-varieties do not alter the picture much. It suffices therefore to survey the distribution of zero-marking exclusively for the LPP-varieties. This is shown on Map 3.

Map 3: Zero-marking in Europe.

450 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe The phenomenon of zero-marking is overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) a westerly feature. The further east we go on the map, the more sporadic the attestations of zero-marking become. In this way we get another piece of evidence of the above West-East cline. If we look at the individual categories which are subject to zero-marking we notice two things, namely (a) that WHENCE is never zero-marked in any of the language families, and (b) that the Germanic LPP-varieties stand out because of the huge gap which separates the percentages of zero-marking of WHERE and zero-marking of WHITHER. In all other language families, the shares of zeromarked WHERE and zero-marked WHITHER are relatively close to each other, cf. Table 307. Table 307: Share of zero-marking across categories. Family

WHERE

WHITHER

Romance

92%

81.5%

0%

Germanic

98%

7%

0%

Slavic

23.5%

17%

0%

Minor IE

46%

44%

0%

Non-IE

26%

14%

0%

WHENCE

Diagram 106 shows more clearly than Table 307 that the share of WHITHER is smaller than that of WHERE in all of the cases no matter how small the difference happens to be. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% where Romance

whither Germanic

Slavic

Diagram 106: Share of zero-marking across categories.

whence Minor IE

Non-IE

Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 451

In the subsequent paragraphs we tick off each of the levels on which complexity can be quantified by counting the units which constitute a given construction. Starting with the number of words, we immediately see that across all five of the language families, the WHERE-construction tends to be a mono-word construction, cf. Table 308. Table 308: Number of words per construction. Family

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Average

Romance

1.0

1.2

1.9

1.4

Germanic

1.0

1.7

1.9

1.5

Slavic

1.0

1.0

1.2

1.1

Minor IE

1.1

1.1

1.8

1.3

Non-IE

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

The non-Indo-European LPP-varieties can be termed special because they prefer mono-word constructions throughout the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. The four Indo-European groups agree among each other as to the higher degree of complexity of the WHENCE-construction in terms of the number of words. As to the spatial interrogative of Goal, the Slavic LPP-varieties behave like the nonIndo-European LPP-varieties in the sense that their WHITHER-construction normally consists of a single word. Moreover, the sundry Indo-European languages yield an average for the number of words of their WHITHER-construction which is only slightly higher than that of the Slavic LPP-varieties and the non-IndoEuropean LPP-varieties. It must be noted too that the Slavic WHENCE-constructions are considerably “less wordy” than those of the other Indo-European LPPvarieties. This is why the overall average of the number of words in the spatialinterrogative constructions of the Slavic LPP-varieties is almost as low as that of the non-Indo-European languages. Romance, Germanic, and sundry IndoEuropean LPP-varieties yield averages for the spatial interrogative of Source which approximate two words per construction. Diagram 107 captures the similar behavior of the Slavic LPP-varieties and the non-Indo-European LPP-varieties in contrast to the three remaining IndoEuropean groups. Since the evidence from the DGB-varieties changes the picture only on the level of the details, it is possible to consider this parameter another example of areality. The languages of the European East clearly favor constructions with the minimal number of words whereas their westerly neigh-

452 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe bors have a predilection for more complex constructions especially in the case of WHENCE. 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 where Romance

whither Germanic

Slavic

whence Minor IE

Non-IE

Diagram 107: Words per construction.

Since this parameter is closely connected to the mismatch of periphrasis, there is no need for a separate map which only reproduces the picture painted on Map 1 above. On the level of the morphs, the situation is clearly different from the previous case. All of the language families display averages for WHENCE which equal or exceed the number of two morphs per construction, cf. Table 309. Table 309: Number of morphs per construction. Family

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Average

Romance

1.1

1.2

2.0

1.4

Germanic

1.0

2.0

2.1

1.7

Slavic

1.0

1.5

2.0

1.6

Minor IE

1.5

1.5

2.4

1.8

Non-IE

1.7

1.9

2.1

1.9

Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 453

The minor Indo-European languages do not conform to the general pattern because they have equal length for the WHERE-construction and the WHITHERconstruction whereas all other language families give evidence of an increase in complexity from WHERE to WHITHER. Monomorphism is typical of the WHEREconstructions of the Germanic, Slavic, and to a lesser extent also of the Romance LPP-varieties. The evidence does not allow us to identify any convincing areal patterns. Diagram 108 corroborates this impossibility. 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 where Romance

whither Germanic

Slavic

whence Minor IE

Non-IE

Diagram 108: Morphs per construction.

Since the results on the level of morphemes are almost exactly the same as those discussed in the foregoing paragraph on morphs, we refrain from repeating ourselves by letting the data speak for themselves. The average number of morphemes in Table 310 should be compared directly to the averages given in Table 311. Table 310: Number of morphemes per construction. Family

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Average

Romance

1.2

1.3

2.0

1.5

Germanic

1.0

1.9

2.0

1.7

Slavic

1.6

1.8

2.0

1.8

Minor IE

1.5

1.5

2.4

1.8

Non-IE

1.7

1.9

2.1

1.9

454 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Similarly Diagram 109 can be seen as an only slightly modified version of Diagram 108. Accordingly, the number of morphemes per construction does not yield an areal-linguistically meaningful distribution on the map of Europe so that no cartographic representation thereof is required.

2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 where Romance

whither Germanic

Slavic

whence Minor IE

Non-IE

Diagram 109: Morphemes per construction.

The number of syllables per construction is very interesting. Three of the IndoEuropean families yield identical averages for the spatial interrogative of Source. The sundry Indo-European LPP-varieties exceed this average minimally so that it is possible to speak of a pan-Indo-European phenomenon in Europe because the average WHENCE-construction of the non-Indo-European LPPvarieties involves a smaller number of syllables than the WHENCE-construction of the Indo-European LPP-varieties, cf. Table 311. Table 311: Number of syllables per construction. Family

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Average

Romance

1.9

2.0

2.4

2.1

Germanic

1.1

2.4

2.4

1.9

Slavic

1.1

1.7

2.4

1.7

Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 455

Family

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Average

Minor IE

1.4

1.3

2.5

1.8

Non-IE

1.5

1.8

1.9

1.7

The tendency towards disyllabic constructions is also evident for the average WHITHER-constructions of the Romance LPP-varieties and the Germanic LPPvarieties. In contrast the latter and the Slavic LPP-varieties come close to monosyllabism in connection to the WHERE-constructions. An areally meaningful pattern which covers all three of the spatial categories, however, is not discernible. Diagram 110 shows that all language families have especially high numbers of syllables for the spatial interrogative of Source. 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 where Romance

whither Germanic

Slavic

whence Minor IE

Non-IE

Diagram 110: Syllables per construction.

Furthermore, Diagram 110 also features the exceptional behavior of the WHITHERconstructions of sundry Indo-European languages of Europe. In contrast to all other LPP-varieties, those of the minor Indo-European languages yield an average for WHITHER which is lower than the average for WHERE. The DGB-varieties largely follow the same lines as the LPP-varieties. Very much the same can be said as to the number of segments per construction. What strikes the eye in connection to the values in Table 312 is the similarity of the general averages. For all of the language families, the general average exceeds four segments.

456 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe Table 312: Number of segments per construction. Family

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Average

Romance

3.6

3.9

5.3

4.3

Germanic

2.4

5.5

6.5

4.8

Slavic

2.8

4.0

5.6

4.2

Minor IE

3.4

3.6

5.8

4.3

Non-IE

4.0

4.2

5.2

4.4

The situation is similar with the average number of segments involved in WHENCE-constructions. In this case, all of the language families yield values higher than five segments. For WHERE and WHITHER, the averages diverge from each other to a noticeable degree. The average segmental complexity of the Germanic WHITHER-construction is remarkably high. As to WHERE, it is the nonIndo-European group which yields an especially high average. Diagram 111 shows that the increase in size of the phonological chains of the LPP-varieties of Romance, Slavic, sundry Indo-European, and non-IndoEuropean languages is more or less similar. 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 where Romance

whither Germanic

Slavic

whence Minor IE

Non-IE

Diagram 111: Segments per construction.

The Germanic LPP-varieties give evidence of a much more drastic increase from WHERE to WHITHER. The DGB-varieties of the language families under scrutiny do not invite a reinterpretation of the above facts. There is the occasional deviation

Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 457

from the general patterns. However, the overall picture is hardly affected by the additional findings. What the majority of the parameters of constructional complexity suggest is that independent of genetic affiliation, the LPP-varieties confirm the markedness hierarchy as presented in Diagram 2 in the introductory section above, according to which WHENCE is the most marked of the three categories no matter which of the other two categories wins the competition for the position of the unmarked member of the paradigm.

3.6.2.2 The scores The competition for the status of unmarked category, however, turns out to be a triumphal victory of WHERE. This results clearly from the synopsis of the complexity scores in Table 313. Table 313: Complexity scores. Family

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Romance

0

5

11

Germanic

0

6

11

Slavic

0

6

12

Minor IE

1

1

11

Non-IE

0

4

9

Total

1

22

54

The potential total maximum of fifty-five points is not reached by any of the categories. However, with fifty-three out of fifty-five possible points WHENCE comes closest to the maximum. Its score is fifty-three times higher than that of WHERE and still 2.8 times higher than the score of WHITHER, which in turn is nineteen times that of WHERE. Diagram 112 summarizes the above results graphically and thereby shows that except the minor Indo-European LPP-varieties all language families act in unison. This agreement across the genetic boundaries strongly suggests that the pan-European markedness hierarchy of the spatial interrogatives is structured like the schematic rendering in Scheme 20 which is but a remake of Scheme 4 above.

458 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe

13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 where Romance

whither Germanic

Slavic

whence Minor IE

Non-IE

Diagram 112: Complexity scores.

< WHERE; WHITHER; WHENCE > Scheme 20: Pan-European markedness hierarchy.

Indisputably, the unmarked category is WHERE. Just as indisputably the most marked of the three categories is WHENCE. The middle position is occupied by WHITHER which is more marked than WHERE but less marked than WHENCE. As far as we can see, none of the DGB-varieties challenges the status of WHENCE as most marked member of the ternary paradigm. The majority of the DGB-varieties also supports the unmarked status of WHERE as opposed to the relative markedness of WHITHER, although there is a minority of cases which either testify to the contrary or do not allow us to determine the markedness relation of WHERE and WHITHER. In terms of frequency the unmarked WHERE clearly is the preferred option. However, the cases of unmarked WHITHER cannot simply be discarded on statistical grounds because they occur too often to be just “accidents”. This issue will be taken up again in Section 5.

Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 459

3.6.3 Finishing line At this point the European tour is over. What have we gained from the above analyses in Sections 3.1-3.5 and their comparison in Sections 3.6-3.6.2? On the one hand, the results depict the European languages as a relatively heterogeneous assemblage of varieties which do not only differ from each other but also display evident signs of internal variation. We have learned that LPP-varieties and DGB-varieties disagree frequently – including in cases of well-described languages which boast a normative tradition of long standing. A phenomenon like overabundance comes to the fore especially in the DGB-varieties whereas it is largely underrepresented in the LPP-varieties. At the same time, the same genetically mixed group of languages shares a number of features so that the heterogeneity on the lower levels is compensated for on the higher levels by a certain degree of homogeneity. It cannot be expected that languages behave identically as to the details of their structural organization. Thus, the above mentioned heterogeneity is unsurprising. We assume that this heterogeneity will increase further now that we are going to cross the boundaries of Europe to broaden our empirical horizon by way of including data from non-European languages. What is more striking than the low-level diversity is the relative homogeneity of the principles that govern the organization of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of the languages of the European sub-sample. The continent-wide predominance of the patterns WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE and (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE over the minor patterns WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) and (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER as well as the complete absence of the fifth pattern WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE provide the basis for a further hypothesis the tenability of which can be tested on the basis of the non-European evidence in the subsequent Section 4. In Section 2.3.4 we have provided a long list of hypotheses which circumscribe our expectations as to the structural properties of (the paradigms of) spatial interrogatives. The hypotheses are meant to capture the cross-linguistically predominant preferences. For reasons of space, we refrain from recapitulating these hypotheses at this point. The reader is referred back to Section 2.3.4 for the details. In the subsequent two paragraphs we briefly address two general hypotheses which are in competition with each other since they make different predictions as to the behavior of the non-European languages (or all sample languages, for that matter). The working hypothesis in (169) is Eurocentric in the sense that it generalizes over the languages of the world on the basis of the knowledge we have gained from the exclusive study of European languages.

460 | WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE in the languages of Europe (169)

Eurocentric working hypothesis The languages of the world give preference to only two of five logically possible patterns, namely the paradigm with three distinct constructions and the paradigm which allows for WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. All other patterns are attested in statistically insignificant numbers crosslinguistically.

A corollary of this hypothesis is that WHENCE is always encoded distinctly. From the above study of the European facts it suggests itself that this distinct encoding of WHENCE tends to be formally more complex than the constructions of the spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal. The subtext of (169) thus postulates that the marked status of WHENCE will be corroborated by the non-European data. Given that the languages of other continents follow the lead of the languages of Europe, it can be assumed further that, in all probability, the unmarked member of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives is WHERE also in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania. Accordingly, this privileged status of WHERE should manifest itself in the relatively low degree of complexity of the constructions employed for the spatial interrogative of Place. If zero-marking occurs in a given paradigm WHERE should be the prime suspect for not needing an overt encoding of the spatial relation it expresses. These hypotheses are of course only blind idealizations of the European situation and thus most probably are bound to failure. From Creissels (2006) we already know that the languages of Sub-Saharan Africa tend to behave differently from those of Europe as to the morphosyntactic distinction of the basic spatial relations in declarative sentences. In this domain, the formal indistinction of Place, Goal, and Source on the locus NP is common throughout the African linguistic landscape south of the Sahara. If it can be shown that this indistinction also holds for the spatial interrogatives, the pattern WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE (which has no place in Europe) is promoted to an areal trait characteristic for the languages of Africa. Accordingly, an alternative working hypothesis (170) can be formulated. (170)

Areality-based working hypothesis The languages of the world differ as to which of the five logically possible patterns they prefer. The choices accumulate regionally so that (macro-)areas arise in which certain patterns oust other patterns. Theoretically, each continent may display individual preferences.

Each of the five logically possible patterns could thus boast an area of its own in which it outpaces its competitors. However, the discussion in Section 1 does not support this idea since in the context of declarative sentences, the extant theo-

Comparison of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages of Europe | 461

ries of the grammar of space emphasize that syncretic patterns in which Place and Source (with distinct Goal) or Goal and Source (with distinct Place) are expressed with identical means tend to be avoided crosslinguistically. This means that it is very likely that a compromise version of (169) and (170) captures the global situation more adequately. Section 4 will teach us how this compromise exactly looks like.

4 The big world This section is dedicated to the spatial interrogatives of the languages which are situated outside Europe. Since the translations of the sample text into nonEuropean languages are much too unevenly distributed over the continents,49 our approach to the data from these parts of the world necessarily differs from the previous approach. In lieu of inductively identifying the properties of the paradigms of the spatial interrogatives of the non-European languages, we start from the pre-established paradigms to discuss their shape and internal organization subsequently. What this means in terms of the data-presentation will be explained below. A selection of data from a number of non-European languages have already been discussed in Sections 1–2 above, namely those of Coptic (Sahidic) in (1)–(3) and Table 22, Mongolian in Tables 11–12, Tamasheq in Tables 15–17, Modern Standard Arabic in Table 21, Lealao Chinantec in Table 24, Cogui in Table 25, Paiwan in Table 27, Galibi Carib in Tables 28–29, and Aymara in Table 30. Except the Coptic (Sahidic) data which belong to a different historical era of almost two millennia ago, these familiar data are integrated in the survey below. This survey takes account of some 300 non-European varieties a tenth of which are represented by LPP-varieties. The bulk of today’s language families (includ-

|| 49 At the time of conducting our study (i.e. in 2014), Le Petit Prince had been translated neither into any Native North American language nor into any autochthonous language of Brazil, Australia, Papua-New Guinea, Micronesia, Melanesia, coastal West Africa, and many other regions on the globe. Translations into English-based creoles were lacking too, just as versions in Eskimo-Aleut, Chukcho-Kamchadal, Nilo-Saharan, West Atlantic, Munda, and many other languages (including isolates such as Burushaski and Ket). The number of available translations into languages of Latin America, Africa, and Oceania taken together is smaller than the number of translations into languages of Asia. This statistical disproportion has been rendered much worse by our failure to find copies of several of the translations into non-European languages. Therefore, the size of the non-European component of the parallel literary corpus is far too small to warrant a statistical evaluation along the lines of the analysis of the European LPPvarieties in the previous section. The vast majority of the non-European data stem from DGBvarieties which defy any quantitative comparison because there is no common corpus as basis. Since it was our wish to cover at least twice as many non-European languages as there are European LPP-varieties in the sample, we had to aim for at least 280 non-European languages – a number that is considerably higher than that of the available non-European translations of the sample text.

DOI: 10.1515/9783110539516-004

464 | The big world ing sixteen Creoles) and many sub-families thereof are represented in the nonEuropean sample albeit in a largely unbalanced way. The genetic composition of the entire sample is disclosed in the Appendix. In what follows, the languages of the non-European sub-sample are grouped geographically into four areas, namely languages of Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania (which includes Australia and Papua). Care was taken to ensure that each of these regions is represented by at least sixty varieties so that the share claimed by each of the continental areas covers approximately a quarter of the non-European sample. The non-European varieties are distributed over the four continental areas as follows:  Oceania: 83 languages = 27%  Americas: 81 languages = 27%  Africa: 72 languages = 24%  Asia: 67 languages = 22%  Total: 303 languages = 100% As to the presentation of the data and their classification, we have to compromise in the sense that the general practice that we have adhered to in the sections devoted to the spatial interrogatives of European languages must be modified so that it is possible for us to handle the non-European empirical facts in a way that makes sense linguistically without jeopardizing transparency. Owing to the effects of overabundance, in lieu of talking about languages or varieties, we will generally refer to the number of paradigmatic cells which are affected by a given phenomenon in a given area. In terms of quantities this means that the following numbers of cells are assumed for each of the three spatial categories under scrutiny:  Oceania: 99 cells = 28%  Americas: 90 cells = 25%  Africa: 83 cells = 24%  Asia: 81 cells = 23%  Total: 353 cells = 100% At the beginning of each of the major subsections, we specify in what way the analysis and the classification of the empirical facts of the non-European languages differ from the practice employed previously. Since we do not systematically distinguish the analysis of the non-European LPP-varieties from that of the non-European DGB-varieties, there is no separate chapter dedicated to the latter. In Section 4.1, we look at the realization of the various morphological mismatches in the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of

Mismatches | 465

the non-European members of the sample. Section 4.2 is devoted to the evaluation of the complexity of the constructions of spatial interrogatives in nonEuropean languages. Patterns of derivation are covered in Section 4.3. The comparison of the European and the non-European results is the topic of Section 4.4. As to the sentential examples, we provide evidence from each of the continents and for each of the phenomena under inspection from the extant LPP-varieties to facilitate the comparison with the previously discussed evidence from European languages. However, for a number of interesting questions, the LPP-varieties fail to offer a suitable basis. This is why we have to exploit repeatedly (and extensively) DGB-material of languages which lack a translation of the sample text.

4.1 Mismatches The mismatches are discussed in the same order that has been employed throughout Section 3 above. In contrast to the prior practice, however, the phenomena themselves constitute the starting-point for the ensuing discussion. The divergence from the presentation of the facts of the European languages is most obvious in the case of syncretism.

4.1.1 Syncretism The subsequent subsections focus on particular syncretic patterns separately. These patterns are presented according to the order they have been given in Table 2 in the introduction above. This means that we start with the maximally distinct paradigm WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE and proceed via (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE, WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE), and (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER to the complete neutralization of the spatial relations in the indistinct paradigm WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE. This order has the advantage that it starts with those syncretic patterns which are firmly established in Europe and terminates with a syncretic pattern which is completely unknown in Europe. In the subsections 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, and 4.1.1.5, the data are presented for each of the continents separately, namely in alphabetical order: Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania. Owing to the relatively low turnout of cases, subsections 4.1.1.3 and 4.1.1.4 do not follow the same principle of organization since there is no need for the separation of the evidence from the geographical areas.

466 | The big world 4.1.1.1 Pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE In Europe, the syncretism-free paradigm is the majority solution which is reflected in 55% of the 153 paradigms attested in the LPP-varieties of Europe (cf. Table 306). We will see immediately that this pattern occurs relatively frequently also across all of the other continents. However, this omnipresence does not mean that WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE statistically dominates everywhere.

4.1.1.1.1 Africa Table 314 surveys the fourteen African languages for which our sources report the exclusive existence of a maximally distinct paradigm with three distinct constructions. However, these fourteen languages do not exhaust the total number of African languages in which WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE is at least one of several options in competition. There are another eight languages of this kind among the languages of Africa in our sample. In these additional eight cases, overabundance applies so that WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE competes with other syncretic patterns in the same language.50 For reasons of space, these cases of co-existence of several syncretic patterns are presented in those tables which document those patterns which are characterized by proper syncretism. In the respective tables, the cases of coexistence of syncretic patterns occupy the bottom part. This practice holds for all of the geographical subdivisions addressed in this subsection. As to the presentation of the data in the tables, the conventions are as follows: grey shading indicates overabundance, boldface and underlining (single and double) mark syncretic word-forms, the bracketed exclamation mark is indicative of a multi-word construction. Additional conventions and deviations from the usual practice are explained if need be. The languages come in alphabetical order. The rightmost column contains information about the source the information about the spatial interrogatives of a given language has been taken from. With twenty-two languages, the above pattern without syncretism covers slightly more than a quarter of all African cases. The pattern is thus only second best in Africa and not as well established as in Europe.

|| 50 The relevant languages are Baka, Hausa, Kabyle, Kairean Arabic, Malagassy, Mandinka, Nobiin and Otoro in Table 318 below.

Mismatches | 467

Table 314: Paradigms without syncretism in languages of Africa. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Argobba

tet

bet

ɨntet

Wetter 2010

Beja

naamhiin ~ kee

naat

naamhiinaanii

Wedekind et al. 2007

Kabuverdianu (LPP)

n’undi [!]

p-undi ([!])

d’undi [!]

LPP Kabuverdianu, 16

Kenga

gǎy

gǎy kī [!]

gǎyō

Neukom 2010

Koyraboro Senni

man

man la [!]

man no [!]

Heath 1999b

Maale

wo-ka

ʔánko

wo-ká-ppa

Amha 2001

Ngiti

ᵼ́ngbɔrɔ́ ~ ᵼ̀ngbɔrɔ́

ádhà ~ àdhà

ᵼ̀ngbɔrɔ́ rɔ̀ [!] ~ ádhà Kutsch Lojenga rɔ̀ [!] ~ àdhà rɔ̀ [!] 1994

Ngizim

àa ráwân [!]

ii ráwân [!]

da ráwân [!]

Schuh 1972, 1981

Somali (DGB)

mee ~ meeday

haggaad

hagguu

Bell 1968, Dubnov 2003

Tamasheq

əndék ~ əndəké ~ əndé

mí

mí=dd

Heath 2005

Tigrinya

ᵓabäy ~ ᵓayti

nabäy

kabäy

Tecle 2012

Ts’amakko

ʔakka

ʔaakka=ma ~ ʔakkura

ʔakka=nu

Savà 2005

Wolane

bāynē(t)

ʔayn

tāynēt

Meyer 2006

Zay

bāɲi

ʔaɲi

lāɲi

Meyer 2005

The type of African languages covered by Table 314 can be illustrated by examples from the translation of Le Petit Prince into the Portuguese-based Creole Kabuverdianu. The examples in (171) show that each of the three constructions is complex in the sense that the spatial interrogatives of Place, Goal, and Source structurally resemble proper PPs. In the case of p-undi ‘whither’ the use of the hyphen in lieu of the apostrophe (as in n’undi ‘where’ and d’undi ‘whence’) is difficult to explain. Taken at face value, this orthographic practice (which is consistently obeyed throughout the sample text) seems to suggest that the WHITHER-construction reflects a higher degree of boundedness of its constituents which can be considered a morphologically complex mono-word construction

468 | The big world in contrast to the presumably less tight combination of preposition and Qmorpheme in the case of WHERE and WHENCE. (171) (171.1)

(171.2)

(171.3)

Kabuverdianu [LPP Kabuverdianu, 16]51 Source [D’ undi] k-u ben, nha rapasinhu? [from Q]S? that-you come my boy:DIM ‘Where do you come from, my little boy?’ Place [N’ undi] ki bu moráda sta? [in Q]P? that your home be_located ‘Where is your home?’ Goal [P-undi] k-u kré leba nha karnéru? [to-Q]G? that-you want take my lamb ‘Where do you want to take my lamb?’

The Portuguese lexifier notwithstanding, the Kabuverdianu paradigm of spatial interrogatives differs from the Portuguese equivalent in several aspects. According to the Portuguese data in Tables 63 and 106 above, the spatial interrogative of Place onde ‘where=whither’ hosts no overt exponent of the spatial relation and, moreover, gives evidence of WHERE=WHITHER syncretism. In the Kabuverdianu LPP-variety, the WHERE-construction is structured according to the same schema as the other members of the paradigm, viz. [Prep Q]spatial interrogative. What is more, n’undi ‘where’ cannot replace p-undi ‘whither’ nor can the latter function as spatial interrogative of Place. The partly European history of Kabuverdianu thus does not influence the organization of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Kabuverdianu is also the only Creole language of our sample that exclusively uses the paradigm with three distinct constructions. All other languages of Table 314 are spoken on the African mainland north of the equator. The pattern WHERE≠WHITHER≠WHENCE is attested in Berber, Cushitic, Semitic, Chadic, and Nilo-Saharan languages whereas there is not a single representative of Niger-Kongo and other more southerly African language families in the same table. There is thus a clear areal

|| 51 For the sake of clarity, we provide morphological analyses of the complex spatial interrogatives of non-European languages in the original sentential examples and the glosses. The constructions under inspection appear in square brackets. In the relative gloss, the closing square bracket is indexed for the function fulfilled by the spatial interrogative.

Mismatches | 469

and genetic divide which separates Sub-Saharan Africa from the northern regions of the continent. We complement the above illustration of the African realization of the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE with data from a language which is unlikely to reflect contact-induced Europeanization. The Cushitic language Ts’amakko provides pertinent examples which stem from a descriptive grammar of the language since there is no Ts’amakko version of Le Petit Prince, cf. (172). (172) (172.1)

(172.2)

(172.3)

(172.4)

Ts’amakko Place [ʔakka] ʔaɠ-inti? [Q]P? be_located-2SG.SUBFUT ‘Where will you live?’ Goal [ʔaakka=ma] sor-i? [Q=to/in]G? run-3SG.M.UNM ‘Where is he running?’ Goal [ʔakkura] ʔacc-iti? [Q:to]G? go-2SG.M.UNM ‘Where are you going?’ Source52 [ʔakka=nu] xaf-ti? [Q=from]S? come-2SG.M.UNM ‘Where are you coming from?’

[Savà 2005: 202]

In contrast to the Kabuverdianu case, Ts’amakko gives evidence of overabundance since there are two constructions which function as spatial interrogative of Goal. We have no means to determine whether or not there are functional differences which would justify classifying this as a case of overdifferentiation. In this connection, the gloss of the morpheme =ma ‘in, to’ in (172.2) is interesting because it seems to attest to Place=Goal syncretism. Like in the case of Kabuverdianu p-undi ‘whither’, the Ts’amakko mono-word construction ʔakkura ‘whither’ seems to reflect a degree of boundedness of the spatial marker

|| 52 Savà (2005: 202) translates this interrogative sentence as having a subject in the 3rd person singular masculine. This interpretation is at odds with the many examples of the suffix -ti and its allomorphs which always represent a subject in the 2nd person singular. Therefore, we assume that we are facing a typographic error which we feel entitled to correct although we are no experts of the object language.

470 | The big world and the Q-morpheme which exceeds that of =ma ‘in, to’ and =nu ‘from’ and the Q-stem. This at least is what one might conclude from the different orthographic representations of the spatial interrogatives. A further difference of Kabuverdianu and Ts’amakko can be observed with the WHERE-construction. In the Creole language, all three of the spatial categories are marked overtly whereas Ts’amakko opts for zero-marking of the Place relation. On this parameter, the languages of Table 314 are divided (cf. below) so that it can be assumed that there is structural diversity also within the class of languages which are homogeneous as to the syncretic patterns they realize. This is a situation which is by no means confined to Africa.

4.1.1.1.2 The Americas Similarly to the African case above, Table 315 does not host all of our sample languages from the Americas which give evidence of the paradigm without syncretism. In addition to the twenty-three languages of Table 315, there are another seven languages in which WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE competes with different syncretic patterns.53 The total of thirty languages is representative of a third of all American members of the non-European sample. With a share of 33%, the syncretism-free paradigm occupies only the second rank of the patterns realized in the Americas. Table 315: Paradigms without syncretism in languages of the Americas. Language

WHERE

Achagua

WHENCE

Reference

ta ~ tane ~ tariani charetaca

chegetaca ~ chite

Meléndez Lozano 1998

Aleut

qana(n)

qanaan

qanaagan ~ anaax Bergsland 1997

Apache

hagee

hayú

hayúdi ~ hadí’

De Reuse 2006

Arapaho

teetee

toot

tootiit

Cowell & Moss 2008

WHITHER

Aymara

kawki

kawki-ru

kawki-ta

Hardman et al. 1988

Galibi Carib

o:-we

o:-ya

o:-we-mbo

Hoff 1968

Lealao Chinantec

hyaʔ2 ~ nɨy1

hyaʔ

šiaʔ2

Rupp 1980

Crow

shóo ~ shóon

shóoss

shóokaa

Graczyk 2007

|| 53 These languages, viz. Canela-Krahô, Tlahuitoltepec Mixe, Martiniquan Creole French, Pima Bajo, Slave (Hare), Nahuatl (Acaxochitlan) and Zoque (Chimalapa) are listed in Tables 319, 323 and 324 below.

Mismatches | 471

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Damana

bín

bigu

bigunzhe

Trillos 1999

su-mut

su-mit

Fortescue 1984

xwechá:l

tel’alétse ~ tel:étse Galloway 2009

Greenlandic (West) su-mi Halkomelem (Upriver)

alétsa

Hopi

haqa-m ~ haq-e haqá-mi

haqa-qw

Malotki 1979

Tipai

me’ay

me’am

me’ak

Miller 2001

Jaqaru

kawkin

kawk

kawita

Hardman 2000

Musqueam

ʔə́nəcə

x cél

təlòən ́ əcə

Suttles 2004

Nahuatl (Pajapan)

géhka

gán

tégan

Koji 2007

Navaho

xa-di

xa-gó

Quechua (Ayacuchano)

may-pi

may-ta

may-manta

Hartmann 1985

Quechua (Cuzqueño)

may

may-ta

may-manta

LPP Quechua (Cuzqueño), 14

Quechua (Kichwa)

mai-pi

mai-man

mai-manta

LPP Quechua (Kichwa), 8

Trio

anpo

aja ~ anpona ainje ~ anpëe

Wayampi

pãʔɛ̃ ~ (ma)pɛ mamii-kɨtɨ

mapɛ-kɨtɨ-wɨĩ

Grenand 1980

Yup’ik

nani

naken

Jacobson 1984

w

.

natmun

xa-dó

.

Reichard 1951

Carlin 2004

There are three different LPP-varieties of Quechua, namely those of Ayacucho, Cuzco, and Ecuador. The latter is chosen to illustrate the use of the fully distinctive paradigm of spatial interrogatives in the Americas, cf. (173). The comparison with the other Quechuan varieties is relegated to the subsections below. (173) (173.1)

(173.2)

(173.3)

Quechua (Kichwa) [LPP Quechua (Kichwa), 8] Source [Maimanta]-tac shamunqi? [Q:ABL]S?-EMPH come:2SG ‘Where do you come from?’ Place [Maipi]-tac canpac huasica? [Q:LOC]P?-EMPH 2SG:POSS house:TOP ‘Where is your house?’ Goal [Maiman]-tac ñuca batiuctaca apasha ninqui? [Q:ALL]G?-EMPH my lamb:ACC:TOP take:SUBORD want:2SG ‘Where do you want to take my lamb?’

472 | The big world Quechua (Kichwa) is a case-language similar to Ts’amakko above. Each of the spatial relations is overtly marked by a case suffix attached to the Q-stem, i.e. we are once again dealing with the construction frame [Q-CASE]spatial interrogative. The enclitic focus particle -tac which is commonly used in questions is not compulsory (Catta Quelen 1987: 57). This means that it does not form part of the nuclear construction of the spatial interrogative. In contrast to the above African case, the languages in Table 315 do not testify to areality since there are varieties from all over the Americas which reflect the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. Many of these languages are caselanguages like Quechua. Lealao Chinantec demonstrates, however, that the pattern is by no means alien to languages which belong to a different morphological type. Several of the African languages in Table 314 support this point of view because they display a syncretism-free paradigm without being proper case-languages.

4.1.1.1.3 Asia In Table 316, there are forty languages of Asia which opt for the same pattern of three distinct constructions as the languages of Africa and the Americas surveyed in the foregoing two subsections. Since there are thirteen additional cases of WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE which compete with other patterns54, the total turnout is fifty-three instances which is roughly equivalent to two thirds of all those patterns which are attested in Asia. This pattern is thus the majority option. Table 316: Paradigms without syncretism in languages of Asia. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Ainu

neyta

enun

onun

Refsing 1986

ʼilaa ʼayn-a [!]

min ʼayn-a [!]

Ryding 2005

Arabic ʼayn-a (Modern Standard) Bantawa

khada

khatni

khadaŋka

Doornenbal 2009

Burmese (Colloquial)

behma

be(kou)

beka’

Richter 1983

|| 54 The majority of these languages is listed in Table 320, viz. Bhujel, Dumi, Iloko, Ilongo, Kambera, Korean, Kulung, Ambonese Malay, Mongolian (Khalka), Pendau, Tshangla, Vietnamese (LPP), and Tagalog is to be found in Table 327.

Mismatches | 473

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Burushaski

án(e)

ána

ánum

Berger 1974

Camling

khoda

khoni

khodaka

Ebert 1997

Chinese (LPP 1)

cóng shénme zài năli [!] dìfang [!]

dào dhénme dìfang [!] ~ wăng năli [!]

LPP Chinese, 16

Chinese (LPP 2)

cóng năli [!]

zài shénme dìfang [!]

dào năli [!]

(cf. below)

Dhimal

heta

hiso

hisoso

King 2009

Hebrew

‘ejfo

le‘ejfo ~ le‘an

me‘ejfo ~ me‘ain

Ursula Bauer (p.c.)

Indonesian

dimana

kemana

dari mana [!]

LPP Indonesian, 16

Indus Kohistani

gulɑ̀h

gulùh

gul

Zoller 2005

Itelmen

maʔ

manke

manxʔal

Georg & Volodin 1999

Japanese (LPP)

doko ni [!]

doko he [!]

doko kara [!]

LPP Japanese, 17–18

Batak Karo

i ja [!]

ku ja [!]

(i) ja nari [!]

Woollams 1996

Ket

bis’ɛŋ

bil’tan’ ~ bil’ɛs’

bil’il

Werner 1997

Khasi (A)

haŋnu

ha ey ~ hanu

na y ~ naŋnu

Rabel 1961

Khmer

now äna [!]

tow na [!]

maok pi na [!]

Leuy 1996

Koḍava

elli

etti ~ ettati

ellinji

Ebert 1996

Kolyma Yukaghir

qon

qaŋide

qot ~ qadōn-get Maslova 2003

Korku

tone

tongan

tongaten

Nagaraja 1999

Lamut

awug

awuskī

awgīc

Benzing 1955

Lao

‘sái

pai’sái

tɛ̅ɛ’sái

Meunmany 1998

Madurese

emma ~ kemma ~ kamma ~ imma ~ dhimma ~ e dhimma [!]

dha’kamma

dhari kamma [!] Davies (2010)

Maybrat

miyo

toyo

pat toyo [!]

Dol 2007

Mualang

dini

kikay

ari ni [!] ~ reni

Tjia 2007

Mundari

okore

okate

okoate

Osada 1992

ʔ

ʔ

Nganasan

kunini ~ kunuŋu kuni

kuniδe

Kratzschmann 2008

Nicobarese (Central)

chū(n)

chū-shī(n)

lòngto-chū(n)

Man 1975

Ostyak

kot

kǒl ~ kǒlə̂pa

kol’t’ə̂ɣ

Gulya 1966

Rabha

bisi

bisina ~ beŋa

bisini ~ beŋi para [!]

Joseph 2007

474 | The big world

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Semelai

hɔ̃n

te hɔ̃n [!]

tɔm haʔ hɔ̃n [!]

Kruspe 2004

Telugu

ekkaDa

ekkaDiki

ekkaNNinci

Krishnamurti & Sivananda Sarma 1968

Tetun (LPP)

iha-ne’ebé

ba ne’ebé ~ ne’ebé

husi ne’ebé

LPP Tetun, 14

Thai

thîi-năi

pai năi [!] ~ năi

càak năi [!]

Iwasaki & Ingkaphirom 2005

Tukang Besi

di ’umpa [!]

kua ’umpa [!]

mina i ‘umpa [!] ~ Donohue 1999 mina di ’umpa [!] ~ mini ’umpa [!]

Tuvinian

kayda

kayaa ~ kaynaar kayɨɨn ~ kayɨɨrtan

Anderson & Harrison 1999

Uzbek

qayoqda ~ qayerda

qayoqqa ~ qo’ya qayoqdan ~ qayerdan

LPP Uzbek, 12

Uyghur

näädä ~ qäjäädä

nääx̭ä ~ qäjääx̭ä näädin ~ qäjäädin

Friederich 2002

Vogul

χōt

χotal’

Kálmán 1965

χotəl

We choose Japanese to serve as a representative of the languages in Table 316. We emphasize at this point that the LPP-variety from which the data in (174) are drawn differs from the DGB-variety since the latter is depicted as tolerating WHERE=WHITHER syncretism (cf. below). (174) (174.1)

(174.2)

(174.3)

Japanese [LPP Japanese, 17–18] Source bottyan anta ittai [doko kara] kita no? young_master you then [Q ABL]S? come:PAST INTERR ‘Young master, where have you come from then?’ Place boku n toko tte sore [doko ni] aru no? 1SG GEN home CIT it [Q DAT]P? be INTERR ‘My home, where is this?’ Goal boku no kaita hituzi ittai [doko he] 1SG GEN write:PAST sheep then [Q DIR]G? tureteiku no? take:NPAST INTERR ‘Where do you take the sheep I have drawn?’

Mismatches | 475

The Japanese LPP-variety employs three distinct constructions of the type [QPost]spatial interrogative. All of the three spatial relations are encoded morphologically. The Japanese LPP-variety thus resembles the LPP-variety of Quechua (Kichwa) discussed above. Table 316 assembles a plethora of languages with different genetic and typological background. There are languages from all major sub-regions of Asia – from the Levant to the Pacific Rim, from Siberia to the Indonesian archipelago. As in the case of the Americas, the distribution of the languages without syncretism does not yield any meaningful geographical pattern. Since Semitic languages like Arabic (Modern Standard) and Hebrew are involved in Table 316, there is also a direct connection to the Afroasiatic languages of North Africa many of which give evidence of WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE in Table 314. In this way, a transcontinental area emerges which covers parts of North Africa, Asia in its entirety, and the eastern fringes of Europe.

4.1.1.1.4 Oceania The Oceanian situation is very similar to that of Asia. This similarity manifests itself on the level of quantities. Table 317 contains data from thirty-nine Oceanian languages whose paradigms of spatial interrogatives are free of syncretism. The total number of Oceanian languages of this type increases by fifteen if we also take account of those languages which allow for several syncretic patterns to coexist.55 This yields a total of fifty-four, which approximates the total calculated for the languages of Asia above. Moreover, WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE is also the majority option for the Oceanian languages albeit to a slightly reduced degree. With 55%, more than half of all Oceanian members of the nonEuropean sample give evidence of paradigms without syncretism. In this subsection, the representative of the genetically heterogeneous group of languages of Oceania is Tahitian. The Tahitian LPP-variety is largely in line with the Tahitian DGB-variety as described by Lazard & Peltzer (2000: 114– 115 and 211), the only difference being that the quoted authors mention an alternative allomorph fea of the Q-morpheme hea.

|| 55 These include all languages of the bottom part of Table 322, namely Bilinara, Guugu Yimidhirr, Hawaiian (DGB), Mangarayi, Matngele, Muruwari, Nyulnyul, Tahitian (DGB), Toqabaqita, Wardaman and Yingkarta, as well as Owa (Table 323) and Drehu (328), plus Lavukaleve and Bāgandji in Table 324 do qualify for the maximally distinct paradigm, too.

476 | The big world Table 317: Paradigms without syncretism in languages of Oceania. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Bardi

janaboor

janabooroongan ~

janaboorgo

Bowern 2012

janangan

Cèmuhî

wė̅

ne͐ wė̅ [!]

gō wė̅ [!]

Rivierre 1980

Chamorro

manu nai [!] ~

para manu [!]

ginen manu [!]

Topping 1973

wandhakayi

Lissarague 2007

wanha-ŋur

Morphy 1983

mangge

Dhanggati Djapu

waa ~ wandha wanhi ~ ~ waang

wandhanhang

wanha ~

wanha-(ŋu)mal ~

wanha-ku ~

wanh-(ŋu)lil

wanha-(ŋu)mi

Fijian

e vei [!]

ki vei [!]

mai vei [!]

Schütz & Komaitai 1971

Gumbaynggirr

jugi ~ jugii ~

juway

jugiina ~ jugana

Morelli 2008

i hea [!]

no hea [!] ~ mai hea [!]

LPP Hawaiian, 16

jugirr ~ jugiigi ~ jugida ~ juuda

Hawaiian (LPP)

ai hea [!]

Iaaï

ua

he ua [!] ~ he kââ [!]

ûnyi ua [!]

Miroux 2011

Inanwatan

naworau-wo

naworau-wai

nawórau-woide

Vries 2004

Innamincka

yi(d)langgi

yi(d)lakadi

yi(d)langginguda

Breen 2004

Ivatan

ara jinu [!]

jinu

taga-angu

Peace Corps 1993

Jingulu

(w)ajiini

(w)ajuwa

(w)ajuwangkami ~

Pensalfini 1997, 2011

(w)ajungkami ~ (w)ajuwarungkami

Kayardild

jina

jijina ~ jina-rung

jina-wan

Evans 1995

Kaytetye

nthekele ~

nthekarle

ntheke-theyarte

Turpin 2000 Ray & Riley 1933

nthekelarte

Kiwai

boro

buta

budo

Loniu

itɛhɛ

ɛhɛ

pɛti ɛhɛ [!]

Hamel 1994

Malakmalak

akun

akutɛna

akunman

Birk 1976

Maori

hea ~ whea ~

ki hea [!]

noo hea [!]

Bauer 1993

gan yi’yah [!]

jan yi’yah [!]

Bender 1969

y

kei whea [!] ~ i whea [!]

Marshallese

yewiy ~ yepad yi’yah [!]

Mismatches | 477

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Meyah

sinefa ~

jah guaidu [!]

jeska guaidu [!] ~

Gravelle 2010

guaidu

jeska sinefa [!]

Motuna

wooki

woo

wookitee

Onishi 1994

Mpakwithi

dra-ŋu

dra-ŋa

dra-ma

Crowley 1981

Nakara

kayawarra

rayulawa

rayulawakkawa

Eather 2011

Ngankikurungkurr

kide

kidepefi

kidenimbi

Hoddinott & Kofod 1988

Nhanda

wandha

wandhara

wandhangu

Blevins 2001

Nyawaygi

waɲɖa

wayŋgu

wa:ni

Dixon 1983

Rapanui

he

ki-hé

mai-hé

Du Feu 1996

Rotuman

ʔe tei [!]

se tei [!]

ne tei [!]

Vamarasi 2002

Tahitian (LPP)

tei hea [!]

i hea [!]

nō hea [!]

LPP Tahitian, 15

Tairora

tai-nto

tai ~ ta-ini

ta-ihai

Vincent 1973

Takuu

hea ~ tee ~

ki hea [!] ~ ki hee [!]

i hea [!] ~ i hee [!]

Moyle 2011

tee hea [!]

Tinrin

âe ~ e

pwere-e ~ were-e

ghe-e

Osumi 1995

Wargamay

waɲɖa-gu

waɲɖa-ŋga

waɲɖa-ɲ

Dixon 1981

Watjarri

nja-la

nja-ki

nja-tjanu

Douglas 1981

Yalarnnga

tharrunguta

tharrawampa

tharralungu

Breen & Blake 2007

Yindjibarndi

wanhthila

wanhtharni

wanhthilangu

Wordick 1982

Yorta Yorta

wanhal ~

waka ~ waga ~

wana-in ~ wanin ~

wunnul ~

wan(h)ak ~ wannuk wunnin ~ wan(h)in

Bowe & Morey 1999

tyityina

Keen 1983

wanal ~ wunnhal

Yukulta

tyina

tyina-pa

In (175), we illustrate the Tahitian facts with examples from the Tahitian version of the sample text. (175) (175.1)

Tahitian Source [Nō hea] mai ‘oe e [from Q]S? hither you VOC ‘Where are you from, oh little friend?’

[LPP Tahitian, 15] te DET

hoa friend

iti? little

478 | The big world (175.2)

(175.3)

Place [Tei hea] roa tō ‘oe fa’aeara’a? [at Q]P? actually DET:2SG.POSS you home ‘Where exactly is this home of yours?’ Goal E ‘āfa’i ‘oe i tā’u māmoe [i hea]? FUT take you to DET:1SG.POSS sheep [to Q]G? ‘Where are you going to take my sheep?’

The three constructions reflect the frame [Prep Q]spatial interrogative. Each of the spatial relations is encoded overtly and distinctly. The Tahitian spatial interrogatives therefore can be compared to those of Kabuverdianu in (171) if we disregard the supposedly higher degree of boundedness of Kabuverdianu p-undi ‘whither’. It is unsurprising to see that Fijian, Hawaiian, and Rotuman make use of the same general construction frame as Tahitian with three PPs as spatial interrogatives. Maori and Takuu are different insofar as they also allow for zeromarking with WHERE as an alternative to the PP-strategy. Many of the languages in Table 317 are spoken in Australia and are thus genetically distinct from the Austronesian languages mentioned in the previous paragraph. At the same time, all of the Australian languages in this table are full-blown case-languages with rather elaborate systems of suffixation. In contrast, Tahitian and its relatives do not have morphological case and rely much more strongly on analytic constructions of the prepositional kind. These genetic and typological differences notwithstanding, the languages of Australia and Polynesia concur as to the preferred syncretic pattern. Since several Austronesian languages of Asia also tend to employ the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE, it can be argued that the above transcontinental area in which paradigms without syncretism are prominently represented reaches far beyond the boundaries of Asia deep into Oceania. However, this wide distribution of the pattern does not mean that it enjoys the exclusive monopoly in the regions we have just mentioned. As the subsequent subsections will show there are strong competitors which challenge this putative monopoly.

4.1.1.2 Pattern (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE With 39% of all cases, WHERE=WHITHER syncretism is second best in relation to the European LPP-varieties. Outside of Europe too, this pattern never occupies the top position of the ranking order. On two continents, WHERE=WHITHER syncretism is the second most frequent pattern whereas on another two continents it winds up in third position.

Mismatches | 479

4.1.1.2.1 Africa Eighteen languages of Africa give evidence of WHERE=WHITHER syncretism. This means that 22% of our African sample languages reflect this pattern. Only for nine of these languages is WHERE=WHITHER syncretism the exclusive option. In Table 318, these nine languages occupy the upper part of the table. Below the dividing line, we place those nine languages whose paradigms of spatial interrogatives involve more than one syncretic pattern. This division into two parts holds for all further tables in the remainder of Section 4. Table 318: WHERE=WHITHER syncretism in languages of Africa. Language

WHERE

Arabic (Algiers) LPP wen

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

wen

mnen

LPP Arabic (Algiers), 15

má

zàá má [!]

Boko/Busa

má

Fula

to ~ haa to [!] to ~ haa to [!] ~ diga toye [!] ~ toye toye

Jungraithtmayr & Al-Amin Abu-Manga 1989

Hdi

gá

gá

ndí gá [!]

Frajzyngier & Shay 2002

Krongo

ká

ká

nká

Reh 1985

Kryol

nũdi

nũdi

di nũdi [!]

Scantamburlo 1981

Kwami

ʔílá(n)

ʔílá(n)

tòo ~ tèntòo

Leger 1994

Oromo

eessa

eessa

eessaa

Griefenow-Mewis & Bitima 1994

Yoruba

nibo

nibo

látibo

Ashiwaju 1969

Baka

kà ~ a kà [!]

a kà [!]

na kà [!]

Kilian-Hatz 1995

Hausa

ʔà ʔìnaa [!] ~ ʔìnaa

ʔìnaa

dàgà ʔìnaa [!]

Wolff 1993

Kabyle

anda

anda ~ sani

seg wansi [!]

Kairean Arabic

fēn

fēn ~ ʻala fēn [!] minēn

Woidich 2006

Malagassy

àiza

àiza ~ ho aiza [!] àvy àiza [!]

LPP Malagassy, 16

Mandinka

mintóo ~ muntóo ~ lěe

mintóo ~ muntóo

minto-ŋká ~ munto-ŋká

Creissels & Sambou 2013

Nobiin

híddó

híddó ~ híddóláak

híddónâ ~ híddótóon

Werner 1987

Nzadi

koŋgó

koŋgó ~ ŋgó

ŋgó

Crane et al. 2011

Otoro

nɛ ~ adha

nɛ

nugɔgɛ

Stevenson (2009)

McCallum Jones 1998

LPP Kabyle, 14

480 | The big world Except Nzadi, all of the languages in the bottom half of the table reflect a combination of the patterns WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE and (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE. It is worth noting that the vast majority not only of the African languages with two syncretic patterns but also of those which attest exclusively to WHERE=WHITHER syncretism are located in the northern regions of the continent and thus associate with the languages of Table 314 above. Malagassy is special, of course, because it is genetically and typologically connected to the Austronesian heartland. This Austronesian background is reason enough to discard the LPP-variety of Malagassy as representative of the languages of Table 318. We also postpone the discussion of the data from the Kabyle translation of Le Petit Prince since there are several problems which arise from the analysis of the examples from this Berber language. Therefore we illustrate the African WHERE=WHITHER syncretism with examples from (Nigerian) Fula in (176). To abbreviate the discussion, we skip the evidence of overabundance since this phenomenon is discussed in some detail in Section 4.1.2 below.56 (176) (176.1)

(176.2)

(176.3)

Fula Place [Jungraithmayr & Al-Amin Abu-Manga 1989: 66] [Toye] ofis maako woni? [Q]P?/G? office his be_located:REL.PERF ‘Where is his office?’ Goal [Jungraithmayr & Al-Amin Abu-Manga 1989: 84] [Toye] Bello yahi? [Q]P?/G? Bello go:REL.PERF ‘Where has Bello gone?’ Source [Jungraithmayr & Al-Amin Abu-Manga 1989: 15] Onon [diga toye]? you.PL [from Q]S? ‘Where are you from?’

The spatial interrogatives in (176.1)–(176.2) are examples of zero-marking and WHERE=WHITHER syncretism. The WHENCE-construction is complex and reflects the widely distributed frame [Prepablative Q]whence which we have already encountered in numerous languages. In Table 318, there are seven languages beside Fula

|| 56 In Jungraithmayr & Al-Amin Abu-Manga (1989: 28), there is also an isolated example of haa toye? ‘whither’ with the polysemous preposition haa ‘until, to, at, in, with, from’. The example is special in the sense that it is coextensive with the entire utterance.

Mismatches | 481

which reflect this pattern, namely zero-marked syncretic combination with a PP which expresses WHENCE.

WHERE=WHITHER

in

4.1.1.2.2 The Americas Seventeen languages of the Americas (= 19%) testify to WHERE=WHITHER syncretism. Five of these languages combine this pattern with a second option. The French-based Creole of Martinique stands out because it gives evidence of three syncretic patterns in coexistence. In the four other cases, WHERE=WHITHER syncretism competes with the maximally distinct paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Table 319: WHERE=WHITHER syncretism in languages of the Americas. Reference

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

Choctaw

katomma

katomma

katimma

Broadwell 2006

Cogui

ma ~ ma-ni ~ mia

ma ~ ma-ni ~ mia

mani-žini

Preuss 1927

Northern Emberá

samá

samá

sam’ãmbaa

Sara 2001

Guaraní (LPP)

moõ

moõ

moõguipa

LPP Guaraní, 16

Guaraní (DGB)

mamo ~ moõ

mamo ~ moõ mamo guipa [!] ~ mamogui ~ moõgui

Guasch 1996, Gauto Bejerano 1990

Kamaiura

mam

mam

mawi

Seki 2000

Mazahua

jaje

jaje

kʔo jaje [!]

Cárdenas & Lastra 2011

Mexicanero

kaha

kaha

de kaha [!]

Canger 2001

Mosetén

jäeʼnäʼ

jäeʼnäʼ

jäeʼnäʼdye

Sakel 2011

Papiamentu (LPP)

unda

unda

di unda [!]

LPP Papiamentu, 15

Toba

hua’ague

hua’ague

auachigaqa’ague

LPP Toba, 16

Urarina

dʒʉ

dʒʉ

dʒa kahe [!]

Olawsky 2011

Canela-Krahô

jũ ri ri [!] ~ jũ ri mã [!]

jũ ri ri [!] ~ jũ jũ pĩn [!] kam mã [!]

WHENCE

Popjes & Popjes 1986

Martiniquan Creole koté ~ ki koté ~ ki koté [!] ~ eti koté [!] French (LPP)

koté ~ eti

LPP Martiniquan Creole French, 16

Tlahuitoltepec Mixe mää

mää ~ mä’amy

määampi

Romero-Mendez 2009

ɨbigi

ɨbigdi

Estrada Fernández 1998

Pima Bajo

ɨbig ~ ɨbigi

Slave (Hare)

jude ~ judį ~ jude ~ judį ~ judenį gots’ę [!] judenį gots’ę́ [!] judenį

Rice 1989

482 | The big world The LPP-variety and the DGB-variety of Guaraní differ from each other only insofar as the latter tolerates overabundance (cf. below). We therefore feel entitled to illustrate the American situation by way of presenting the usual sample sentences from the Guaraní translation of Le Petit Prince in (177). (177) (177.1)

(177.2)

(177.3)

Guaraní [LPP Guaraní, 16] Source Mitãmi, [moõguipa] reju? child:DIM [Q:from]S? 2SG:come ‘Dear child, where do you come from? Place Netapỹi piko [moõ] opyta? 2SG.POSS:home INTERR:EMPH [Q]P?/G? 3SG:be_located ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Che ovecha ra’ýpa [moõ] reguerahase? my sheep have:INTERR [Q]P?/G? 2SG:take:VOL ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

The facts can be stated without difficulties. The WHERE=WHITHER syncretism goes hand in hand with zero-marking of Place and Goal. The spatial interrogative of Source, on the other hand, hosts a morpheme which is a cliticized ablative postposition. It is also possible to interpret the latter construction as an instance of a mono-word construction. Cogui, Northern Emberá, Mixe, and Mosetén reflect similar construction frames. The scarcity of evidence from North American Indian languages can perhaps be accounted for referring to the general underrepresentation of this group of languages in our non-European sample.

4.1.1.2.3 Asia As to the Asian members of our non-European subsample, there are nine cases of unchallenged WHERE=WHITHER syncretism to which we can add thirteen languages which attest to the coexistence of several syncretic patterns. In sum, twenty-two Asian languages give evidence of WHERE=WHITHER syncretism, cf. Table 320. This number is equivalent of 27% of all paradigms of spatial interrogatives in Asia. With slightly more than a quarter of all Asian sample languages, this is the biggest share WHERE=WHITHER syncretism has of any of the four geographically defined groups of languages.

Mismatches | 483

Table 320: WHERE=WHITHER syncretism in languages of Asia. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Hindi

kah

kah

kah-sē

Bender 1961

Japanese (DGB)

doko

doko

doko kara [!]

Hinds 1986

Kirghiz (LPP)

kajda

kajda

kajdan

LPP Kirghiz, 11

Lepcha

sabá

sabá

sabánu

Plaisier 2007

Meitei

kəday ~ kədaydə

kəday ~ kədaydə

kədaydəgi

Chelliah 1997

Paiwan

inu

inu

kasi inu [!]

Egli 2002

Persian

koja

koja

æz koja [!]

Mahootian 1997

Sunwar

te

te

tele

Borchers 2008

Thangmi

kuta

kuta

kutayiniŋ

Turin 2012

Bhujel

gʰɑŋ

gʰɑŋ ~ gɑkət

gɑkətlyɑm

Regmi 2012

Dumi

hempa

hempa ~ hempala

hempaləkə

Van Driem 1993

Iloko

ayán ~ sadíno sadíno

tagá-ano

Rubino 2000

Hiligaynon

diin ~ sa diin [!] diin

Kambera

la nggi [!] ~ nggi

Khasi (B)

nangno ~ shano shano

nangno

Kharwanlang 2010

Korean

eti ~ eti-eyse

eti ~ eti-lo

eti-pwuthe

Sohn 1994

Kulung

haːpi

haːpi ~ haːroi

haːpikəi

Ambonese Malay

mana ~ di mana [!]

mana ~ di mana dari mana [!] ~ [!] ~ ka mana [!] der mana [!]

Mongolian (Khalkha) xaa ~ xaana

nggi

taga-diin

Peace Corps 1990

nggi mbara [!]

Klamer 1998

Tolsma 2006 Minde 1997

xaa ~ xaaš

xaanaas

Bittigau 2003

Pendau

paio ~ ripaio

paio

ila paio [!]

Quick 2007

Tshangla

oga ~ o

oga

ogai

Andvik 2010

Vietnamese (LPP)

đâu ~ ở đâu [!] đâu ~ đi đâu [!]

từ đâu [!]

LPP Vietnamese, 17

We illustrate the Asian situation with examples from the LPP-variety of the Turkic language Kirghiz in (178). These data can be compared to those of the European branches of the Turkic language family as discussed in Section 3.5.2.2 above. Bashkir and Chuvash, for instance, are similar to Kirghiz insofar as they also attest to WHERE=WHITHER syncretism (cf. Table 292 above).

484 | The big world (178) (178.1)

(178.2)

(178.3)

Kirghiz [LPP Kirghiz, 11] Source Bala, sen [kaydan] učup keldiñ? fly:GER come:PAST:2SG little you [Q:ABL]S? ‘Little one, where have you come flying from?’ Place Üyüñ [kayda]? house:2SG [Q:LOC]P?/G? ‘Where is your house?’ Goal Menin kozumdu [kayda] alïp lamb:1SG:LOC [Q:LOC]P?/G? take:GER 1SG:GEN ketkeni turasïñ, ija? INCH:PTCPL:CONV take:2SG INTERJ ‘Where are you going to take my lamb?’

The information on the DGB-variety of Kirghiz is controversial. Dor (2004: 100– 101) mentions only those spatial interrogatives which are also attested in the Kirghiz translation of Le Petit Prince. Landmann (2011: 25–26), however, postulates the existence of a parallel series of three multi-word constructions although the accompanying sentential examples in her grammar give evidence exclusively of the above mono-word constructions, cf. Table 321. Table 321: Paradigms of spatial interrogatives in two varieties of Kirghiz. Spatial relation

LPP/Dor 2004/Landmann 2011

Landmann 2011

Place

kayda

kay žerde [!] ~ kaysï žerde [!]

Goal

kayda

kay žerge [!] ~ kaysï žerge [!]

Source

kaydan

kay žerden [!] ~ kaysï žerden [!]

The multi-word constructions do not allow for syncretism. Moreover they introduce overabundance. It is unclear whether or not the multi-word constructions are absolutely synonymous with the mono-word constructions. Similar problems have arisen in connection with the coexistence of mono-word constructions and multi-word constructions in Kazakh and Kumyk (cf. Tables 292–293 above). Since our sample text does not contain any example of the multi-word construction, we discount this periphrastic strategy in our further discussion of spatial interrogatives. However, future in-depth corpus-based studies have to prove whether or not this decision is justified.

Mismatches | 485

4.1.1.2.4 Oceania Similar to the Asian case, there are twenty-one languages of Oceania which reflect WHERE=WHITHER syncretism. Ten of these languages have no other syncretic pattern whereas eleven Oceanian languages allow for multiple syncretic patterns, cf. Table 322. This distribution over two classes – languages with vs. languages without additional syncretisms – is also similar to that described for the Asian languages. It is therefore unsurprising that WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism has a share of 21% of the Oceanian languages – a share that is not too far removed from the 27% claimed by the same pattern within the realm of the Asian languages, and even closer to the 22% claimed by African languages and the 19% of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism attested in the American paradigms. Table 322: WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism in languages of Oceania. WHENCE

Reference

ivei

maivei

Dixon 1988

wena ~ wenira

wenirec

Flierl & Strauss 1977

ni fai [!]

ni fai [!]

i fai [!]

Keesing 1985

Marquesan (LPP) i hea [!]

i hea [!]

mei hea [!]

LPP Marquesan, 15

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

Boumaa Fijian

ivei

Kâte

wena ~ wenira

Kwaio Marquesan (DGB)

‘i hea [!] ~ ‘i sea [!]

‘i hea [!] ~ ‘i sea [!]

mei hea [!]

Cablitz 2006

Tauya

mafi

mafi

mafi-sami

MacDonald 1990

Umbugarla

nin

nin

nin madjing [!]

Je. Davies 1989

Wambaya

injani

injani

injannga

Nordlinger 1998

Warrongo

wanyja ~ wanyjarro

wanyja ~ wanyjarro

wanyjabara ~ wanyjaymo

Tsunoda 2011

Yir-Yoront

warr ~ warruwrr

warr yirr [!] ~ warruwr

warr pinhn [!] ~ warr pann [!]

Alpher 2011

Bilinara

wanyji-ga

wanyji-ga ~ wanyji-gurra

wanyji-ngurlu

Meakins & Nordlinger 2013

Guugu Yimidhirr

wandhaa ~ wandhaa-lbi

wandhaa-lga wandhaa~ wandhaa-lbi lnganh

Haviland 1979

i hea [!] ~ no hea [!]

mai hea [!] ~ no hea [!]

Elbert & Pukui 1979

janaŋgari

janaŋ-gana

Merlan 1989

Hawaiian (DGB) hea ~ auhea ~ i hea [!] ~ ma hea [!] Mangarayi

jana ~ janaŋgari

486 | The big world

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Matngele

an

an ~ anyin

andiyn

Zandvoort 1999

Muruwari

tirra~ tirra-ngka tirra ~ tirra-ku tirra-ngu ~ tirra-n-ta

Oates 1988

Nyulnyul

arrak ~ anuk ~ anog

arrak ~ ngan

arrakkun

McGregor 2011

Tahitian (DGB)

i hea [!] ~ tei hea [!]

i hea [!] ~ nā fea

mai hea [!] ~ nō Lazard & Peltzer 2000 fea [!]

Toqabaqita

fei ~ qi fei [!]

fei ~ qi fei [!] ~ uri fei [!]

fasi fei [!]

Wardaman

guda ~ gudang-nya

guda ~ guda- gudang-by rlan

Merlan 1994

Yingkarta

wanthawu ~ wanthala ~ wantha

wanthawu ~ wantha

Dench 1998

wanthawarni

Lichtenberk 2008

The representative of the Oceanian languages with WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is Marquesan. We have chosen this Polynesian language because it is spoken coterritorially with Tahitian. The LPP-varieties of the two genetically closely related and geographically neighboring languages yield different results. The Tahitian LPP-variety in (175) shows no sign of syncretism. In contrast, the Marquesan LPPvariety in (179) provides evidence of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. (179) (179.1)

(179.2)

(179.3)

Marquesan Source [LPP Marquesan, 52] [Mei hea] mai nei òe? [from Q?]S? hither DEM.PROX you ‘Where are you from?’ Place [LPP Marquesan, 15] [I hea] òa io òe? [to=at Q?]P?/G? TAM home you ‘Where is your home?’ Goal [LPP Marquesan, 15] [I hea] òe e àve atu ai i ta [to=at Q?]P?/G? you TAM take DIR ANAPH OBJ DET:POSS.AL ù muto? my sheep ‘Where do you take my sheep?’

Mismatches | 487

According to the description of Marquesan by Cablitz (2006: 113), there is an allophonic variant sea of the Q-morpheme hea. Thus, the DGB-variety tolerates overabundance. Furthermore, Lazard & Peltzer (2000: 114) report a similar allomorphy of the Q-morphemes hea and fea in Tahitian. What is more, the authors also assume that i hea ‘where = whither’ can be used as spatial interrogative of Place and Goal as in (180). (180) (180.1)

(180.2)

Tahitian (DGB) Goal e haere ‘oe ASP go you ‘Where are you going?’ Place [i hea] ‘oe [at/to Q]P?/G? you ‘Where do you live?’

[Lazard & Peltzer 2000: 114] [i [at/to

e ASP

hea]? Q]P?/G?

fa’aea stay

ai? ANAPH

According to these examples, the preposition i ‘at, to’ must be considered ambiguous as to Place and Goal (cf. example [175.3] above) – and this is exactly what the descriptive grammar assumes (Lazard & Peltzer 2000: 186). The Tahitian LPPvariety covers only a segment of the grammar of the spatial interrogatives.

4.1.1.3 Pattern WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) This syncretic pattern and the pattern (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER which will be looked at in the subsequent Section 4.1.1.4 are clear cases of minor options. In none of the four regions do any of the minor patterns claim a share that exceeds 7%. In the case of identical expressions for the dynamic spatial relations, there is even zero frequency in Asia. Furthermore, the situation is rendered problematic on the empirical side because in several cases the descriptive adequacy of the accounts given of the phenomenon in the dedicated literature is doubtful, and therefore we cannot be sure that we are dealing with a proper case of WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism (or WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism) in a given language in the first place. Therefore, what we say in this and the next subsection should not be taken as the final word in this matter. With this proviso in the back of our minds we can look at the data. Since the pattern WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) is attested only in fifteen languages, we do not present that data in separate tables for each continent. The paradigms in Table 323 show that there are ten languages which attest exclusively to this

488 | The big world syncretic pattern. The languages stem from three different continents. The five additional languages display multiple syncretic patterns. Table 323: WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in non-European languages. WHENCE

Reference

àfu-à-ni ~ ài-àfu- àyé à-ni ~ ài-ádú

àyé

Vorbichler 1965

Chatino (Zona Alta)

nde32 ~ la2 nde32 [!] nde23 ~ la4 nde23[!]

nde23 ~ la4 nde23[!]

Pride & Pride 1997

Comanche

hakʉ

hakahpu

Robinson & Armagost 1990

Hup

hᵼ)-cóʔ ~ hᵼ)t

hᵼ͂-kán

hᵼ̃-kán

Epps 2008

Kiliwa

ʔap-l

ʔap-q

ʔap-q

Mixco 1996

Language

WHERE

Balese

WHITHER

hakahpu

Neverver

tebi

abi

abi

Barbour 2012

Tamasheq (Tudalt)

əndék

məni-s

məni-s

Sudlow 2009

ənde-s

ənde-s

Sudlow 2009

Tamasheq ənde-d (Tamaghit/ Tadrak) Yuwaalaraay

miɲa:ya

miɲa:ru

miɲa:ru

Co. Williams 1980

Zoque (San Miguel Chimalapa)

huʔ

hutéŋ

hutéŋ

Johnson 2000

Bankon

á fè e [!]

á fè e [!] ~ fè

á fè e [!] ~ fè

Spellenberg 1922

Hawaiian (DGB)

hea ~ auhea ~ i i hea [!] ~ no hea [!] mai hea [!] ~ no hea [!] ~ ma hea [!] hea [!]

Nahuatl (Acaxochitlan)

kanin

kan

kan ~ kani ~ de kani [!]

Lastra 1980

Nzadi

koŋgó

koŋgó ~ ŋgó

ŋgó

Crane et al. 2011

Owa

fai ~ fai nga [!]

i fea [!] ~ i fai [!] ~ fea i fea [!]

Elbert & Pukui 1979

Mellow 2013

None of the LPP-varieties of our non-European languages gives evidence of the minor pattern under scrutiny. To avoid lengthy discussions of unclear cases, we illustrate WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism with examples from languages for which the existence of this pattern is not downright questionable. This does not mean that the data are beyond doubt. Each of the three continents for which WHITHER = WHENCE is reported is represented by a bona fide case. The Nilo-Saharan language Balese functions as the opener for the discussion, cf. (181).

Mismatches | 489

(181) (181.1)

(181.2)

(181.3)

Balese [Vorbichler 1965: 161] Place [ài-áfú-à-ni]-bɔ̀ àfi hɔcà ba ù:pí? [Q-place-LIM-LOC]P?-INTERR man 3SG:be PTCPL sit ‘Where are the people sitting?’ Goal [àyé] bɔ̀ nɔrɔ̀? [Q:X]G?/S? INTERR 2SG:go.PERF ‘Where have you gone?’ Source [àyé] bɔ̀ nɔgɔ̀? [Q:X]G?/S? INTERR 2SG:come ‘Where do you come from?’

Vorbichler’s (1965) description of Balese is absolutely positive about WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism not the least because this pattern is in line with the general Goal=Source syncretism in this language (Vorbichler 1965: 90) (cf. Section 5 below). There are no other ways to inquire about dynamic spatial relations. In contrast, there are several alternative ways to inquire about Place, all of which involve polymorphic constructions. It is very likely that the general interrogative ài ‘which, what’ that forms part of the WHERE-construction in (181.1) is also involved in the formation of the syncretic àyé ‘whither = whence’ (< ài + *-é). However, we have not been able to find evidence of a synchronic morpheme *-é in Balese and thus opt for glossing the unclear unit as X in (181.2) and (181.3). The Yuman language Kiliwa (spoken in Baja California/Mexico) provides the examples to illustrate WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in the Americas. We emphasize that the data are less clear than those discussed for Balese above. The interrogative clauses in (182) are based on the Spanish questionnaire used for the purposes of the series Archivo de lenguas indígenas de México under the auspices of El Colegio de México. In this questionnaire, on the basis of which some three dozens of indigenous languages of Mexico have been documented so far, there are three sentences which might help to elicit the spatial interrogatives under inspection here:  #36 ¿Dónde está tu papá? ‘Where is your father?’ = Place  #452 ¿A dónde entró tu papá? ‘Where did your father go in?’57 = Goal  #454 ¿De dónde salió tu papá? ‘Where did your father come out?’58 = Source || 57 In the earliest volumes of the Archivo series, this sentence was #451.

490 | The big world The Spanish stimuli require three formally distinct spatial interrogatives. There is the static dónde ‘where’ which is unmarked for any spatial relation and is used for the Place function. The two dynamic spatial interrogatives a dónde ‘whither’ and de dónde ‘whence’ are complex since they reflect prepositional phrases. The prepositions a ‘to’ and de ‘from’ specify the Goal function and the Source function, respectively. However, it is by no means always clear whether these stimuli are translated adequately because in several of the volumes published in the above series, it seems that the translation focusses on the Place relation in the sense that a back translation into English would yield Where is the place your father entered? and Where is the place your came out of? for the dynamic spatial relations, cf. below. In the case of Kiliwa, as we will show in the following, this problem does not seem to arise. (182) (182.1)

(182.2)

(182.3)

Kiliwa Place maʔ=m-sʔuu-t [ʔap-l] you=2SG-father-SUBJ [Q-INESS]P? ‘Where is your father?’ Goal [ʔap-q] khwap-uʔ, [Q-ALL/ABL]G?/S? enter-INTERR ‘Where has your father gone in?’ Source [ʔap-q] sit-uʔ, [Q-ALL/ABL]G?/S? leave-INTERR ‘Where has your father come out?’

[Mixco 1996: 76]59 wa-uʔ? sit-INTERR [Mixco 1996: 141] m-sʔuu-hi-t? 2SG-father-DEM-SUBJ [Mixco 1996: 141] m-sʔuu-hi-t? 2SG-father-DEM-SUBJ

The examples (182.2)–(182.3) show that the two dynamic spatial relations are encoded by identical means on the Q-stem. In both cases, the suffix -q is employed. This suffix is ambiguous as to directionality. It encodes dynamicity without specifying direction. The evidence is robust because there is general Goal=Source syncretism also outside the domain of interrogativity in Kiliwa, i.e., allative and ablative are formally identical in declarative sentences too (cf. Section 5 below).

|| 58 In the earliest volumes of the Archivo series, this sentence was #453. 59 Mixco (1986) glosses the suffixal morpheme -l as illative, i.e. as the marker of a dynamic spatial relation. However, as far as we can judge, the putative illative-marker is attested exclusively in static situations. Therefore, we gloss it as inessive.

Mismatches | 491

A particularly striking case is provided by the Australian language Yuwaalaraay. The paradigm of spatial interrogatives contains two constructions. There is a distinct spatial interrogative of Place and a spatial interrogative which fulfills the functions of WHITHER and WHENCE indiscriminately, cf. (183). (183) (183.1)

(183.2)

(183.3)

Yuwaalaraay Place [miɲa:ya] ŋinda? [Q:LOC]P? you ‘Where are you?’ Goal [miɲa:ru] yina:n̠i? [Q:DIR]G?/S? come/go:N/F ‘Where do you go?’ Source [miɲa:ru] yina:n̠i? [Q:DIR]G?/S? come/go:N/F ‘Where do you come from?’

[Co. Williams 1980: 56–57]

The utterances in (183.2) and (183.3) are absolutely identical – and thus ambiguous as to their interpretation. In her comment on the spatial interrogatives of Yuwaalaraay, Corinne Williams (1980: 56) states that “miɲa:ru is a directional term, but it does not distinguish between allative and ablative meanings. The derivation of the suffix is unknown.” On top of the identity of WHITHER and WHENCE, there is the semantic ambiguity of the motion verb yina:- ‘go, come’ in the above examples. In other languages which tolerate syncretism of the dynamic spatial interrogatives the verbal semantics normally serves to tell the spatial relations apart. However, in the case of Yuwaalaraay this disambiguation strategy is blocked.

4.1.1.4 Pattern (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER There are altogether ten cases of WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism, seven of which stem from languages which give evidence of the coexistence of different syncretic patterns in their paradigms of spatial interrogatives. Similar to WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism, the empirical facts are not always easy to establish. That is why we have excluded a number of putative instances of WHERE=WHENCEsyncretism from the further discussion. This does not mean that the remaining cases are clear beyond any doubt. Table 324 involves paradigms from all four of the continents. However, in none of the areas does this syncretic pattern exceed the share of 4%.

492 | The big world Table 324: WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism in non-European languages. Language

WHERE

Abui

te ~ te mai [!] te=ng

WHITHER

Lavukaleve

ria ~ dia

Munukutuba

wápì síkà [!] wápì ndáámbù [!]

Bāgandji

windjar ~ windjara

Khasi (B)

WHENCE

Reference

te ~ te mai [!]

Kratchovíl 2007

ria ~ dia

Terrill 2011

wápì síkà [!]

Mfoutou 2009

windjamaṛi

windjara ~ windjandu

Hercus 1982

nangno ~ shano

shano

nangno

Kharwanlang 2010

Martiniquan Creole French (LPP)

koté ~ ki koté [!] ~ eti

koté ~ ki koté [!] koté ~ eti

LPP Martiniquan Creole French, 16

Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán)

á ~ ánkʔu

ánkʔu60

á ~ ánkʔu

Lastra 1989

Seselwa (LPP)

kote ~ oli

kote

kote ~ oli

LPP Seselwa, 16

Tepehua (Pisaflores)

táni ~ tánijcha tánijcha

táni

Mackay & Trechsel 2010

Zoque (Chimalapa)61

hu ~ huka ~ hutɨ

hutɨ

Knudson 1980

riahi ~ diahi

hutɨk

Two of the examples in Table 324 stem from the LPP-varieties of French-based Creoles, viz. Martiniquan Creole French in the Caribbean and Seselwa in the Indian Ocean. According to Corne (1977: 63), the overabundance in the cell of WHERE of Seselwa is restricted to the present tense. Kote (~ kot) ‘where’ is insensitive to tense and aspect distinctions whereas oli ‘where’ can be employed only in the present tense. Diachronically, oli ‘where’ can be decomposed into *o ‘where’ (< French où ‘where = whither’) + le = {COPULA}-{PRESENT}. Neither Corne (1977: 189) nor Bollée (1977: 80–81), whose treatments of the adverbial interrogatives of Seselwa resemble each other closely, explain the compositionality of the spatial interrogative. The relation of the two WHERE-constructions can be represented schematically as in Scheme 21.

|| 60 The spatial interrogative of Goal is given as ánku in Lastra (1989: 122) whereas elsewhere in the text the phonological chain contains an additional glottal stop to yield ánkʔu. Since the latter seems to be the correct version, we have changed ánku to ánkʔu. 61 The variety of Zoque described by Knudson (1980) is spoken in Santa María Chimalapa, as opposed to the abovementioned San Miguel Chimalapa Zoque.

Mismatches | 493

WHERE

→

oli / [+present] kot(e) / [αpresent]

Scheme 21: Tense-based allomorphy of WHERE in Seselwa.

Whether or not this scenario can be applied also to WHENCE is a question we are not in a position to answer for lack of sufficient empirical proof. On the basis of the descriptions we have consulted, a third construction type with an optional general interrogative ki can be postulated. It seems that the combination of ki and oli is exceptional, if at all. However, neither of the two grammars addresses the issue of the spatial interrogative of Source so that the DGB-data cannot be used for the purposes of this study. The situation is practically the same with Martiniquan Creole French. In Bernabé’s (1983: 419–460) monumental grammar of French-based creoles of Martinique and Guadeloupean Creole French, only the spatial interrogative of Place ola ‘where’ is mentioned which, however, is not attested in our sample text. Accordingly, the DGB-data have no bearing on the classification of Martiniquan Creole French in this study. The sole representative of Asia in Table 324 is Khasi (B). The evidence is taken from an English-Khasi dictionary (Kharwanlang 2010: 425) which does not provide sentential examples to illustrate the use of the spatial interrogatives. The little information that is available is suggestive of a combination of two syncretic patterns, namely, on the one hand, WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism which manifests itself in the spatial interrogative shano ‘where = whither’ and, on the other hand, WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism to which nangno ‘where = whence’ testifies. This situation is different from that of Khasi (A) presented in Table 316 above. In Khasi (A) the paradigm consists of three distinct constructions. Since the word-forms in the paradigms of Khasi (A) and Khasi (B) do not fully correspond to each other phonologically, it can be assumed that we are dealing with two different regional or social varieties of Khasi. In the Bantu-based Creole language Munukutuba (aka Kituba), the spatial interrogatives come as multi-word constructions. These constructions share the Q-stem wápì which Mfoutou (2009: 90) equates with French où ‘where = whither’. However, it seems that it is never used on its own. It is obligatorily accompanied by a second word-like unit. This element is síkà in the case of WHERE and WHENCE but ndáámbù in the case of WHITHER, cf. (184). These elements are employed also in a number of other adverbials of space (Mfoutou 2009: 117).

494 | The big world (184) (184.1)

(184.2)

(184.3)

Munukutuba Place [Mfoutou 2009: 90] [Wápì síkà] ngé kélé? [Q X]P?/S? you be ‘Where are you?’ Goal [Mfoutou 2009: 54] [Wápì ndáámbù] bénò ké kwééndà? [Q Y]G? you.PL FUT go ‘Where will you go?’ Source [Mfoutou 2009: 54] [Wápì síkà] ngé mé kàtúkà? [Q X]P?/S? you PERF come ‘Where have you come from?’

Munukutuba stands out among the African languages south of the Sahara because the latter generally employ paradigms with a common expression for all three categories. This indistinction is typical of the Bantu languages (cf. below) – and Munukutuba has arisen from the contact of several Bantu languages on the lower Congo River (Heine 1973: 54–55). The divergence of Munukutuba from this widely attested pattern connects this language to the languages which are spoken further to the north of Africa (as argued in the previous subsections). In the Americas, a relative example of WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism is provided by the variety of Otomí which is spoken in San Andrés Cuexcontitlán. The sentences in (185) are taken from the questionnaire of the Archivo series which we have mentioned in Section 4.1.1.3 in connection with the Kiliwa examples in (182). (185) (185.1)

(185.2)

(185.3)

Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán) Place [Lastra 1989: 56] [á] i-ʔbɨi ri-tá? [Q]P?/S? 3SG.PRES:be 2SG-father ‘Where is your father?’ Place [Lastra 1989: 79] [ánkʔu] mbó rʌ ásugá? [Q:X]P?/G?/S? sell DEF sugar ‘Where do they sell sugar?’ Goal [Lastra 1989: 122] [ánkʔu] bí-ñɨti kʔʌ ri-tá? [Q:X]P?/G?/S? 3SG.PRET-enter this 2SG-father ‘Where has your father gone in?

Mismatches | 495

(185.4)

(185.5)

Source [á] bí-bɨni kʔʌ [Q]G? 3SG.PRET-exit this ‘Where has your father come out? Source [ánkʔu] rʌ-míngú 3SG.PROG:be_from [Q:X]P?/G?/S? ‘Where is this Juan from?’

[Lastra 1989: 122–123] ri-tá? 2SG-father

ni this

[Lastra 1989: 74] rʌ šúa? DEF Juan

The general spatial interrogative ánkʔu ‘where = whither = whence’ seems to involve the syncretic á ‘where=whence’. It is impossible to classify the phonological excess -nkʔu morpho-semantically on the basis of the information given in Lastra (1989). The classification of this variety as an example of WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism is based solely on the absence of any example of á ‘where = whence’ in the function of a spatial interrogative of Goal. This failure of á functioning as WHITHER-construction is perhaps caused by the small size of the corpus covered by Lastra (1989). At the same time, the Otomí-variety of San Andrés Cuexcontitlán is not at odds with the LPP-variety because this variety attests to the pattern WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE (cf. below). The DGB-variety of Otomí de la Sierra (Voigtlander & Echegoyen 1985: 292) has hapʉ ‘where = whither’ (no example of WHENCE is given). Once more we have to accept the idea that we are facing regional variation. The Papuan language Abui is our witness of WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism in Oceania. The examples in (186) are taken from different parts of the descriptive grammar (Kratchovíl 2007). For the spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal, there is ample evidence in the analytical part of the descriptive grammar. As to WHENCE, however, the situation is different. There is exactly one example – in the dictionary which accompanies the descriptive grammar. On top of that, the WHENCE-construction is presented without morpheme glosses in the dictionary. The glosses in (186.3) are ours. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that the examples are of the same kind. (186) (186.1)

(186.2)

Abui Place kaai [te] mia? be_in dog [Q]P?/S? ‘Where is the dog?’ Goal ma a [te=ng] be.PROX you [Q=see]G? ‘Where are you going?’

[Kratchovíl 2007: 227]

yaa-e? go-IMPERF

[Kratchovíl 2007: 218]

496 | The big world (186.3)

Source A [te] mia yaar-i? you [Q]P?/S? be_in go.CPL-PERF ‘Where have you come from?’

[Kratchovíl 2007: 495]

There is a common Q-morpheme te used in all three constructions. In the case of and WHENCE, the Q-morpheme exhausts the construction. For WHITHER, however, the additional element =ng ‘see’ is consistently employed throughout the grammatical description of Abui. We have not found any evidence of bare te ‘where = whence’ being used also for the purpose of encoding the spatial relation of Goal. There is also no trace of te=ng ‘whither’ fulfilling the task of WHERE or WHENCE. Kratchovíl (2007: 129) explains that

WHERE

[t]he question word te ‘where, how’ combines with the generic root ng ‘see’ when the direction of a motion is questioned. […] In some cases the question word te ‘where’ may be used referentially to express a non-specific, random location or direction of the event.

Superficially, the last sentence of this quote seems to indicate that te ‘where = whence’ is an all-purpose spatial interrogative. However, the use of indefinite spatial te ‘wherever, anywhere’ is clearly not a case of a direct question. Since in this study we do not cover the use of spatial interrogatives for functions such as those of indefinites, the Abui case is relatively unproblematic for us because in the context of inerrogativity, the evidence is clearly indicative of WHERE=WHENCEsyncretism.

4.1.1.5 Pattern WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE In contrast to the two minor syncretic patterns discussed in the previous two subsections, the paradigm with neutralization of the spatial relations on the interrogatives boasts of a relatively wide cross-linguistic distribution. The frequency with which this indistinct pattern is attested varies from one region to the other. As results from the subsequent subsections, the pattern WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE is particularly popular in Africa and the Americas.

4.1.1.5.1 Africa As a matter of fact, the pattern without formal distinctions is the number one option in Africa. The thirty-six African languages attesting to this pattern constitute a share of 43% of all languages of Africa of our non-European sample. Thirty of these languages attest exclusively to WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE, cf. Table 325.

Mismatches | 497

Table 325: WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in languages of Africa. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Alur

kane

kane

kane

LPP Alur, 20

Arbore

ʔée ~ ʔeeké

ʔée ~ ʔeeké

ʔée ~ ʔeeké

Hayward 1984

Bambara

mín

mín

mín

LPP Bambara, 15–16

Dyula

bay

bay

bay

Diatta 2010

Ekoti

vai

vai

vai

Schadeberg & Mucanheia 2000

Ewe

afíkà

afíkà

afíkà

Rongier 1988

Fali

hɐy ~ ɐ hɐy  [!]

hɐy ~ ɐ hɐy  [!]

hɐy ~ ɐ hɐy  [!]

Kramer 2014

Gùrdùn

yàu

yàu

yàu

Iraqw

diimá ~ aamá diimá ~ aamá diimá ~ aamá

Kaba

ddá

ddá

Kanuri

ndâ

ndâ (~ ndâ-ro) ndâ (~ ndâ-n)

Cyffer 1991

Khwe

mà-X

mà-X

Kilian-Hatz 2008

Kol

yé

yé

yé

Henson 2007

Koyra Chiini

man

man

man

Heath 1999a

Kuwaataay

t-iin

t-iin

t-iin

Coly 2012

Lele

mina ~ dà mina [!]

mina ~ dà mina [!]

mina ~ dà mina [!]

Frajzyngier 2001

kot

kot

LPP Morisyen, 16

Morisyen (LPP) kot

ddá mà-X

Haruna 2003 Mous 1993 Moser & Dingatoloum 2007

Mundang

kḭ̄ḛ̄

kḭ̄ḛ̄

kḭ̄ḛ̄

Elders 2000

Ò̥nì̥chà Igbo

èbeē

èbeē

èbeē

Williamson 2006

Pamue

ve

ve

ve

Ndongo Esono 1956

Príncipense

kumí â [!]

kumí â [!]

kumí â [!]

Günther 1973

Pular

holto

holto

holto

Labatut et al. 1987

Shona

kúpí

kúpí

kúpí

Brauner 1993

Somali (LPP)

xaggee

xaggee

xaggee

LPP Somali, 17

Susu

minde(n)

minde(n)

minde(n)

Friedländer 1974

Swahili (LPP)

wapi

wapi

wapi

LPP Swahili, 17

Tadaksahak

mán ne

mán ne

mán ne

Christiansen-Bolli 2010

Tira

-aŋga

-aŋga

-aŋga

Stevenson 2009

Yukuben

é-ré

é-ré

é-ré

Anyanwu 2013

Zulu (LPP)

-phi

-phi

-phi

LPP Zulu, 14

498 | The big world

Language

WHERE

WHENCE

Reference

Angolar

a ~ andji ~ a pê andji [!] ~ andji pê [!]

andji

Maurer 1995

Bankon

á fè e [!]

Kpelle

kɔ ~ mí ~ míní

á fè e [!] ~ fè

á fè e [!] ~ fè

Spellenberg 1922

mí ~ míní

mí ~ míní

Westermann & Melzian 1930

Seselwa (LPP)

kote ~ oli

kote

kote ~ oli

LPP Seselwa, 16

Soo

ek ~ ek-o

ek

ek

Carlin 1993

Wolof

ana ~ fu ~ fan fu ~ fan

fu ~ fan

Malherbe & Sall 1989

WHITHER

The vast majority of the languages in Table 325 are located in Sub-Saharan Africa. The LPP-variety of Somali counts among the not numerous exceptions to this geographical repartition. Note, however, that the DGB-variety of Somali reflects the maximally distinct paradigm WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE (cf. Table 314 above). The LPP-variety of Swahili in (187) is a very good specimen of the general situation in Sub-Saharan Africa. According to Creissels (2006: 23), the formal indistinction of Place, Goal, and Source is “extremely common in Subsaharan Africa”. Thus, the behavior of the spatial interrogatives of Swahili fits the tendency of the spatial relations to be neutralized in declarative sentences. (187) (187.1)

(187.2)

(187.3)

Swahili [LPP Swahili, 17] Source Bwana mdogo wangu, unatoka [wapi]? man CL1:little CL1:my 2SG:PRES:come_from [Q]P?/G?/S? ‘My little man, where are you coming from?’ Place Ni [wapi] huko unakoita kwako? COP [Q]P?/G?/S? DEM.PROX:2SG 2SG:PRES:INF:call at:2SG ‘Where is this you call your home?’ Goal Unataka kumpeleka [wapi] kondoo wangu? 2SG:PRES:want INF:3SG.OBJ:send [Q]P?/G?/S? sheep CL1:my ‘Where do you want to send my sheep?’

The indistinct Swahili spatial interrogative wapi ‘where = whither = whence’ can be compared to the Q-stem wápì of Munukutuba discussed above. In Swahili, the disambiguation of the spatial relations is relegated to the predicates and the semantics of the lexical verbs involved. This is a general principle which holds for all cases of WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism as well as for other syncretic pairs

Mismatches | 499

of categories in the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of our sample languages. This means that the principle recurs in many languages and thus there is no need to mention it specifically in each of the cases in which it applies.

4.1.1.5.2 The Americas Like in the African case, the pattern of three formally identical constructions has the biggest share of all patterns in the Americas. There are thirty-three languages of the Americas which attest to it. This means that 37% of the languages of this geographically defined group give evidence of the pattern WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE. The subdivision of Table 326 reveals that twenty-seven languages have this pattern as their only option. Another six languages give evidence of the coexistence of several syncretic patterns. Table 326: WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in languages of the Americas. Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Acatec (de la Frontera)

b’éy tuʔ [!]

b’éy tuʔ [!]

b’éy tuʔ [!]

Zavala Maldonado 1992

Berbice Dutch

wangga

wangga

wangga

Kouwenberg 1994

Chocho

š̥indì

š̥indì

š̥indì

Mock 1977

Ette Taara

m

bemma

Guadeloupean ola Creole French (LPP)

bemma

bemma

m

m

Trillos 1997

ola

ola

LPP Guadeloupean Creole French, 16

Guarijío

ahká=na

ahká=na

ahká=na

Miller 1993

Huave (San Mateo del Mar)

ngiane

ngiane

ngiane

Stairs & Stairs 1983

Huichol

hakewa

hakewa

hakewa

Gómez 1999

Kaqchikel (LPP)

akuchi’

akuchi’

akuchi’

LPP Kaqchikel, 16

Mapudungun

chew

chew

chew

Smeets 2008

Matlatzinca

póht’i

póht’i

póht’i

Escalante H. & Hernández 1999

Mayo

háku-su

háku-su

háku-su

Freeze 1989

Peñoles Mixtec

ndèé

ndèé

ndèé

Daly & Daly 1977

Ndyuka

pe ~ on pe [!] pe ~ on pe [!] pe ~ on pe [!] Huttar & Huttar 1994 ~ na on pe [!] ~ na on pe [!] ~ na on pe [!]

Osage

howái̜ki ~ howái̜ki ~ hówai̜kice ~ hówai̜kice ~ hówai hówai

Quintero 2010 howái̜ki ~ hówai̜kice ~ hówai

500 | The big world

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Otomí (LPP)

habu

habu

habu

LPP Otomí, 16

huč

huč

Wichmann 2007

Popoluca (Texistepec) huč Purépecha

‘nani

‘nani

‘nani

Chamoreau 2003

Seri

ʔáki

ʔáki

ʔáki

Moser 1996

Shasta

kurá

kurá

kurá

Silver 1966

Saint Lucian Creole koté French

koté

koté

Mondesir & Carrington 1992

na:1

na:1

na:1

Suárez 1988

ninchún

ninchún

Mackay & Trechsel 2005

Tlapanec

Totonac (Misantla) ninchún Totonac (Papantla) niku Trique (San Juan Copala)

me̥3 reh34 [!]

niku

niku

Levy 1990

me̥3 reh34 [!]

me̥3 reh34 [!]

Hollenbach & Hollenbach 1975

Yucatec (LPP)

tu’x

tu’x

tu’x

LPP Yucatec, 16

Zapotec (Istmo)

paraa

paraa

paraa

Pickett & Embrey 1974

Chuj

b’aj ~ b’ajtil b’aj-til

b’aj-til

Buenrostro 2009

Guianese Creole French (LPP)

koté ~ ki koté [!]

koté

koté

LPP Guianese Creole French, 16

Hualapai

ge

ge

ge ~ nyige

Watahomigie 2001

koté ~ eti

LPP Martiniquan Creole French, 16

Martiniquan Creole koté ~ ki koté koté ~ [!] ~ eti ki koté [!] French (LPP) Mohegan-Pequot

chawhog

Saramaccan

unsé ~ naáse naáse

chawhog~ aka chawhog naáse

Prince & Speck 1999 Byrne 1987

The Mayan language Yucatec counts among the small number of languages of the Americas which boast a translation of Le Petit Prince. The sample sentences in (188) prove that the spatial interrogative tu’ux ‘where = whither = whence’ is used indiscriminately for WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE alike. (188) (188.1)

(188.2)

Yucatec Source ¿[Tu‘ux] a taal, chan máak? [Q]P?/G?/S? A.2SG come little man ‘Where do you come from, little man?’ Place ¿[Tu‘ux] yan a nay? [Q]P?/G?/S? EXI A.2SG house ‘Where is your house?’

[LPP Yucatec, 16]

Mismatches | 501

(188.3)

Goal ¿[Tu’ux] taak a bisik in [Q]P?/G?/S? want A.2SG take:TR A.1SG ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

tamano‘? sheep:D2

This situation is typical of many Amerindian languages, especially of Mesoamerica and Central America as well as of several Caribbean creole languages. It is worth noting that the pattern under inspection does not seem to be overly common in South America – Mapudungun being prominent among the exceptional cases of South American languages in Table 326.

4.1.1.5.3 Asia In contrast to the languages of Africa and America, those of Asia largely avoid the pattern WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE. There are but five Asian examples which are equivalent of a share of 6% of all languages of Asia in our non-European sample, cf. Table 327. Table 327: WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in languages of Asia. Reference

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Chamba-Lahuli

gòó

gòó

gòó

Boyd & Sa’ad 2010

Muna

hamai ~ hamai ~ hamahamadi ~ ne di ~ ne hamai [!] hamai [!] ~ ne ~ ne hamadi [!] hamadi [!]

hamai ~ hamadi ~ ne hamai [!] ~ ne hamadi [!]

Berg 1989

Romblomanon

di’in

di’in

di’in

Newell & Tabardilla 2006

Yami

(w)ájin

(w)ájin

(w)ájin

He & Dong 2006

Tagalog (LPP)

saan ~ nasa’n saan

saan ~ sa’n

LPP Tagalog, 14

Four of the five languages belong to the Austronesian language family. Only Chamba-Lahuli is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken on the Asian mainland. Moreover, in each of the cases – except Tagalog – the documentation is controversial. Therefore, we illustrate the Asian situation with the data from the LPPvariety of Tagalog (189). However, we skip the issue of overabundance in this section since this is the topic of Section 4.1.2 below.

502 | The big world (189) (189.1)

(189.2)

(189.3)

Tagalog [LPP Tagalog, 14] Source Munti kong tao, [saan] ka ba galing? little 1SG:LIG person [Q]P?/G?/S? you INTERR come_from ‘My little man, where do you come from?’ Place [Saan] ba ang lugar mo? [Q]P?/G?/S? INTERR FOC place 2SG ‘Where is your place?’ Goal [Saan] mo gustong dalhin ang tupa ko? [Q]P?/G?/S? 2SG want:LIG take FOC sheep 1SG ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

The Q-stem saan ‘where = whither = whence’ is employed in inquiries about Place, Goal, and Source without any additional morphological unit that helps to distinguish the three spatial relations.

4.1.1.5.4 Oceania In Oceania, the turnout of languages with indistinction of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE exceeds that of Asia but fails to come anywhere close to the absolute and relative figures reported for the languages of Africa and the Americas. There are altogether seventeen languages of Oceania which lump together the three spatial relations. This yields a share of 17% of all languages of this group. Four of these seventeen languages display multiple syncretic patterns, cf. Table 328. Table 328: WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism in languages of Oceania. Language

Reference

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Atayal

inu’

inu’

inu’

Rau 1992

Awtuw

yipe ~ yipke yipke

yipke

Feldman 1986

Bannoni

vai

vai

vai

Lincoln 1976

Kilivila

ambeya ~ amgwa

ambeya ~ amgwa

ambeya ~ amgwa

Senft 1986

Kokota

hae

hae

hae

Palmer 1999

Longgu

eve ~ i eve [!] eve ~ i eve [!]

eve ~ i eve [!]

Hill 2011

Manam

inaŋa ~ ina

inaŋa ~ ina

Lichtenberk 1983

inaŋa ~ ina

Mismatches | 503

Language

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Reference

Mokilese

ia

ia

ia

Harrison1976

Palauan

e̹r ker[!]

e̹r ker [!]

e̹r ker[!]

Josephs 1975

Samoan

fea ~ gafea ~ i gafea [!]

fea ~ gafea ~ i gafea [!]

fea ~ gafea ~ mai gafea [!]

Mosel & Hovdhaugen 1992

South Efate

eswa ~ swa ~ wa

eswa ~ swa ~ wa

eswa ~ swa ~ Thieberger 2006 wa

Teiwa

ita’a

ita’a

ita’a

Klamer 2010

Usan

eret

eret

eret

Reesink 1987

Bislama

we ~ wem ~ we wehem

we

Crowley 2004

Drehu

ekaa ~ kaa

kaa ~ ië

kaa

Moyse-Faurie 1983

Erromangan (Sie)

iya ~ yepe

iya

iya

Crowley 1998

Kobon

gai ~ auai ~ gai mai

gai

Jo. Davies 1989

There is no LPP-variety whatsoever which documents this pattern for any of the languages of Oceania. The Austronesian language Bannoni (Bougainville) serves as example of the languages in Table 328. According to Lincoln (1976), the spatial interrogative vai ‘where = whither = whence’ fulfils the functions of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE indiscriminately. No morphological means are employed to disambiguate the spatial relations. (190) (190.1)

(190.2)

(190.3)

Bannoni Place [Vai] tani-a-ta tavana [Q]P?/G?/S? is-3SG-EXI man ‘Where is this man?’ Goal Gham [vai] ko ta 2PL [Q]P?/G?/S? 2SG FUT ‘Where are you going?’ Source [Vai] tsigana nu? [Q]P?/G?/S? come 2SG ‘Where have you come from?’

ie? this

tai-a? go-3SG

[Lincoln 1976: 178]

[Lincoln 1976: 208]

[Lincoln 1976: 208]

504 | The big world 4.1.1.6 Synopsis of syncretic patterns The above presentation of the non-European data shows that all of the five logically possible syncretic patterns are attested albeit with different frequency. In Diagram 113 we survey the paradigms which attest to a given pattern in a given geographical area. The Roman numbers represent the patterns as follows:  I→ WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE  II → (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE  III → WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE)  IV → (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER  V→ WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE 100% 90% 80%

36

33

5 1

17

22

3 4

70% 60% 50% 40%

2 5 18

10%

22

pattern IV

pattern III

17 53

30% 20%

21

4 6

pattern V

54

pattern II

30 pattern I

0% Africa

Americas

Asia

Oceania

Diagram 113: Shares of syncretic patterns per continent.

The four continents have slightly different shares of the non-European sample which oscillate between 23% and 28%. Apart from this difference, the most remarkable fact about Diagram 113 is the absence of the pattern WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) in Asia and the low frequency of the patterns (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER and WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE in the same area. Patterns III–IV are generally underrepresented in the non-European languages whereas the pat-

Mismatches | 505

terns I, II, and V are firmly established across the continents – with the notable exception of V which is infrequent on Asian soil. With a share of about 45% of all non-European paradigms, the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE is the most widely spread of the five options. The second position is held by the neutralized paradigm WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE. However, its share is significantly smaller than that of pattern I. Pattern V accounts for slightly more than a quarter of all non-European paradigms. With a share of 22%, the pattern of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism is almost as frequent as that of indistinction of the spatial categories. None of the remaining patterns yields values higher than 4%. The statistical prominence of patterns I, II, and V is clearly visible. The same can be said of the statistical insignificance of the patterns III and IV. The shares in Diagram 113 are suggestive of an areal bipartition. African and American languages have a certain predilection for the neutralized paradigm of spatial interrogatives, i.e. for pattern V, whereas the languages of Asia and Oceania are characterized by an even stronger tendency to realize the maximally distinct pattern with three different spatial interrogatives (= pattern I). Similarly, WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism (= pattern II) is second best in Asia and Oceania while it occupies only the third rank in Africa and the Americas. In contrast to the situation in Oceania and especially to that in Asia, the minor patterns III-IV are minimally better off in Africa and America without claiming shares which could compete with those of the other patterns. Diagram 114 tells us how important a given area is for a given syncretic pattern. 100% 90% 80%

54

21

4

3

70% 60% 50%

22 53

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1 6

22 pattern I

18 pattern II

5 Oceania

33

4

17 30

17

pattern III

Americas

36

5

2 pattern IV

Diagram 114: Shares of continents per syncretic pattern.

Asia

pattern V

Africa

506 | The big world The values of Diagram 114 corroborate the observations made in connection to Diagram 113. Asia and Oceania are especially important for the total of instances of pattern I. Inversely, Africa and the Americas are of particular importance in the case of pattern V. As to WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism, it is remarkable that the shares of the four continents do not diverge much from each other. The percentages revolve around 19% to 27% in all continents which is relatively close to the average share each continent has of the total of paradigms. The minor patterns yield values according to which Africa and the Americas are slightly more tolerant towards the patterns III–IV whereas the very same patterns are largely alien to Asia. Oceania seems to occupy a middle position. In anticipation of the comparison of the non-European and the European results in Section 4.4 below, we can already say at this point that the nonEuropean languages do not behave homogeneously. There is variation that results from different areal preferences. Furthermore, the non-European picture is not a simple replication of the European situation although Asia and Europe seem to show similar behavior. The most striking difference between the European and the non-European situations is the relatively frequent attestation of the pattern WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE outside of Europe. The minor patterns of WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism and WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism can be termed peripheral phenomena not only in Europe but also in global perspective.

4.1.2 Overabundance Overabundance is attested with languages of each of the non-European areas. It is, however, a phenomenon which cannot be assessed satisfactorily on the basis of our data. The sources are simply too heterogeneous to facilitate being compared according to the pattern that we have employed in connection with our European LPP-data. For obvious reasons, we cannot always tell whether we are dealing with diatopic variation, free variation, or overdifferentiation. In some cases, it is self-evident that we are dealing with phonologically conditioned allomorphy whereas in other cases the rules which govern the choice of allomorph remain opaque to us. Therefore we approach the phenomenon of overabundance from a different angle. For the sake of simplicity, we count the cells which are affected by bona fide cases of overabundance without determining the exact number of word-forms involved. In this way, we diminish the danger of comparing the incomparable.

Mismatches | 507

Diagram 115 shows the shares of overabundance for each spatial category of each continent. The absolute numbers of cells which give evidence of overabundance are indicated in the bars. 100% 90%

12

12

13

19

80% 70%

15

60%

9

20

32

50% 40% 30%

20

whence

whither

20

38 17

where

20% 10% 0% Africa

Americas

Asia

Oceania

Diagram 115: Shares of overabundance of each spatial category per continent.

These figures, however, are not very informative because they must be seen in relation to the total of the cells per category and continent. This relation is disclosed in Diagram 116. The percentages have to be understood as follows. The value of 24% calculated for WHERE in Africa refers to the share that cells with overabundance have of the entire number of WHERE-cells of the African sample languages, namely twenty cases of overabundance in a total of eighty-three WHERE-cells. On the whole, WHERE is more susceptible to overabundance than the other two categories. In contrast to the spatial interrogative of Place, WHENCE yields much lower values whereas WHITHER occupies the position between the two extremes. The differential behavior of the three categories results clearly from Diagram 116. In the remainder of this subsection we review four cases of overabundance. Each of the cases under scrutiny is meant to be representative of an area of the size of a continent. We are fully aware of the oversimplification this practice implies. We start with the Chadic language Kwami (spoken in the Northeast of Nigeria). The relative examples are given in example (191).

508 | The big world

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

where

whither

whence

Africa

24%

18%

15%

America

22%

10%

13%

Asia

21%

25%

16%

Oceania

38%

32%

19%

total

27%

22%

16%

Diagram 116: Shares of overabundance of all constructions per category and area.

(191) (191.1)

(191.2)

(191.3)

(191.4)

Kwami62 Place [ʔíla(n)] máatònò (yà)? car:1SG (INTERR) [Q(n)]P?/G? ‘Where is my motor-car?’ Goal [ʔíla(n)] kè mècè (yà)? you go (INTERR) [Q(n)]P?/G? ‘Where will you go?’ Source – long Yérmà wànnà [tèntòo]? [from:DEF:X]S? Yèrmà come.PERF ‘Where has Yerma come from?’ Source – short Yérmà wànnà [tòo]? Yèrmà come.PERF [X]S? ‘Where has Yerma come from?’

[Leger 1994: 175]

[Leger 1994: 175]

[Leger 1994: 176]

[Leger 1994: 176]

|| 62 The symbol X is used for the morpheme (-)tòo for which no uncontroversial reading can be offered.

Mismatches | 509

As a matter of fact, there is multiple variation because first of all, the syncretic spatial interrogative of Place and Goal comes in two shapes – long ʔíla(n) ‘where = whither’ and short ʔíla ‘where = whither’. The presence/absence of the final nasal does not seem to have any special function. The same judgment applies to the sentence-final interrogative marker yà the use of which is optional (Leger 1994: 175). Interestingly, the spatial interrogative of Place and Goal occupies the sentence-initial position obligatorily. This position is blocked for the spatial interrogative of Source which is admissible exclusively in the sentence-final slot (Leger 1994: 176). Since this is the slot in which the general interrogative particle yà usually occurs, the presence of tèntòo ~ tòo ‘whence’ bars the employment of this particle. Leger (1994: 176, fn. 132) assumes that the WHENCE-construction is morphologically complex (at least diachronically) as it seems to involve the preposition tì ‘from’ and the formative -n which is usually employed for the formation of the so-called definite word-form. The element tòo ‘whence’ is not explained etymologically. On the basis of the available information, the Kwami case of overabundance can be classified as one of free variation in all cells. The Na-Dené language Slave (Hare) provides evidence of the co-existence of different syncretic patterns, cf. (192). The long forms of the constructions are distinct for all of the categories whereas the short forms attest to WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism. (192) (192.1)

(192.2)

(192.3)

(192.4)

Slave (Hare) Place – long [judenį] ʔahaht’e? [Q:place]P? 2PL:be ‘Where do you live?’ Place – short [jude] se nezǫ [Q]P?/G? wood 3:be_good ‘Where is there good wood?’ Goal – long [judenį gots’ę́] ʔawodee? [Q:place area.to]G? 3:OPT:go ‘Where will s/he go?’ Goal – short [judį] yįda? [Q]P?/G? 2SG:PROG:go ‘Where are you going?’

[Rice 1989: 1143–1144]

i COMPL

gǫ́hlį? area:EXI

510 | The big world (192.5)

Source [judenį gots’ę] rírahęja? [Q:place area:from]S? 3:return ‘Where did s/he come from?’

According to Rice (1989: 1143) [t]here is considerable inter- and intra-dialectal variation [as to the spatial interrogatives]. […] While the form of the first syllable seems to be controlled by factors such as age, place of origin, and discourse style, the vowel of the second syllable marks a semantic distinction between location and destination.

However, the contrast of oral /e/ and nasalized /ĩ/ in the second syllable does not seem to follow this rule as strictly as expected because “[t]he adverbial form of this word is judį […] or jude […]. Which is used seems to be an individual characteristic” (Rice 1989: 1144). Both allomorphs can be used in static and in dynamic contexts. The quality of the vowel of the second syllable is thus irrelevant for the distinction of Place and Goal! In contrast, the long form judenį ‘where’ can function only as spatial interrogative of Place. If it occurs in dynamic contexts, it must be accompanied by postpositions which specify the directionality (Rice 1989: 1144). This means that the non-syncretic WHITHER and the sole WHENCE-construction are multi-word constructions whereas the distinct WHERE-construction and the syncretic WHERE=WHITHER-construction are mono-word constructions. Going by Rice’s initial observation, it is reasonable to assume that the variation of short and long constructions is a matter of style. Overabundance in the Austronesian language Tetun (Timor Leste) can be illustrated with examples from the LPP-variety. In (193) we present the Tetun versions of the usual triple of sample sentences. (193) (193.1)

(193.2)

(193.3)

Tetun [LPP Tetun, 14] Source Ó mai [husi ne’ebé] labarik oan? child little you come [from Q]S ‘Where do you come from, little child?’ Place Ó-nia uma [iha-ne’ebé]? your house [EXI-Q]P? ‘Where is your home?’ Goal Ó hakarak atu lori ha’u-nia bibi-malae inan ne’e you want to take my sheep woman DEM.PROX

Mismatches | 511

[ba ne’ebé]? [to Q]G ‘Where do you want to take this female sheep of mine?’ There are three distinct constructions all of which are morphologically complex since they consist of two constituents. In the case of WHENCE and WHITHER, we are dealing with binary multi-word constructions which can be analyzed provisionally as PPs. This is not the case with WHERE. The WHERE-construction is treated as a complex mono-word construction in which the Q-stem ne’ebé is preceded by the existential marker iha ‘there is’. The question-answer pair in (194) from the same textual source introduces us to the core of the analytical problem. (194) (194.1)

(194.2)

Tetun question Maibé nia atu bá but it to go ‘But where is it to go?’ answer Ne’ebé de’it. where only ‘Anywhere.’

[LPP Tetun, 14] ne’ebé? G?

These two sentences are suggestive of a zero-marked Q-stem ne’ebé which functions as spatial interrogative of Goal. In the interrogative clause (194.1), however, we find the motion verb bá ‘go’. Etymologically, the motion verb bá ‘go’ and the allative preposition ba ‘to’ are identical. As to husi ‘from’, there is also a verb husik ‘leave, abandon’ which is etymologically connected to the preposition. Williams-van Klinken et al. (2002: 40–42) do not mention the spatial interrogatives specifically in the section they dedicate to the serial verbs of Tetun. Nevertheless, bá ‘go’ is frequently employed in serial-verb constructions. It is likely therefore that both the WHITHER-construction in (193.3) and the WHENCEconstruction result from the grammaticalization of erstwhile serial-verb constructions. If they still are serial-verb constructions synchronically, one might reanalyze the above data so that there is neutralization of the spatial categories with a general interrogative ne’ebé ‘where = whither = whence’ which is accompanied by disambiguating predicates. The Q-stem ne’ebé appears to be morphologically complex too. It probably consists of two pronominal units, namely the demonstrative ne’e ‘this, that’ and the relativizer be ‘which’ (Hull 1999: 31 and 244). The treatment of demonstrative pronouns and related items in the descriptive grammar of Tetun by Williams-van Klinken et al. (2002: 19–21) might sug-

512 | The big world gest that bare ne’ebé is used also as spatial interrogative of Place. However, the authors do not say so explicitly.63 The final example of overabundance stems from the Papuan language Awtuw. The data in (195) show that there is allomorphy in the cell of WHERE in combination with WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism. (195) (195.1)

(195.2)

(195.3)

(195.4)

Awtuw Place – short ŋaye [yipe]? father [Q]P? ‘Where’s Daddy?’ Place – long ŋaye [yipke] d-ikiy? father [Q]P?/G?/S? FACT-stay ‘Where’s Daddy?’ Goal ŋaye [yipke] d-æy-ka? father [Q]P?/G?/S? FACT-go-PERF ‘Where has Daddy gone?’ Source ŋaye [yipke] d-eya-ka? father [Q]P?/G?/S? FACT-come-PERF ‘Where has Daddy come from?’

[Feldman 1986: 46]

The short form yipe ‘where’ is restricted to syntactic contexts from which the common long form yipke ‘where = whither = whence’ is excluded. Feldman (1986: 46) explains that yipke can only occur in constructions with verbs whereas yipe is confined to verb-less sentences. The absence of a verb basically means that there is no copula. In other words, yipe ‘where’ is possible only in the case of static spatial relations as in (195.1). If a lexical verb is present, yipke ‘where = whither = whence’ is the only option, cf. Scheme 22.

WHERE →

yipe

/ __ –V

yipke

/ __ +V

Scheme 22: Allomorphy in Awtuw.

|| 63 Williams-van Klinken et al. (2002) describe Tetun Dili whereas Hull (1999) refers to Standard Tetun which seems to be the variety in which the Tetun translation of Le Petit Prince has been written.

Mismatches | 513

We will take up the issue of predicative spatial interrogatives at the end of the next subsection which is dedicated to suppletion. The final paragraphs of Section 4.1.3 specifically address the category of interrogative verbs. To sum up, the above discussion of overabundance in the non-European sample languages lends support to our reservations as to the interpretability of the empirical data. At least in some of the putative cases of overabundance, a different interpretation can be considered an alternative.

4.1.3 Suppletion In the non-European languages of our sample, suppletion is not as frequently attested as overabundance. What suppletion shares with overabundance nevertheless is the wide margin of insecurity as to the correctness of our analyses of the data. There are many doubtful cases so that it must be borne in mind that the subsequent quantitative data probably overestimate the role of suppletion. There is a chance that a thorough check might reduce the absolute and relative values by at least a third for each of the continents. This high degree of insecurity notwithstanding, we take the risk of providing some statistics. In Diagram 117 we reveal the absolute frequency of suppletive stems per spatial category and continent as well as the shares of each suppletive spatial interrogative per continent. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

7

6

7

4

5 6

50%

4

7

whither

40% 30%

15

20%

7

7

Americas

Asia

10%

8

0% Africa

Diagram 117: Shares of suppletive word-forms per continent.

whence

Oceania

where

514 | The big world In analogy to the practice introduced in the previous subsection, Diagram 118 calculates the share the mismatch suppletion has of all cells associated with a given category in a given area. Independent of the open question whether or not our interpretation of the data proves to be too liberal, the percentages are indicative of the relative scarcity of suppletion in the paradigms of spatial interrogatives in the non-European languages of our sample. 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

where

whither

whence

Africa

18%

5%

8%

America

8%

7%

7%

Asia

9%

9%

9%

Oceania

8%

5%

4%

total

11%

6%

7%

Diagram 118: Shares of suppletion of all constructions per category and area.

The illustration of non-European suppletion in (196)–(199) is indicative of the interpretative problems which generally arise in connection with this and related phenomena. In Africa, the Omotic language Maale displays the combination of two Q-stems in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives, cf. (196). (196) (196.1)

(196.2)

Maale Place [Amha 2001: 172] láh-ó wúdd-á [wo-ka] d-á-y? lie_down-NRRC hut-NOM [Q1-LOC]P? be-IMPF-INTERR ‘Where is the hut for sleeping?’ Goal [Amha 2001: 220] pank'-éll-á [ʔánko] ʔááɗ-aní gá-á-mó? frog-F-NOM [Q2]G? go-PURP say-IMPF-RHT:INTERR ‘Where does the frog want to go?’

Mismatches | 515

(196.3)

Source ʔatsí [wo-ká-ppa] person:M:NOM [Q1-LOC-ABL]S? ‘Where does the man come from?’

[Amha 2001: 215]

mukk-á-y? come-IMPF-INTERR

The spatial interrogatives of Place and Source are morphologically interrelated because the WHENCE-construction wo-ká-ppa ‘whence’ is derived from that of WHERE wo-ká ‘where’ by affixation of the ablative suffix -ppa. In contrast, the spatial interrogative of Goal ʔánko ‘whither’ cannot be derived from either of the other members of the paradigm. It is therefore derivationally independent so that it constitutes the second Q-stem of the paradigm. Superficially, the situation seems to be straightforward and clear. Amha (2001: 215) ponders the idea that the internal -k- of ʔánko ‘whither’ is historically identical to the locative marker -ka in wo-ká ‘where’.64 This diachronic tie notwithstanding, the members of the paradigm belong to two distinct stems, namely wo- ~ wa- (related to interrogative sphere of HOW) and ʔo- ~ ʔa- (related to the interrogative sphere of WHAT) (Amha 2001: 214). Amha (2001) translates ʔánko and wo-ka identically, namely as equivalents of English WHERE. However, from the sentential examples and the text anthology it is evident that ʔánko ‘whither’ is used exclusively as spatial interrogative of Goal just as the function of wo-ka ‘where’ is always that of the spatial interrogative of Place. The Otomanguean language Lealao Chinantec provides evidence of a combination of three distinct Q-stems, one of which is involved in WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism, cf. (197). (197) (197.1)

(197.2)

Lealao Chinantec Place [hyaʔ2] ká4gwe3 juan nɨ3 [Q1]P?/G? live.PERF Juan this ‘Where was Juan yesterday?’ Place [nɨy1] dya2 kyṹʔ2u3 nɨ3? [Q2]P? lord POSS.2SG this ‘Where is your father?’

[Rupp 1980: 49]

ha ǰáˑ ? yesterday 3

3

[Rupp 1980: 49]

|| 64 In the Maale text anthology, there is also an isolated ʔanka ‘whither’ (Amha 2001: 286) – a word-form which is not mentioned elsewhere in the grammar. It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with a typographical error.

516 | The big world (197.3)

(197.4)

Goal [hyaʔ2] nɨ3 ma3ʔíˑ3 dya2 [Q1]P?/G? this enter.PERF lord ‘Where has your father gone in?’ Source [šiaʔ2] nɨ3 ma3biˑ3 ʔɨ́y4 [Q3]S? this come_out.PERF lord ‘Where has your father come out?’

[Rupp 1980: 113] k ṹʔ u ? POSS.2SG y

2 3

[Rupp 1980: 113] da kyṹʔ2u3 nɨ3? POSS.2SG this y 2

There are two mono-word constructions which serve as spatial interrogatives of Place. In the absence of any further information, we must assume that they are synonymous in the sense that they do not constitute a case of overdifferentiation of different kinds of WHERE. At the same time hyaʔ2 ‘where = wither’ is syncretic whereas nɨy1 ‘where’ seems to be restricted to the function of WHEREconstruction. Similarly šiaʔ2 ‘whence’ can be used only in the function of WHENCE. The three constructions are morphologically independent from each other. There is no evidence that any of the three is derived from any other of the same set. There are thus three Q-stems. For Asia, we illustrate the facts by briefly discussing the evidence from the Austronesian language Mualang (Indonesia) in (198). There are two Q-stems, viz. one which is common to WHERE and WHENCE and Q2 which is the monopoly of WHITHER. (198) (198.1)

(198.2)

(198.3)

Mualang Place [Di-ni] wan diaw? [at-Q1]P? 2SG.HON live? ‘Where do you live?’ Goal [Ki-kay] sedua? [to-Q2]G? 2SG:DU ‘Where are you two going?’ Source [Re-ni] neN-datay sida'? [from-Q1]S? NOM-come 3PL ‘Where did they just come from?’

[Tjia 2007: 251]

The three construction can be subsumed under a common frame with the structure [Prep-Q]spatial interrogative. In the case of WHERE and WHENCE, the Q1-stem is ni ‘which’. The Q2-stem kay is used exclusively in the WHITHER-construction. The directionality markers of the spatial interrogatives are similar to free preposi-

Mismatches | 517

tions. The prepositional equivalent of di- is da ‘at’ that of ki- is ka ‘to’. According to Tjia (2007: 250–251), reni ‘whence’ is the short alloform of the multi-word construction ari ni ‘whence’ for which we have not found a sentential example. Problematic is the case of bare ni ‘which’ for which Tjia (2007: 251) also has the translation as spatial interrogative of Place, cf. (199). (199) (199.1)

(199.2)

Mualang identification [Ni] selawar ku? [which] pants 1SG ‘Which are my pants?’ Place [Ni] selawar ku? [Q1]P? pants 1SG ‘Where are my pants?’

[Tjia 2007: 251]

The grammarian of Mualang does not elaborate on the two readings of (199). In other contexts, ni ‘which’ seems to be primarily used as question word of identification. We are unsure that bare ni can be considered a proper spatial interrogative because the examples do not support this interpretation. They seem to be metonymic variants of the identificational function of ni ‘which’. The Oceanic language Drehu testifies to another analytical problem. The examples in (200) are such that the cell of WHITHER is filled doubly. The first intuition is that we are dealing with overabundance. One of the competing constructions of WHITHER has a Q-stem which is different from that of the other constructions of the paradigm. (200) (200.1)

(200.2)

(200.3)

Drehu Place [e-kaa] eö? [at-Q1]P? you ‘Where are you?’ Goal angeic a tro he PRES go ‘Where is he going?’ Goal angeic a tro he PRES go ‘Where is he going?’

[Moyse-Faurie 1983: 193–194]

[kaa]? [Q1]P?/G?/S?

[ië]? [Q2]G?

518 | The big world (200.4)

Source qai angeic [kaa]? origin he [Q1]P?/G?/S? ‘Where does he come from?’

The wording of Moyse-Faurie’s (1983: 193) is suggestive of the possibility that the bare Q1-stem kaa ‘where = whither = whence’ can also be used as spatial interrogative of Place. However, there is no sentential example of this usage. It is clear, on the other hand, that ekaa ‘where’ cannot be used in dynamic contexts. Furthermore, Moyse-Faurie (1983: 193–194) postulates a semantic distinction. The constructions kaa ‘where = whither = whence’ and ekaa ‘where’ refer to what she calls the “lieu précis” whereas ië ‘whither’ corresponds to French dans quelle direction ‘in what direction’. This can be taken to mean that the cell of WHITHER is subject to overdifferentiation provided kaa and ië cannot replace one another freely. Given that the one cannot fulfill the function of the other, the two WHITHER-constructions fail to be synonymous – and thus there is no overabundance at all. Drehu is by no means the only language in which problems of this kind arise. In the two West African languages Kpelle and Mandinka, for instance, there are special WHERE-constructions based on a Q2-stem which is different from that of the other members of the paradigm. At the same time, there is also a WHEREconstruction which shares the common Q1-stem, i.e. overabundance applies in the cell of WHERE. However, in the descriptions of these languages, the special WHEREconstructions are full-blown predicates, namely Kpelle kɔ ‘be where’ and Mandinka lěe ‘be where’. The cases are similar to that of Awtuw discussed above (cf. example [195]), i.e. there is a static spatial interrogative which is licit only in verbless sentences (because it is predicative on its own) and a set of other spatial interrogatives which can only be used in interrogative clauses with predicates whose nucleus is a lexical verb. We illustrate this situation with examples of the two WHERE-constructions from Kpelle and Mandika, cf. (201)–(202). (201) (201.1)

(201.2)

Kpelle [Westermann & Melzian 1930: 36] Place [with verbal predicate] I kɛ [minɛ] na? you be [Q1]P?/G?/S? there ‘Where do you live?’ Place [without verbal predicate] belei [kɔ]? road [Q2]P? ‘Where is the road?’

Mismatches | 519

(202) (202.1)

(202.2)

Mandinka [Creissels & Sambou 2013: 437] Place [with verbal predicate] Mus-óo-lu bé [mintoo]? women-D-PL COP.LOC [Q1]P?/G? ‘Where are the women?’ Place [without verbal predicate] Mus-óo-lu [lěe]? women-D-PL [Q2]P? ‘Where are the women?’

Creissels & Sambou (2013: 437) comment on the cases in (202) as follows: Le mandinka a aussi un mot interrogatif invariable lěe ‘où se trouve?’ qui se substitue au constituant formé par la copule locative et son complément, et qui exprime donc de façon synthétique ce qu’on pourrait exprimer en combinant la copule locative bé avec l’interrogatif mintóo ~ muntóo ‘où?’.

We understand this quote to declare the two constructions to be full synonyms. Thus, we feel justified in treating the Mandinka case as an example of overabundance in lieu of considering it an instance of overdifferentiation. We assume that this solution holds good also for comparable cases like those of Kpelle in (201) and Awtuw in (195) above. Since we assume that overabundance applies, we are also entitled to classify the allomorphy in (202) and (201) to give evidence of suppletion. In his typological study of interrogative verbs, Hagège (2008: 4) refers directly to the Kpelle case in (201) without elaborating on it since “the evidence is too scant” for kɔ ‘be where’ to be taken into account in Hagège’s cross-linguistic appraisal of the phenomenon. According to the definition provided by Hagège (2008: 3) [a]n interrogative verb [is] a kind of word which both functions as predicate and questions the semantic content of this predicate. […] Interrogative verbs can also occur as secondary predicates, equivalent to adverbial modifiers.

There are a number of false friends, in a manner of speaking. The cooccurrence of “a polar question marker and a content question word functioning as a predicate”, for instance, is said to violate the definition of interrogative verbs (Hagège 2008: 4). Interrogative verbs are of interest for our study of spatial interrogatives because their co-existence with non-predicative means of interrogation (in a given language) is not only a source of overabundance but also a potential source of suppletion. The latter phenomenon arises because the nonpredicative spatial interrogatives and the interrogative verbs which join to form

520 | The big world a paradigm belong to different word-classes in the first place and thus can be expected to be etymologically distinct too. In Hagège’s study, there are several examples of interrogative verbs with spatial functions such as those in (203). (203) (203.1)

(203.2)

Spatial interrogative verbs Lavukaleve – Place [Hagège 2008: 5, from Terrill 2001: 76] [vasia]-m oina? [be_where]P?-SG.M SEMIACT.MED.SG.M ‘Where is he?’ Comox – Goal [Hagège 2008: 5, from Hagège 1981: 155] [čem]-šen-Ø? [go_where.PAST]G?-foot-3SG.S ‘Where did you walk to?’

The quoted author neatly distinguishes proper interrogative verbs from “content question words [having] the same syntactic behavior as verbs” (Hagège 2008: 13–14) because these interrogatives fail to be genuine verbs. With this proviso it is possible to exclude cases like (204) from the inventory of interrogative verbs. (204)

Kabyle – Source [Hagège 2008: 14, from Chaker 1983: 344]65 [ansi]-t wərgaz agi? [whence]S?-3SG.M man this ‘Where is this man from?’

Since ansi ‘whence’ does not have the verbal semantics of say, come from where, it does not fit the description of an interrogative verb although it hosts the typically verbal person markers (Hagège 2008: 8).66 In Hagège’s (2008: 18) sample of twenty-eight languages, there are only three bona fide cases of spatial relations being involved in interrogative verbs, namely besides Comox and Lavukaleve in (203) also in the Melanesian language Xârâcùù (Hagège 2008: 10). The spatial relations the interrogative verbs inquire about are those of Place and/or Goal. Hagège does not mention any example of an interrogative verb for the spatial relation of Source. This gap is corroborated by the absence of spatial interrogative verbs in our non-European sample. What

|| 65 Note that the word-form Hagège (2008) assumes for the Kabyle spatial interrogative of Source is different from the multi-word construction we have extracted from the relative descriptive literature on this Berber language. 66 Further look-alike cases which do not qualify as proper interrogative verbs (with spatial functions) are reported for Nivkh and West Greenlandic (Hagège 2008: 9 and 23).

Mismatches | 521

we find in our sample instead are several examples of interrogative verbs of WHERE and WHITHER such as Agta kadia ‘be where’, Beja kee ‘be where’, Bemba kwi ‘be where’, Otoro -adha ‘be where’, Wolof ana ‘be where’, Klallam txwín ‘go where’, and Musqueam xwcél ‘go where’. The latter three are termed problematic because it is unclear whether or not there are other spatial interrogatives of Goal (for instance, for different kinds of motion or the like). The data are especially unclear in the case of Klallam (Montler 2012) so that we have refrained from including this Salish language in our survey. No matter how difficult it is sometimes to assess the role of interrogative verbs precisely, it is clear nevertheless that the involvement of interrogative verbs in paradigms of spatial interrogatives is a factor that contributes substantially to the creation of suppletive patterns.

4.1.4 Periphrasis Periphrasis is not a very common phenomenon in the non-European component of our sample although there is ample evidence of multi-word constructions (cf. below). The absolute figures in Table 329 refer to the cells that host constructions which are examples either of periphrasis or anti-periphrasis. The frequency of the latter phenomenon is given separately in brackets. Table 329: Cells which host periphrasis/anti-periphrasis (absolute numbers). Continent

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

Sum

Africa

3 (2)

3 (1)

5 (0)

11 (3)

Americas

2 (1)

0 (0)

7 (1)

9 (2)

Asia

4 (3)

2 (2)

8 (0)

14 (5)

Oceania

5 (4)

1 (1)

2 (0)

8 (5)

Total

14 (10)

6 (4)

22 (1)

42 (15)

The turnout is modest – to say the least. In contrast to WHERE and WHENCE, WHITHER even fails to yield a total which exceeds half a dozen cases. Of the three spatial interrogatives, WHENCE is the most tolerant as to periphrasis. Periphrasis has the biggest shares with WHENCE in Asia where it (excluding anti-periphrasis) crosses the 10%-mark. Anti-periphrasis is generally a marginal phenomenon. It is unattested for WHENCE in three of the four continents. As to WHITHER, neither periphrasis nor anti-periphrasis is attested in the Americas. Diagram 119 reveals

522 | The big world the shares of the entire number of cells of a given category in a given area that are claimed by (anti-)periphrasis. 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

where

whither

whence

Africa

4%

4%

6%

America

2%

0%

8%

Asia

5%

2%

10%

Oceania

5%

1%

2%

total

4%

2%

6%

Diagram 119: Shares of (anti-)periphrasis of all constructions per category and area.

Except Oceania all of the continents and the overall total too show WHENCE to be especially susceptible to periphrasis. Similarly, only the African data slightly diverge from the common pattern according to which WHITHER is affected by periphrasis to the same degree as WHERE is subject to the same mismatch, and not less. It is unnecessary to elaborate once more on the many problems which arise if one tries to determine whether a construction is a complex word or a syntagm. These issues have already been addressed in Section 2 where a pragmatic solution for the set of problems has been put forward. Adhering to this solution, we illustrate periphrasis for each of the continents with sentential examples from languages which attest to bona fide cases of the mismatch under inspection. It is worth noting that of the eleven African languages which give evidence of periphrasis eight also attest to WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. This means that the bulk of the African languages with periphrasis are situated north of the equator (cf. above). The Nilo-Saharan language Ngiti, however, is spoken in a region which borders on the equator. The examples in (205) demonstrate that

Mismatches | 523

a) there are two distinct Q-stems, i.e. suppletion applies, b) WHERE and WHITHER are represented by mono-word constructions, and c) the spatial interrogative of Source displays the only multi-word construction of the paradigm (205) (205.1)

(205.2)

(205.3)

Ngiti Place [Kutsch Lojenga 1994: 385] [ᵼ́ngbɔrɔ́] nyɨ nyàyi? [Q1]P? you SC:sleep:PERF.PRES ‘Where have you slept?’ Goal [Kutsch Lojenga 1994: 385] [ádhà] kàra? [Q2]G? 3SG:go:PERF.PRES ‘Where has he gone?’ Source [Kutsch Lojenga 1994: 389] kɔ̀ alɛ rìwu [ᵼ̀ngbɔrɔ́ rɔ̀]? DEM people AUX:come:NOM1 [Q1 from]S? ‘Where are these people coming from?’

The Ngiti Q1-stem is itself morphologically complex according to the pattern [which-place]where (Kutsch Lojenga 1994: 381–382). In contrast, the Q2-stem is said to be basic, i.e. it cannot be analyzed further morphologically. The spatial interrogative of Source consists of a postpositional phrase in which the Q1-stem combines with the ablative postposition rɔ̀ ‘from’. There are thus two monoword constructions and a multi-word construction in the paradigm. The multiword construction is in the minority so that periphrasis applies (and not antiperiphrasis).67 For the nine languages of the Americas which give evidence of periphrasis, eight are again examples of languages with WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. The Uto-Aztecan Mexicanero (Sierra Madre Occidental) represents this group of languages in (206).

|| 67 There is also evidence of the combination of the Q2-stem ádhà ‘whither’ with the ablative postposition rɔ̀ ‘from’ (Kutsch Lojenga 1994: 388). The resulting construction is discontinuous and resembles more familiar cases of adpositional stranding. However, we exclude these cases from our discussion because there are alternative ways to analyze the empirical facts. Likewise, we have not found any evidence of bare ádhà ‘whither’ having the function also of a spatial interrogative of Source as is suggested in Kutsch Lojenga (1994: 382). Therefore, we discount the possibility that Ngiti is a language with optional WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism.

524 | The big world (206) (206.1)

(206.2)

(206.3)

Mexicanero Place [Canger 2001: 70] [Kaha] Ø-onka mo-papa? [Q]P?/G? 3SG-be 2SG-father ‘Where is your father?’ Goal [Canger 2001: 142] [Kaha] u-Ø-kalaki mo-papa? [Q]P?/G? PRET-3SG-enter 2SG-father ‘Where has your father gone in?’ Source [Canger 2001: 142] [De kaha] u-Ø-kis mo-papa? [from Q]S? PRET-3SG-come_out 2SG-father ‘Where has your father come out?’

The syncretic mono-word construction kaha ‘where = whither’ provides the Qstem for the formation of the spatial interrogative of Source which comes in the shape of a PP. The ablative preposition de ‘from’ is a borrowing from Spanish. One might speculate that the formal differentiation of WHENCE vs. WHERE = WHITHER is a relatively recent contact-borne innovation. In point of fact, Classical Nahuatl is reported to employ an indistinct spatial interrogative cān ~ cānin ‘where = whither = whence’ which does not discriminate Place, Goal, and Source, cf. (207). (207) (207.1)

(207.2)

(207.3)

Classical Nahuatl Place [Cān] cuix ō-tlācat? [Q]P?/G?/S? INTERR ANT-be_born.PERF ‘Where was he born?’ Goal [Cān] ti-yauh? [Q]P?/G?/S? 2SG-go ‘Where are you going?’ Source [Cān] ō-ti-huāl-la-h? [Q]P?/G?/S? ANT-2SG-hither-go-PERF ‘Where have you come from?’

[Andrews 2003: 457]

[Launey 2011: 45]

[Andrews 2003: 457]

Since at least some of the other modern varieties of Nahuatl reflect the pattern of the classical language, it is likely that the formal distinction ( WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE is a copy from the Spanish prestige language. Five of the fourteen Asian languages with periphrasis are also representatives of the type of languages with WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. The role of this

Mismatches | 525

class of languages is thus less important than in the two previous cases. The Mon-Khmer language Semelai provides the sentential evidence of the phenomenon in (208). (208) (208.1)

(208.2)

(208.3)

Semelai Place [hɔ̃n] thi kɒ? [Q]P? hand 2SG.F ‘Where are your hands?’ Goal ga=[te hɔ̃n]? IMM=[to.UNSPEC Q]G? ‘Where are you going?’ Source [tɔm haʔ hɔ̃n] ns-dɔs [SRC LOC Q]S? NMZ-come ‘Where did you come from before?’

[Kruspe 2004: 188]

ji you

nɛŋ? before

The Q-stem hɔ̃n ‘where’ is identical to the spatial interrogative of Place. [T]ogether with the relevant preposition, [it] forms an ignorative construction used to seek information about the goal or source of movement (Kruspe 2004: 188).

The paradigm thus contains a mono-word WHERE-construction and two PPs to express WHITHER and WHENCE. These PPs are syntagms of several syntactic words. In the case of WHITHER, the construction consists of three word units. Since the mono-word construction is the minority option within the paradigm we are witnessing a case of anti-periphrasis. In Oceania, only two of the languages which attest to periphrasis also attest to WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. The Australian language Umbugarla is one of this pair. The examples in (209) show that the mono-word construction is syncretic for Place and Goal whereas the multi-word construction is distinctive for Source. (209) (209.1)

(209.2)

Umbugarla Place [nin] rag? [Q]P?/G? camp ‘Where do you camp?’ Goal [nin] na-yi? [Q]P?/G? 2SG-go.FUT ‘Where are you going?’

[Je. Davies 1989: 55]

[Je. Davies 1989: 56]

526 | The big world (209.3)

Source na-nyu rangang [nin madjing] M-that man [Q from]S? ‘Where did this man come from?’

[Je. Davies 1989: 56] Ø-bug-nu 3SG-go.PAST-hither

The postpositional phrase nin madjing ‘whence’ employs the common Q-stem as complement. Since there is only one multi-word construction in the paradigm, the Umbugarla case can be classified as an instance of periphrasis (and not as an example of anti-periphrasis). The discussion of phenomena which are related to periphrasis will be continued in the section devoted to multi-word constructions in the non-European sample languages, cf. below.

4.1.5 Fused exponence Of all mismatches we check in this study, fused exponence is the least frequent phenomenon in the non-European languages of the sample. There is a strong dependence of fused exponence on suppletion. However, this dependence is largely unilateral so that there are almost twice as many cases of suppletion than there are instances of fused exponence in our non-European data base. Diagram 120 discloses the absolute frequency of fused exponence outside Europe as well as the shares each spatial category has of all constructions with fused exponence of each continent. 100% 90% 80%

1 3

2

2

70%

whence

60% 50% 40% 30%

3

whither

10

20%

3 where

2

10% 0%

0 Africa

Americas

Asia

Oceania

Diagram 120: Shares of fused exponence of each spatial category per continent.

Mismatches | 527

The values refer to the number of cells which are affected. It must be noted that it is possible that the cell hosts different word-forms only one of which attests to fused exponence. It is exceptional that under the conditions of overabundance several synonymous word-forms give evidence of fused exponence. The phenomenon is not reported for the Asian languages of the sample. Except WHERE in Africa, none of the cells of this matrix strikes us as statistically prominent. The African cases of fused exponence cover more than half of all instances of this phenomenon outside Europe. Fused exponence is alien to the Asian languages of the sample. Moreover, fused exponence occurs in 58% of all attested cases under the rubric of WHERE. In contrast, it occurs only marginally with WHENCE. The percentages in Diagram 121 are calculated in relation to the total of cells of a given category in a given area. The data show that the relatively big share of fused exponence with WHERE in the languages of Africa is an idiosyncrasy of this continent. In all other areas, fused exponence is a peripheral phenomenon. For the purpose of the empirical illustration of fused exponence in Africa, we have chosen the LPP-variety of Algerian Arabic. The data in (210) suggest that there is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and suppletion as in Maltese (cf. Tables 258 and 261 and Section 3.5.2.4 above). 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

where

whither

Africa

12%

4%

whence 1%

America

2%

3%

2%

Asia

0%

0%

0%

Oceania

3%

2%

0%

total

4%

2%

1%

Diagram 121: Shares of fused exponence of all constructions per category and area.

528 | The big world (210) (210.1)

(210.2)

(210.3)

Arabic [LPP Arabic (Algiers), 15] Source Yā wledī, yā ’azīzī, qul lī [mnen] ğet? oh child:1SG oh dear:1SG say that [Q2]S? come:2SG.PERF ‘Oh my dear child, say where have you come from?’ Place Dārak, [wen] hiya? house:2SG [Q1]P?/G? she ‘Where is your home?’ Goal [Wen] itḥib ithiz kbshī? [Q1]P?/G? 2SG.IMPERF:want 2SG.IMPERF:take lamb:1SG ‘Where do you want to take my lamb?’

The syncretic wen ‘where = whither’ fails to fulfill the criteria of fused exponence since the word-form blurs the directionality, in a manner of speaking. The wordform is ambiguous and thus cannot be understood as a portemanteau-morpheme. This is different with mnen ‘whence’ because it is isolated in the paradigm where it forms a contrast to the syncretic WHERE=WHITHER construction. This contrast presupposes that mnen ‘whence’ is specified for directionality and this in turn means that interrogativity and Source relation are coencoded in the mono-word constructions which cannot be analyzed further morphologically. Therefore, mnen ‘whence’ is an instance of fused exponence. The Americas are represented by Wayampi – a language of the TupiGuaraní family, spoken in French Guiana. The examples in (211) are indicative of a paradigm which is organized according to the pattern WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE with overabundance in the cell of WHERE. The overabundance coincides with suppletion of two Q-stems. (211) (211.1)

(211.2)

Wayampi Place [mapɛ]-pɔ nɛ-saa? [Q1]P?-INTERR 2SG-machete ‘Where is your machete?’ Place nɛ-mɛmɨ [pãʔɛ̃]? 2SG-child [Q2]P? ‘Where is your child?’

[Grenand 1980: 277]

[Grenand 1980: 343]

Mismatches | 529

(211.3)

(211.4)

Goal [mapɛ-kɨtɨ]-pɔ ɛlɛ-ɔ? [Q1-DIR]G?-INTERR 2SG-go ‘Where do you go?’ Source [mapɛ-kɨtɨ-wɨi]-pɔ ɛlɛ-yɔ? [Q1-DIR-far_away]S?-INTERR 2SG-come ‘Where do you come from?’

[Grenand 1980: 277]

[Grenand 1980: 277]

The Q1-stem is morphologically complex. It contains the general interrogative stem ma- ‘which’ (Grenand 1980: 267) which is followed by the inessive marker pɛ ‘in’ which may also be used alone as spatial interrogative (Grenand 1980: 344). The Q2-stem is admissible only with WHERE. We assume that the synonymy of pãʔɛ̃ and (ma)pɛ ‘where’ justifies our interpretation of the former as a portemanteau-morpheme and thus as a case of fused exponence. Asia does not provide any examples of fused exponence and can thus be skipped. As to Oceania, we adduce the evidence of fused exponence from Marshallese, cf. (212). The situation is similar to the one sketched previously. There are three distinct constructions. However, there is also overabundance in the case of the spatial interrogative of Place. This overabundance introduces suppletion in the same cell. (212) (212.1)

(212.2)

(212.3)

(212.4)

Marshallese Place [Bender 1969: 17] [Yewiy] pinjel yew ham? [Q2]P? pencil DET your.EXCL ‘Where is your pencil?’ Place [Bender 1969: 17] [Yepad yi’yah] pinjel yew ham? [be_where Q1]P? pencil DET your.EXCL ‘Where is your pencil?’ Goal [Bender 1969: 10] Tiymej yej yetal [gan yi’yah]? Timos 3SG go [to Q1]G? ‘Where is Timos going?’ Source [Bender 1969: 33] Qej yiteq [jan yi’yah]? you come [from Q1]S? ‘Where are you coming from?’

530 | The big world The common Q1-stem yi’yah is not exclusive to spatial categories but can also be used as translation equivalent of English how. The three multi-word constructions have a binary structure. For the two dynamic spatial relations, the constructions have the format of PPs of the kind [Prep Q1]dynamic spatial interrogative. The static spatial interrogative can be represented either by a multi-word construction or a mono-word construction. The multi-word construction reflects a pattern that is different from the above PPs because the left slot of the construction frame is occupied by a verbal predicate yepad ‘be where’. The suppletive monoword WHERE-construction yewiy ‘where’ is fully synonymous to the morphologically transparent multi-word construction yepad yi’yah ‘where’. We therefore assume that yewiy ‘where’ fuses directionality and interrogativity and thus constitutes a case of fused exponence.

4.1.6 Provisional summary Since Section 4.4 (below) is dedicated to the comparison of the results of the European and the non-European parts of this investigation, we do not elaborate much on the above insights. Some statistical observations are in order nevertheless. What we see immediately is that the five mismatches are not evenly represented. The following hierarchy arises:  overabundance: 227 cases  syncretism: 194 cases  suppletion: 83 cases  periphrasis: 42 cases  fused exponence: 26 cases There are altogether 572 instances of mismatches almost half of which go to the credit of overabundance (= 40%) while roughly a third of all cases is claimed by syncretism (= 34%). Together these two mismatches account for almost three quarters of all cases. With a share of just 4.5%, fused exponence comes last in the ranking order. In Diagram 122 we provide the absolute frequency of mismatches of a given kind which affect a given spatial category as well as the shares of each spatial category per mismatch. The sum for syncretism is considerably higher than the total given for the same phenomenon above since in Diagram 122 each of the three spatial relations enters the calculus separately. For three out of five mismatches, it is the category of WHERE which displays the highest degree of susceptibility. The two dynamic spatial relations are the top-scorer once each.

Mismatches | 531

Across the mismatches both WHERE and WHITHER claim shares each of which exceeds a third whereas the share of WHENCE is only slightly bigger than a quarter of all cases. 100% 80% 60%

116

56

3 24 22

184

76

8

whence

22 whither

40% 20%

6 179

95

37

syncretism

overabundance

suppletion

15

where

14

0% periphrasis

fused exponence

Diagram 122: Shares of spatial interrogatives per mismatch in non-European varieties.

From Diagram 123 it results clearly that the three spatial categories behave almost in unison as to the preference they give to the mismatches syncretism and overabundance. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

15 14

37

8 6

22

3 22

24 76

95

fused exponence periphrasis

56

50%

suppletion

40% 30% 20%

179

184

116

10%

overabundance

syncretism

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 123: Shares of mismatches per spatial interrogative in non-European varieties.

532 | The big world The dominance of the two most frequently attested types of mismatch can be gathered alternatively from Diagram 124 which depicts suppletion, periphrasis, and fused exponence together as minority phenomena. fused exponence

periphrasis

4.5%

7.0%

overabundance

suppletion

40.0%

14.5%

syncretism 34.0%

Diagram 124: Shares of mismatches outside Europe.

In connection to the above overall picture, the question arises whether or not the four continents display different preferences as to the five mismatches. Diagram 125 informs us about the absolute frequency of a given mismatch in a given area and identifies the shares the respective continent has of the total of attestations of a particular mismatch in the non-European subsample. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

45

Oceania

21 50

14

19

47

7 Asia

9

41 61

5

89

28 60

8

17

America

14 26

11

suppletion

periphrasis

Africa

0% syncretism

overabundance

Diagram 125: Shares the continents have of each mismatch.

fused exponence

Mismatches | 533

With more than half of all cases, Africa clearly stands out as the most important contributor to the total of cases of fused exponence. This mismatch is also noteworthy because it is the only category that is associated with zero-frequency – in this case in Asia. As to the other four mismatches, the differences between the four geographical areas are not as pronounced as in the case of fused exponence. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify areal foci as e.g. Oceania whose share of overabundance exceeds those of the other areas by a wide margin. Less striking but still noticeable are the relatively big shares the Asian languages have of periphrasis, the African languages have of suppletion and syncretism, and the American languages have of syncretism. At the same time, the languages of Asia yield a particularly low percentage of cases of syncretism whereas the languages of Oceania are underrepresented in the domain of periphrasis. The languages of the Americas constitute the only group of languages that fails to reach the 20%mark in the domain of overabundance. The African continent stands out insofar as none of its shares of mismatches is particularly small. This observation induces us to check how the mismatches are ranked within a given area. The shares each type of mismatch has on each of the continents are disclosed in Diagram 126. 100% 90% 80% 70%

14 11 26

60% 50%

47

7 9 19

14

5 8 17

21

41

89

30% 20%

exponence periphrasis

50

40%

fused

suppletion

overabundance

61

60

10%

28

45

Asia

Oceania

syncretism

0% Africa

America

Diagram 126: Shares of mismatches per continent.

The most interesting piece of information gained from scrutinizing the percentages given in Diagram 126 is the differential behavior of the areas as to the two statistically dominant categories of mismatches. For Africa and the Americas, it

534 | The big world is syncretism which claims the biggest shares whereas the languages of Asia and Oceania are much more favorable of overabundance. As to the minor mismatches, the only fact that is worth noting is the relatively big share fused exponence has of all mismatches in Africa. Outside Africa, fused exponence winds up at the bottom end of the scale. We terminate our summary by way of looking at the results from yet another perspective. In this paragraph we pose the question which of the spatial categories is affected by mismatches, to what degree and in which area. As Diagram 127 tells us, all four of the areas give evidence of the cline WHERE > WHITHER > WHENCE in the sense that susceptibility to mismatch is always highest with WHERE and lowest with WHENCE although the differences between the shares are not always big. 100% 90% 80%

68

70

34

49

70% 60% 50%

whence

84

74

56

82 whither

40% 30% 20%

104

85

56

95

Africa

Americas

Asia

Oceania

where

10% 0%

Diagram 127: Shares of susceptibility to mismatch of each category per area.

Diagram 128 shows to what degree a given area is responsible for the overall sensitivity to mismatches of a given spatial category. The diagram does not offer anything spectacular. The only remarkable values are those computed for Asia because in this geographical area the shares of mismatches are generally very small. Diagram 129 is indicative of relatively similar shares across the mismatch categories for the areas Africa, the Americas, and Oceania. In contrast, the segment occupied by the Asian languages is considerably smaller than that of each of the other areas.

Mismatches | 535

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

95

49

82

34

56

56

85

74

104

84

68

where

whither

whence

Asia

50% 40%

Oceania

70 Americas

30% 20% 10%

Africa

0%

Diagram 128: Shares of susceptibility to mismatch of each area per category.

Oceania

Africa

26%

30%

Asia 17% Americas 27% Diagram 129: Areal distribution of mismatches outside Europe.

Before we turn our attention to the issue of complexity in Section 4.2 we can state that, in the domain of mismatches, the non-European languages, on the one hand, provide ample evidence of a general pattern according to which syn-

536 | The big world cretism and overabundance are the two phenomena which have the widest distribution. In addition, of the three spatial interrogatives, WHERE is most prone to being affected by mismatches. On the other hand, there is also variation on the meso-level in the sense that the four continents under review do not behave in absolutely identical ways. From the above statistical account, areal preferences result. This areality must be kept in mind when we compare the nonEuropean findings with those of the European subsample in Section 4.4.

4.2 Constructional complexity For various reasons, we cannot do justice to all the parameters of constructional complexity as we have done in the case of the languages of Europe. First of all, the preponderance of DGB-varieties in the non-European sub-sample adds a strong element of uncertainty to the statistical evaluation of the reported facts since the descriptive adequacy of the sources from which our information was drawn varies considerably. The problems manifest themselves most strongly in the realm of morphemes. From the discussion of the European data, we already know that it is no easy feat to determine the exact number of morphemes for each of the constructions. To avoid speculating beyond necessity, we therefore treat the number of morphs and morphemes in the common Section 4.2.2 below in lieu of addressing the issues separately. There is something that makes perfect sense for the comparison of the LPP-varieties which, however, cannot be applied to our non-European data. This something is the check of the combinations of constructions of identical or different size in one and the same paradigm. It is similarly doubtful to calculate the average size of constructions because of the uncertain status of allomorphs in the case of overabundance. This problem notwithstanding, we compute averages in order to provide a basis for comparing the complexity of non-European languages with that of the European languages. We acknowledge that this comparison rests on shaky grounds. More generally, the statistics we provide throughout this section are not to be taken as God’s truth but only as a kind of signpost that points to a goal in the far distance which can be reached ultimately only after a further thorough reevaluation of the data at hand. This, of course, is a task to be tackled in the future. Except the subsection on morphs and morphemes, the subsections follow the same logic as that of the previous evaluative subsections on complexity issues in the languages of Europe.

Constructional complexity | 537

4.2.1 Mono-word vs. multi-word There are exactly 185 cells which host one or several multi-word constructions. Their distribution over the spatial categories is suggestive of a bipartition with WHERE and WHITHER on one side of the divide and WHENCE on the opposite side. Furthermore, the number of cells with multi-word constructions differs considerably over the areas, cf. Diagram 130. 100% 90% 80%

17

70%

12

22

27

60%

whence

50% 40%

23

13

7

12

11

7

12

22

Africa

Americas

Asia

Oceania

whither

30% 20% 10%

where

0%

Diagram 130: Number of cells with multi-word constructions per category and area.

In Section 4.1.4 on periphrasis, we have learned that there are altogether fortytwo cells in which periphrasis or antiperiphrasis are attested. These forty-two cells define the domain in which the coexistence of mono-word and multi-word constructions is distinctive within in the paradigms. The complexity of constructions on this parameter is distinctive only for slightly less than 4% of all cells whereas multi-word constructions occupy some 17% of all cells. This means that the opposition of mono-word constructions and multi-word constructions is exploited only marginally to distinguish the spatial interrogatives in a given paradigm. In Diagram 131, we calculate the shares that cells with multi-word constructions have of the total of cells of a given category in a given area. What we see immediately is that WHENCE always boasts the biggest share whereas the shares of WHERE and WHITHER are not only smaller but also of almost equal size. If there are differences at all, the share claimed by WHERE is smaller

538 | The big world than that claimed by WHITHER. Multi-word constructions are especially important for the paradigms of the languages of Oceania because in this region the share of cells with multi-word constructions amounts to a quarter of all cells. In contrast, multi-word constructions seem to be relatively unimportant in the Americas where the overall share of cells with multi-word constructions is not even half as big as that reported for Oceania. Diagram 131 reflects the overall tendency towards an increased incidence of multi-word constructions with WHENCE as well as the differential behavior of the individual areas. 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

where

whither

whence

Africa

13%

16%

20%

America

8%

8%

13% 27%

Asia

14%

14%

Oceania

22%

23%

27%

total

15%

16%

22%

Diagram 131: Share of cells with multi-word constructions per category and area.

There are altogether 1,286 constructions which involve a total of 1,442 orthographic words. The total of mono-word constructions amounts to slightly over a thousand. The exact number is 1,065 constructions which distribute relatively evenly over the areas since the shares of the different continents are all located between 21% (= Asia) and 29% (= Oceania) with Africa (= 23%) and the Americas (= 27%) occupying the intermediate positions. The situation is more interesting as to the shares the different areas have of the 221 multi-word constructions,

Constructional complexity | 539

cf. Diagram 132. It is evident that, with significantly more than a third of all multi-word constructions, Oceania accounts for the biggest share whereas the Americas mark the bottom line with only 15% of all cases. Africa 20%

Oceania 40%

Americas 15%

Asia 25% Diagram 132: Share of multi-word constructions outside Europe.

If we look at the spatial categories, we notice that 38% of all mono-word constructions are WHERE-constructions (= 405 cases), exactly a third of the monoword constructions go to the credit of WHITHER (= 355 cases), and 28% (= 305 cases) of the mono-word constructions express WHENCE. As to the multi-word constructions, the relations are turned upside down, in a manner of speaking. With 42% (= ninety-two cases), WHENCE claims the largest share of the total of multi-word constructions. At the opposite end, we find WHERE with fifty-nine cases or 27% of the total. Between the two extremes, there is WHITHER with sixtyseven cases, i.e. a share of 31%. This differential behavior of WHERE and WHENCE in the area of mono-word and multi-word constructions is captured graphically by Diagram 133.

540 | The big world

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% where

whither mono-word

whence

multi-word

Diagram 133: Spatial categories across construction types outside Europe.

As we have said in the introduction to this section, it is daring to calculate the average degree of complexity of the constructions under scrutiny because the data-base is too heterogeneous to allow an operation of this kind. Therefore, the values indicated in Table 330 (and those in further tables dedicated to the averages on different parameters below) cannot be considered to be water-tight pieces of evidence. Table 330: Average number of words per construction. Continent

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

General average per area

Africa

1.13

1.16

1.24

1.17

Americas

1.11

1.12

1.14

1.12

Asia

1.14

1.17

1.40

1.23

Oceania

1.17

1.23

1.29

1.23

General average per category

1.14

1.18

1.26

1.19

The above proviso notwithstanding, the provisional averages yield a relatively clear picture. On the whole, the number of words per construction is close to the mono-word end of the scale. This is particularly true of WHERE and to a lesser

Constructional complexity | 541

degree also of WHITHER. On the other hand, WHENCE-constructions are associated with the highest average in each of the four areas. The difference in size of the averages is most pronounced in Asia where the average of WHENCE is separated from that of WHERE by 0.26. Diagram 134 shows that the differences are generally only moderate. No matter how minimal the differences are in Diagram 134, even the comparison of the average size of the constructions in terms of the number of words involved is consistent with the markedness hierarchy according to which of the three categories WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE, it is the last mentioned category which can be considered the most marked member of the set. The evidence discussed in this subsection is indicative further of the relative unmarkedness of WHERE and the in-between status of WHITHER. On the parameter of the number of words per construction, the non-European data are largely in line with what we have learned from the scrutiny of the European data in Section 3. 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 where Africa

whither America

Asia

whence Oceania

total

Diagram 134: Average number of words per construction outside Europe.

In Subsection 4.1.4 on periphrasis, we have already illustrated multi-word constructions for each of the four extra-European areas. There is thus no need to adduce further empirical evidence of the existence of multi-word constructions for each of the continents. It suffices to look at two cases of special interest. The

542 | The big world non-European multi-word constructions are overwhelmingly binary. There are only eighteen cases of constructions which involve three words. There are no constructions which exceed this size. This means that only 8% of all multi-word constructions consist of more than two words. One of the infrequent cases of extra-large constructions is Chinese, cf. (213). (213) (213.1)

(213.2)

(213.3)

Chinese [LPP Chinese, 16] Source wŏ de xiăo rén yā, nĭ dàodĭ 1SG ATTR little man INTERJ 2SG then [cóng shénme dìfang] lái de ne? [from which place]S come ATTR PTCL ‘Oh my little man, where do you come from then?’ Place68 nĭ suŏ shuō de wŏ suŏ zhù de dìfang shì 2SG PTCL say ATTR 1SG PTCL live ATTR place COP [zài năli] ne? [at Q]P PTCL ‘The home you mentioned, where is it?’ Goal nĭ yào bă nà zhī yáng dài 2SG want PTCL DEM CLASS sheep take [dào shénme dìfang] qù ne? [to which place]G go PTCL ‘Where do you want to take this sheep?’

All of the three spatial interrogatives are multi-word constructions. The dynamic spatial interrogatives involve three words each whereas the spatial interrogative of Place is represented by a construction of two words. Example (214) shows, however, that WHITHER too can alternatively be expressed by a binary multiword construction. (214)

Chinese – Goal rén men [wàng năli] man PL [to Q]G ‘Where have the men gone?’

qù go

le?

[LPP Chinese, 65]

PERF

|| 68 In the printed Chinese version, the translator uses nàli ‘there’ in lieu of năli ‘where’. After consultation with Chinese native speakers we have taken the liberty to replace the deictic nàli ‘there’ with the interrogative năli ‘where’ in this example and in (214) below.

Constructional complexity | 543

On the basis of the data in (213)–(214), we have to assume that there are two different Q-stems, namely năli and shénme dìfang which combine with prepositions to specify directionality. The co-existence of two different Q-stems characterizes the relation of the members of the paradigm as suppletive. However, from a Chinese internet version of the sample text (http://www. szdrlj.com/library/cpth/xwz/index.html) we draw the following alternative renderings, cf. (215). (215) (215.1)

(215.2)

(215.3)

Chinese [http://www.szdrlj.com/library/cpth/xwz/003.htm] Source nĭ shì [cóng năli] lái de, wŏ de xiăo jiāhuŏ? 2SG PTCL [from Q]S come PTCL 1SG ATTR little guy ‘Where do you come from, my little boy?’ Place nĭ de jiā [zài shénme dìfang]? 2SG ATTR home [at which place]P ‘Where is your home?’ Goal nĭ yào bă wŏ de xiăo yáng dài [dào năli] qù? 2SG want PTCL 1SG ATTR little sheep take [to Q]G go ‘Where do you want to take my little sheep?’

In this second translation of the sample text, the distribution of the different Qstems is exactly the opposite of that reflected in (213) above. This time the most sizable construction expresses WHERE. The spatial interrogative of Place in (215.2) is based on the Q-stem shénme dìfang ‘which place’ which is used for the constructions of the dynamic spatial relations in (213.1) and (213.3) above. WHITHER and WHENCE, however, take the Q-stem năli which is employed for the WHEREconstruction in (213.2) above. We may therefore rebut the original hypothesis since there is no suppletion at all. What we have in Chinese is a case of overabundance in all three of the cells of the paradigm. Each of the spatial interrogatives comes in two shapes, namely as a construction of two words of the type [Prep năli]spatial interrogative and as a construction of three words of the type [Prep shénme dìfang]spatial interrogative. The two constructions seem to be freely interchangeable. From the free variation follows that none of the categories has the privilege of being encoding in an especially simple way morphosyntactically. At the same time, there is also no category which is expressed by a construction whose complexity is markedly higher than that of the other members of the paradigm. A different case is reported for the Austronesian language Chamorro (Mariana Islands). Superficially, the data in (216) look straightforward in the sense

544 | The big world that they seem to involve a mono-word WHERE-construction and two multi-word constructions for the dynamic spatial relations. However, the underlined element in (216.1) needs to be reconsidered. (216) (216.1)

(216.2)

(216.3)

Chamorro Place [Manu] nai sumasaga [Q]P? LINK RED~live ‘Where do you live?’ Goal [Para manu] hao? [for Q]G? you ‘Where are you going?’ Source [Ginen manu] hao? [from Q]S? you ‘Where are you from?’

[Topping 1973: 158] hao? you

The Q-stem common to all constructions is manu which is also the complement of the PPs employed for WHITHER and WHENCE. A complication arises from the fact that the WHERE-construction involves the linker particle nai (which is also described as a relativizer with temporal and spatial meanings). If this linker particle is absent, bare manu usually has the meaning of English which, i.e. it is used in a non-spatial sense (Topping 1973: 158). It can be argued thus that the WHERE-construction is syntactically complex too, since it always involves the linker particle nai. In addition, there is the optional contraction of the existential construction manu nai gaige ‘where is’ to mangge ‘where is’ as in (217). (217) (217.1)

(217.2)

Chamorro – Place long [Manu] nai gaige [Q]P? LINK EXI ‘Where is my car?’ short [Man]-gge kareta-hu? [Q]P?-EXI car-1SG ‘Where is my car?’

[Topping 1973: 159] kareta-hu? car-1SG

Topping (1973: 159) argues that the two constructions are interchangeable with the sole proviso that the non-contracted construction is used preferably if “the subject is very specific”. In the case of a non-specific subject, both constructions

Constructional complexity | 545

are licit. Manu is morphologically invariable, whereas the contracted form mangge ‘where is’ is sensitive to number distinctions and thus must host the plural prefix man- if the subject is plural too, cf. (218). (218) (218.1)

(218.2)

Chamorro – Place [Topping 1973: 159] non-contracted [Manu] nai mang-gaige i man-estudiante? [Q]P? LINK PL-EXI DET PL-student ‘Where are the students?’ contracted Man-[man]-gge i man-estudiante? PL-[Q]P?-EXI DET PL-student ‘Where are the students?’

Chamorro mangge ‘where is’ is not a genuine interrogative verb according to the above definition of Hagège’s (2008) because the uncontracted syntagm still exists and manu ‘where’ can be employed separately as a non-predicate. We take the evidence to justify a reinterpretation of the facts so that the WHEREconstruction consists of the Q-stem manu and the general linker particle nai as illustrated in (219). (219)

Chamorro – Place/revised analysis [Manu nai] gaige i [Q LINK]P? EXI DET ‘Where is your wife?’

[Topping 1973: 158] asagua-mu? spouse-2SG

In this way, we get a paradigm of spatial interrogatives which consists exclusively of binary multi-word constructions. Behind this apparent homogeneity hides a modicum of heterogeneity though. The dynamic spatial relations are represented by constructions which have the shape of PPs, namely [Prep Q]dynamic spatial interrogative. This construction frame is inadequate for the spatial interrogative of Place since there is no preposition in the first place. The frame [Q nai]where differs considerably from the PPs in syntactic terms. This means that the classification as multi-word construction does not necessarily imply that two or more constructions of a given paradigm display identical or similar internal structure. The Chamorro case is instructive since it shows that an equal number of words are not an absolutely reliable indicator of morphosyntactic homology of constructions. The structural principles on the basis of which the construction of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE are built in Chamorro are not the same. This in turn means that we are facing a different kind of “suppletion” in the sense that, in lieu of different stems, the mismatch involves different morphosyntactic

546 | The big world rules or templates, for that matter. As far as we can see, Corbett’s (2007: 30) matrix of canonical and non-canonical phenomena does not provide a systematic place for instances of this kind. It is impossible to subsume the Chamorro case under any of the established categories of mismatches. This impossibility is easily explained because the matrix we refer to is intended primarily for inflexional paradigms – a condition the Chamorro spatial interrogatives do not fulfill. However, our data-base hosts a number of comparable cases so that Chamorro is cross-linguistically not unique. It is therefore necessary to take stock of these and similar phenomena also outside the realm of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives to assess their importance for the theory of morphology. For obvious reasons, this task is beyond the goals of this study and thus has to be postponed until a later point in time.

4.2.2 Morphs (and morphemes) In this section, we focus on the number of morphs which make up the construction of a spatial interrogative. We cannot say much as to the number of morphemes because for many of our non-European sample languages we lack the necessary information to determine which and how many morphemes are involved in the construction of a spatial interrogative. Except the occasional remark, we therefore skip the issue of morphemes. We acknowledge that this decision impairs the comparability of the results of the evaluation of the European and the non-European languages. However, the negative effect is not as detrimental as that of comparing data which have not been analyzed correctly. Of the 303 non-European varieties, 126 make use of the number of morphs to distinguish the members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. This strategy is therefore attested in 42% of the non-European sample. The percentages reported for the individual areas show Asia to behave differently from the other extra-European regions:  Americas: 40/81 = 49%  Africa: 35/72 = 49%  Oceania: 36/83 = 43%  Asia: 15/67 = 22% Almost half of all languages of the Americas and Africa exploit the number of morphs to distinguish the constructions. The languages of Oceania also boast shares which exceed the overall average. As to the languages of Asia, the situation is markedly different because less than a quarter of all languages of this

Constructional complexity | 547

continent differentiate their constructions in terms of the number of morphs. This is a clear case of an areal dispreference for a morphological strategy. With reference to the entire non-European sample, the highest number of morphs is four. Constructions of this size are reported only four times in the non-European sample. There is no case of a construction of four morphs in Asia. There is also no case of this extra-long construction type being employed for the spatial interrogative of Goal, cf. Diagram 135. 100% 90%

87 223

80% 70% 60%

59

166

50%

3

215

whither

40% 30% 20%

213

10%

16 209 14

0% 1 morph

whence

2 morphs

3 morphs

1

where

4 morphs

Diagram 135: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in non-European varieties.

The absolute numbers given in the bars of Diagram 135 are already indicative of the concentration of the constructions in the two smallest sizes, namely the monomorphic and the dimorphic shape. In the case of constructions which consist of a single morph, WHERE-constructions have the biggest share whereas WHENCE-constructions are monomorphic only infrequently. As to dimorphic constructions, the distribution over the three spatial categories is even since each claims about a third of all cases. If we go beyond dimorphicity, the share of WHENCE-constructions increases considerably. From the point of view of the individual spatial categories, monomorphic and dimorphic constructions are of almost equal strength with WHERE whereas dimorphicity is more important than monomorphicity in the case of the dynamic spatial categories. More complex constructions are statistically relevant only for the spatial interrogatives of Source, cf. Diagram 136.

548 | The big world

100%

1 14

16

3 59

90% 80% 70%

4 morphs

209

215

60% 223

50% 40% 30% 20%

3 morphs

2 morphs

213

166 87

10%

1 morph

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 136: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in non-European varieties.

The above values confirm the general picture of a relatively high degree of complexity in the case of WHENCE and a relatively low degree of complexity in the case of WHERE. It is interesting to see whether or not this overall tendency is the same for all of the non-European areas. We start with the African situation. In Diagram 137, we review the absolute values which result from the frequency count of constructions according to their number of morphs as well as the shares each spatial category has of the different morphological sizes. Diagram 137 proves that the shares the spatial categories have of the different construction sizes resembles that of the overall picture given in Diagram 135 above. The divergence is negligible in the case of monomorphicity and dimorphicity. However, the shares the different construction sizes have of the individual spatial categories in Africa differs markedly from the general pattern, cf. Diagram 138.

Constructional complexity | 549

100% 90%

30 46

80%

10

70% 60%

whence

49

50%

1

39

whither

40% 3

30% 20%

58

38

10%

where

4

0% 1 morph

2 morphs

3 morphs

4 morphs

Diagram 137: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Africa. 100% 90% 80% 70%

1

3

38

39

4

10

46

60%

3 morphs

50% 40% 30%

4 morphs

2 morphs

58

20%

49

1 morph

30

10% 0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 138: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Africa.

550 | The big world In Africa, monomorphicity yields shares in the cells of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE which exceed the percentages given in Diagram 136 by 8%–12%. At the same time, the share of dimorphicity of the same categories in Africa drops by 7%–11% in comparison to the statistics of the entire non-European sample. The situation is similar in the Americas. Diagram 139 is indicative of relatively small differences as to the shares the three spatial categories have of the monomorphic constructions and the dimorphic constructions in the Americas in comparison to the overall picture. 100% 90%

33 50

80%

13

70% 60%

whence

51

50%

1

38

whither

40% 7

30% 20%

60

10%

44

where

4

0% 1 morph

2 morphs

3 morphs

4 morphs

Diagram 139: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in the Americas.

As in the case of Africa, the languages of the Americas deviate noticeably from the general picture if we look at the share the construction sizes have of the individual spatial categories, cf. Diagram 140. There is a surplus of 6%–11% of monomorphic constructions and a decrease of 7%–14% of dimorphic constructions. Africa and the Americas thus concur as to the additional weight they assign to monomorphicity in contrast to the expectations based on the general picture above.

Constructional complexity | 551

100% 80%

4

7

44

38

60%

1 13

50

4 morphs 3 morphs

40% 20%

60

2 morphs

51 33

1 morph

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 140: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in the Americas.

The Asian members of the non-European sample do not follow the lead of the previously discussed languages of Africa and the Americas. The importance of WHENCE-constructions in the domain of monomorphicity is shown to be considerably lower than in the general frequency count, cf. Diagram 141. In contrast, the shares WHERE and WHITHER have of the total of monomorphic constructions in Asia is moderately bigger than expected. The statistical importance of WHENCE in the domain of extra-large constructions is especially remarkable. 100%

7 51

80% 60%

whence

30 24 55

whither

40% 20%

35

51

where

4 2

0% 1 morph

2 morphs

3 morphs

Diagram 141: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Asia.

552 | The big world Diagram 142 testifies to the prevalence of dimorphicity of Asian constructions. 100%

2

4

90%

24

80% 70%

51

60%

55

3 morphs

50% 40%

51

30% 20%

2 morphs

1 morph

35

10%

30 7

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 142: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Asia.

On the one hand, the percentages computed for monomorphicity are much lower than the general percentages, namely by 8%–14%. In the case of dimorphicity, however, we notice an increase in each cell. The excess is 10% with WHERE, 8% with WHITHER, and – less remarkably – 2% with WHENCE. This means that there is an areal divide with Africa and the Americas on one side and Asia on the other. This division also affects Oceania. The values below prove that the languages of Oceania display preferences which resemble relatively closely the preferences of the languages of Asia. Diagram 143 involves shares for dimorphicity which correspond largely to those of the general statistics above. There is also a surplus of 7% in the cell of WHERE in the domain of monomorphicity. Diagram 144 offers the more revealing figures. In Oceania, dimorphicity claims shares of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE which go beyond those of the general statistics by 6%–14%. In contrast, the shares calculated for monomorphicity are lower than expected by 6%–13% for the individual spatial categories.

Constructional complexity | 553

100% 90%

17

76

80% 70%

36

whence

12

60% 50%

83

2

whither

40% 30% 20%

where

2

60 76

10%

4

0% 1 morph

2 morphs

3 morphs

4 morphs

Diagram 143: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of morphs in Oceania.

100%

4

2

2 12

90% 80% 70%

76

60%

4 morphs

83 76

50% 40%

3 morphs

2 morphs

30% 20%

60

10%

1 morph

36 17

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 144: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of morphs in Oceania.

554 | The big world Dimorphicity is important throughout the non-European sample. The languages of Asia and Oceania differ from those of Africa and the Americas insofar as the Asian and Oceanian languages display a propensity towards dimorphicity which is stronger than that of the languages of Africa and the Americas. What does this mean for the average size of a construction in terms of the number of morphs involved therein? According to the averages in Table 331, there is indeed a tendency of the spatial interrogatives of Asian and Oceanian languages to contain more morphological material than the corresponding constructions in Africa and the Americas. Table 331: Average number of morphs per construction. Continent

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

General average per area

Africa

1.48

1.49

1.76

1.57

Americas

1.48

1.54

1.81

1.60

Asia

1.62

1.70

2.20

1.83

Oceania

1.60

1.71

1.99

1.75

General average per category

1.54

1.62

1.94

1.69

Diagram 145 shows that of all categories, WHENCE is the most prone to being represented by morphologically complex constructions. 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 where Africa

whither America

whence Asia

Oceania

continent total

Diagram 145: Average number of morphs per construction outside Europe.

Constructional complexity | 555

The averages per continent indicate that Asia and Oceania tend to employ more complex constructions than this is the case in Africa and the Americas. In the previous sections, we have already seen many examples of constructions of different morphological complexity. This topic will occupy us again in subsection 4.2.3 on zero-marking. It is sufficient therefore to end this subsection with a cursory look at some typical cases. The examples from the LPP-variety of the Mande language Bambara illustrate a situation that is very common in Subsaharan Africa, namely that the number of morphs is in no way distinctive. (220) (220.1)

(220.2)

(220.3)

Bambara Source E bɛ bɔ [min]? you be exit [Q]P?/G?/S? ‘Where do you come from?’ Place Mɔgɔninfinw bɛ [min]? man:PL be [Q]P?/G?/S? ‘Where are the people?’ Goal I b’a fɛ ka taa ni n ka you be:it want INF go with 1SG POSS ‘Where do you want to go with my sheep?’

[LPP Bambara, 43]

[LPP Bambara, 48]

[LPP Bambara, 16] saga ye [min]? sheep for [Q]P?/G?/S?

The above sentences from Bambara provide not only examples of constructions of equal morphological complexity but also of WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism, i.e. the fact that the construction display the same number of morphs is trivial since the formal distinctions are neutralized throughout the paradigm. In the Uto-Aztecan language Mayo, the paradigm is also neutralized. However, in contrast to the Bambara case which attests to monomorphism, the indistinct construction of Mayo is dimorphic, cf. (221). (221) (221.1)

(221.2)

Mayo Place [Freeze 1989: 80] [haku-su] a:ne em pa? [Q-EMPH]P?/G?/S? be 2SG father ‘Where is your father?’ Goal [Freeze 1989: 133] [haku-su] ki:βake-k em pa? [Q-EMPH]P?/G?/S? enter.SUBJ.SG-REAL 2SG father ‘Where has your father gone in?’

556 | The big world (221.3)

Source [haku-su] yew si:ka [Q-EMPH]P?/G?/S? outside go.SUBJ.SG.PAST ‘Where has your father come out?’

em 2SG

[Freeze 1989: 134] pa? father

There is a Q-stem which seems to convey very general spatial meaning. This Qstem haku- combines with the emphatic particle -su. As far as we can judge, the Q-stem never occurs without the emphatic particle so that the two can be considered compulsory constituents of the syncretic WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-construction. In (222), the Indonesian LPP-variety shows that even in a paradigm that is characterized by the consistent use of formally distinct multi-word constructions, the number of morphs per construction may be the same for all three constructions and is thus indistinctive. (222) (222.1)

(222.2)

(222.3)

Indonesian Place [Di mana] manusia? [at Q]P? human_being ‘Where are the humans?’ Goal Hendak kamu bawa [ke mana] want you carry [to Q]G? ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’ Source Kamu datang [dari mana]? you come [from Q]S? ‘Where do you come from?’

[LPP Indonesian, 62]

[LPP Indonesian, 16] biri-biriku? RED~sheep:1SG [LPP Indonesian, 52]

The Q-stem mana is preceded by different prepositions. Each of the spatial interrogatives is represented by a binary syntagm which consists of two words. Since each of the words in these combinations is monomorphic, we get dimorphic constructions for WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE alike. The formal differentiation of the constructions is not a matter of the numbers of morphs involved but is achieved instead via dedicated locative, allative, and ablative prepositions. A comparable situation is reflected by the Hawaiian LPP-version in (223). There is a paradigm of three binary multi-word constructions which involve identical numbers of morphs.

Constructional complexity | 557

(223) (223.1)

(223.2)

(223.3)

Hawaiian Source [Mai hea] mai nei ‘oe? [from Q]S? hither PAST you ‘Where have you come from?’ Place [Ai hea] nā kānaka? [there Q]P? DEF.PL human_being ‘Where are the humans?’ Goal [I hea] kahi āu e [at/to Q]G? place 2SG.POSS IMPERF e lawe i ka’u INTENT transport OBJ 1SG.POSS ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

[LPP Hawaiian, 53]

[LPP Hawaiian, 62]

[LPP Hawaiian, 16] makemake ai want IMPERF hipa? sheep

In contrast to the Indonesian case illustrated in the foregoing paragraph, the syntagms do not represent the same construction type because the PP-status of the construction is typical only of the dynamic spatial relations. In the case of the spatial interrogative of Place, however, we have a combination of two units, none of which is a preposition. We classify hea as the common Q-stem of the spatial-interrogative constructions (outside the spatial context the meaning of hea is equivalent to English which). In the above WHERE-construction, hea combines with ai – a multifunctional item which Elbert & Pukui (1979: 96–99) assume to be a particle whose major task it is to function as a kind of anaphor in case of NP-fronting. Since there is no leftward movement of any NP in (223.2), the involvement of ai in the WHERE-construction must have a different explanation. According to Pukui & Elbert (1986: 62) ai hea ‘where’ is the contraction of aia i hea ‘where’ = {there} {at/to} {Q}. This means that we are dealing with the short binary form of a construction which consists of three words. The long version, however, is not attested in the LPP-variety.

4.2.3 Zero-marking We have to distinguish two kinds of zero-marking of directionality. There is the sizable group of non-European languages which attest WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCEsyncretism, i.e. in 91 paradigms no formal distinction is made on the spatial interrogatives as to the directionality of the spatial relation (cf. Diagram 113 above). More precisely, in these cases, nothing at all is said about the spatial

558 | The big world relations. In a constellation of facts of this kind, zero-marking fails to be distinctive. In contrast, zero-marking is distinctive in more than a third of the nonEuropean sample languages. We will concentrate our attention on these cases. All quantitative data and analyses refer to distinctive zero-marking. As with the previously discussed phenomena, the distribution of zeromarking over the four extra-European areas is not absolutely even:  Asia: 32 varieties/67 = 48%  Oceania: 34 varieties/83 = 41%  Americas: 24 varieties/81 = 30%  Africa: 22 varieties/72 = 31%  total: 112 varieties/303 = 37% Almost half of the Asian languages of our sample give evidence of zero-marking of directionality in individual cells of their paradigms of spatial interrogatives. The phenomenon is not as common in the other areas. Nevertheless, it occurs frequently enough to be considered an important strategy in the domain of the organization of paradigms. 100%

2

80% 60%

18

2

3 14

21

whence

40% 20%

14

whither

16

21

27

Americas

Asia

29 where

0% Africa

Oceania

Diagram 146: Shares of zero-marking of each spatial category per continent.

These values do not tell the whole story though. First of all, there is not a single case of WHENCE being affected by zero-marking without also being syncretic either with WHERE or with WHITHER. This implication is formalized in Scheme 23.

Constructional complexity | 559

WHERE=WHENCE WHENCEzero

 WHITHER=WHENCE

Scheme 23: Zero-marked WHENCE implies syncretism.

In contrast to WHENCE, the other two spatial interrogatives can be subject to zeromarking without being syncretic at the same time. There are altogether seventeen instances of WHITHER being the sole case of zero-marking. This is equivalent to a quarter of all cases of zero-marking of WHITHER. As to WHERE, we have identified forty-three cases of zero-marking without syncretism. These forty-three cases cover 50% of all instances of zero-marked WHERE. This speaks in favor of a relatively high degree of tolerance of WHERE as to zero-marking. This hypothesis is corroborated by the values in Diagram 147. These values represent the shares that cells with zero-marked word-forms have of all cells of a given category in a given area. They are indicative of two things, namely on the one hand, the relatively high susceptibility of WHERE to zero-marking and, on the other hand, the outstanding position of the Asian languages which yield the biggest share of cells hosting zero-marking although zero-marking of WHENCE is unattested in Asia. 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

where

whither

whence

continent

Africa

20%

22%

2%

15%

America

24%

16%

4%

15%

Asia

34%

27%

0%

40%

Oceania

30%

14%

2%

15%

total

27%

19%

2%

16%

Diagram 147: Shares of zero-marking of all constructions per category and area.

560 | The big world There is the usual cline from WHERE via WHITHER to WHENCE. In addition, the above data prove that the systems of spatial interrogatives are not immune against areal effects. In the remainder of this subsection, we discuss cursorily examples from each of the areas which we consider interesting for the issue at hand. The special interest arises from the fact that the examples below do not fall square with the average garden-variety of a paradigm of spatial interrogatives. Starting from Africa as usual, we present data from the Nilo-Saharan language Krongo in (224). (224) (224.1)

(224.2)

(224.3)

Krongo Place íidò-ŋ Máttà òyyù [ká]? M:IMPERF:dig-TR Matta hole [Q]P?/G? ‘Where is Matta digging a hole?’ Goal m-ánkùná káaw m-àanímyà F-IMPERF:go:ITV person CONN.F-IMPERF:be_female ‘Where is the woman going?’ Source m-àdìyà káaw m-àanímyà F-PERF:come person CONN.F-IMPERF:be_female ‘Where has the woman come from?’

[Reh 1985: 367]

[ká]? [Q]P?/G?

[nká]? [nQ]S?

The above examples deserve special attention for various reasons. In (224.2) for instance we have replaced the spatial interrogative nká ‘whence’ which appears in the original example as given in the descriptive grammar of Krongo. We feel justified to correct our source because the author herself claims that [d]as lokale Fragewort ká? wird bei der Frage nach Place- und Goal-Rollen verwendet, nká? bei Fragen nach Source-Rollen. […] ká? wird nur verwendet, wenn durch den Lokativkasus eine Place- oder Goal-Rolle kodiert wird […] (Reh 1985: 367)

Since the grammarian of Krongo explicitly states that she uses ká? in the original interrogative clause that is quoted as (224.2) above, we assume that nká ‘whence’ is simply a typographical error in lieu of correct ká ‘where = whither’. What distinguishes the syncretic ká ‘where = whither’ from nká ‘whence’ is the presence of the initial nasal on the spatial interrogative of Source. This looks like a rather straightforward case of a WHENCE-construction which is overtly marked for directionality and a syncretic WHERE=WHITHER-construction which lacks any exponent of directionality. The situation, however, is not as simple as that though. Reh (1985: 144) assumes a system of seven prefixal cases. Among

Constructional complexity | 561

the case exponents, we find kÍ- ~ kA- for the locative and nkÍ- ~ nkA~ for the ablative, the allomorphs being sensitive to the animacy of the host-noun. The allomorphs kA- and nkA- are used with stems that are [+human] or [+animate] (Reh 1985: 146 and 149). The vowel qualities as well as the tonal specifications of these prefixes depend on the phonological properties of the stem to which they attach. The phonological similarity of ká ‘where = whither’ to the locative prefix kA- as well as the phonological similarity of nká ‘whence’ to the ablative prefix nkA- is striking. It would be absurd not to assume that there is a direct relation of the case affixes and the spatial interrogatives. Given that there is this direct relation, we are facing a situation in which the bare spatial marker functions as spatial interrogative although there is no morpheme which encodes interrogativity. In other words, the spatial interrogatives encode directionality overtly but are zero-marked as to interrogativity. If this interpretation is adequate, Krongo has to be discounted as an example of zero-marking because the spatial relations are expressed morphologically.69 Among the languages of the Americas, our sample includes three Quechuan languages, namely Kichwa (Ecuador), Quechua Ayacuchano (Peru), and Quechua Cuzqueño (Peru/Bolivia). Their paradigms of spatial interrogatives are given in Table 315 above. Sentential examples from Kichwa are presented in (173) above. Kichwa and Quechua Ayacuchano do not give evidence of zero-marking since all three of the spatial relations are encoded overtly by case suffixes. This is different in the Cuzco-variety as can be seen from the examples in (225). (225) (225.1)

(225.2)

Quechua (Cuzqueño) Source Wawalláy, [may-manta]-taq child:DIM [Q-ABL]S?-INTERR ‘Little child, where are you from?’ Place [May]-taq wasiykiri? [Q]P?-INTERR house:2SG:POL ‘Where is your house?’

[LPP Quechua (Cuzqueño), 14] kanki? be:2SG

|| 69 Note also that there are “verbale Fragewörter” (Reh 1985: 364) among which we find t-ìiyóŋ ‘to be where’ for whose use we only have a single example íiyóŋ Máttà? ‘Where is Matta?’ (Reh 1985: 368). We have refrained from including it in our data-base because its functional domain is not fully transparent to us.

562 | The big world (225.3)

Goal [May-ta]-taq uwihaykitari apayta [Q-ALL]G?-INTERR sheep:2SG:ACC:POL carry:ACC ‘Where do you want to take your sheep?’

munanki? want:2SG

The spatial interrogatives are normally accompanied by the interrogative marker -taq which we consider to fall outside the proper spatial interrogative constructions. In contrast to the other two Quechuan varieties, that of Cuzco makes use of zero-marking. The dynamic spatial relations are encoded overtly on a Q-stem may ‘where’. The bare Q-stem is identical with the spatial interrogative of Place. There are thus two construction frames, viz. [Q]where and [Q-CASE]whither/whence. The derivation of the constructions of the dynamic spatial relations from the zero-marked WHERE holds also for the indefinite directional in (226). (226) (226.1)

(226.2)

Quechua (Cuzqueño) – Goal [LPP Quechua (Cuzqueño), 16] question [May-man]-taq ripunmanri? [Q-DIR]G?-INTERR go_away:3SG:POT:POL ‘Where could it go?’ answer [May-man]-pas ari. [Q-DIR]G?-INDEF then ‘Anywhere.’

Example (226.1) shows that there is an alternative WHITHER-construction mayman besides mayta ‘whither’ as given in (225.3). The case inflexion -manta of the regular spatial interrogative of Source seems to be based on a combination of the case exponents -man of the directional and -ta. We assume that mayman and mayta are not entirely synonymous because the directional is indefinite as to whether or not the arrival at a given goal is intended. In contrast the allative invites a telic interpretation in the sense that the arrival at a given goal is intended. Since the two constructions have different semantics, they do not constitute a case of overabundance. What we find instead is another case of overdifferentiation. Our investigation does not take account of overdifferentiation so that we have excluded mayman from the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the empirical facts. The situation in Korean is similar to that of Quechua Cuzqueño – at least to some extent. The data in (227) are indicative of the same asymmetry as in the previous case. The WHERE-construction does not indicate directionality by dedicated morphology whereas the dynamic spatial interrogatives encode the relations of Goal and Source overtly.

Constructional complexity | 563

(227) (227.1)

(227.2)

(227.3)

Korean [LPP Korean, 19]70 Source Yaeya neoneun [eodi-se]-o wan-ni? [Q-ABL]S?-POL come-INTERR child you:TOP ‘Where do you come from, child?’ Place Nega saneun gosiran daeche [eodi]-ni? you:TOP live place actually [Q]P?-INTERR ‘Where is your home then?’ Goal Ani, yangi gagin [eodi-ro]-ga? go [Q-ALL]G?-INTERR no, sheep:TOP ‘No, where does the sheep go?’

The similarity of Korean and Quechua Cuzqueño is striking. One might assume that this correspondence of the morphological organization of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of two genetically and areally unrelated languages finds an explanation in shared typological properties such as the fact that both languages are heavily suffixing case-languages. This topic and related issues will be looked at in more detail in Section 6 below. The final set of examples in this subsection stems from the Polynesian language Rapanui. The three interrogative clauses in (228) prove that a language does not need to subscribe to suffixation to yield patterns which correspond to those attested in languages like Korean and Quechua Cuzqueño. (228) (228.1)

(228.2)

(228.3)

Rapanui Place [He] ta’aku puka? POSS.1SG book [Q]P? ‘Where is my book?’ Goal [ki-hé] koe ka oho you MOM go [to-Q]G? ‘Where are you going tomorrow?’ Source [mai-he]-rá koe? [from-Q]S?-EMPH you ‘Where (the hell) are you from?’

[Du Feu 1996: 24]

ena PPD

apó? tomorrow

|| 70 Our Latinate transcription of Korean follows a system different from that employed by Sohn (1994: 297–298) whose Q-stem is given as eti ‘where’.

564 | The big world The bare Q-stem he ‘where’ is identical with the spatial interrogative of Place. The WHITHER-construction and the WHENCE-construction are derived from this basis by way of adding a proclitic preposition according to the frame [Prep Q]whither/whence. However, it is also possible in Rapanui to form a second WHEREconstruction which is in keeping with the binary construction frame, cf. (229). (229)

Rapanui – Place [‘I-hé] te hoi? [at-Q]P? SPEC horse ‘Where precisely are the horses?’

[Du Feu 1996: 24]

On formal grounds, the construction ‘ihé ‘where precisely’ sides with kihé ‘whither’ and maihé ‘whence’ because it involves a proclitic preposition ‘i ‘at’ in combination with the Q-stem he ‘where’. However, we argue that the alternative WHERE-construction ‘ihé ‘where precisely’ has a different status in contrast to he ‘where’ and thus must be excluded from the further discussion. Du Feu (1996: 24) assumes that the use of ‘ihé ‘where precisely’ “is a request for precise location when the general location is known.” Since our investigation focusses on general location (cf. Section 1), only the spatial interrogative he ‘where’ can be taken account of.71 We consider the coexistence of he ‘where’ and ‘ihé ‘where precisely’ as a further example of overdifferentiation.

4.2.4 Syllables The number of syllables per construction is a strategy that slightly more than 60% of the non-European languages of our sample make use of to formally differentiate between the members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. As the following shares show, the different continents behave differently on this parameter:  Asia: 55 varieties/67 = 82%  Oceania: 54 varieties/83 = 65%  Americas: 47 varieties/81 = 58%  Africa: 30 varieties/72 = 42%  total: 186 varieties/303 = 61%

|| 71 It is worth noting that Du Feu (1996: 24) treats of the alternative WHERE-construction in the same paragraph in which she also mentions the possibility of adding pragmatic emphasis on spatial interrogatives by employing the enclitic -ra (cf. ‘iherá ‘where on earth exactly’).

Constructional complexity | 565

Africa is the only continent for which the percentage fails to reach the 50%mark. In all other areas, the number of syllables per construction is the majority option. In the case of Asia, eight out of ten languages are reported to have distinctive numbers of syllables within the paradigms of spatial interrogatives. If we scrutinize the continents individually we notice that there are further differences but at the same time also an overall homological behavior. The shares given in Diagram 148 are indicative of the largely parallel distribution of monosyllabic and disyllabic constructions over the spatial categories. The category of WHERE claims identical shares of both the monosyllabic constructions and the disyllabic construction types. As to WHITHER and WHENCE, the shares of the two syllabic sizes display only minimal differences. Note also that the shares claimed by WHENCE increase with the number of syllables involved in a construction. In the area of constructions of three and four syllables, WHENCE ousts the other two spatial categories. 100% 90% 80%

24

38 18

70% 60% 50%

6 32

47

1 11

40% 30% 20%

whence

where

1 34

52

10%

12

whither

2

0% 1 syllable

2 syllables

3 syllables

4 syllables

5 syllables

Diagram 148: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Africa.

Diagram 149 shows that almost half of all constructions go to the credit of disyllabicity. More sizable constructions account for less than 20% of the total. In the cases of the spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal, the percentage calculated for disyllabic constructions even exceeds 50% albeit by relatively narrow margins.

566 | The big world 100% 90%

21 12

1

11

6 5 syllables

18

80% 70% 60%

4 syllables

52

47

50%

38

3 syllables

40% 30% 20% 10%

2 syllables

34

32

24

1 syllable

0% where

whither

whence

Diagram 149: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Africa.

The African statistics conform to the familiar pattern according to which WHENCE behaves differently from WHERE and WHITHER as to the complexity of the constructions that are used to express the spatial categories under inspection. In the Americas, the number of syllabic sizes is higher than in Africa because there are also constructions which involve six syllables and seven syllables. These extra-large constructions are attested only once each – and in both cases they function as spatial interrogatives of Source. The patterns of distribution that emerge bear resemblance to those identified for the languages of Africa above. Diagram 150 shows that there is a turning point when one moves from disyllabicity to trisyllabicity. Monosyllabic constructions and disyllabic constructions are typical of WHERE and WHITHER whereas more sizable constructions are primarily associated with WHENCE. Note that the share that WHENCE has in the domain of trisyllabic constructions in the Americas is identical to that the same interrogative has of trisyllabic constructions in Africa (cf. Diagram 148). In the Americas too, disyllabicity is the most common size of the constructions. It accounts for 47% of all cases. Like in Africa, disyllabicity is responsible for more than half of all WHERE-constructions and WHITHER-constructions. In contrast, trisyllabic constructions are especially prominent in the case of WHENCE, cf. Diagram 151.

Constructional complexity | 567

100% 90%

10

21

80% 70% 60%

2

32 20

8

51

whence

50%

1 21

40%

whither

2 2

30% 20%

1

24

60

where

20

10%

3

1

0% 1 syllable 2 syllables 3 syllables 4 syllables 5 syllables 6 syllables 7 syllables

Diagram 150: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in the Americas.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

7 syllables 6 syllables 5 syllables 4 syllables 3 syllables

where

whither

whence

7 syllables

0

0

1

6 syllables

0

0

1

5 syllables

1

2

2

4 syllables

3

2

8

3 syllables

20

21

32

2 syllables

60

51

21

1 syllable

24

20

10

2 syllables 1 syllable

Diagram 151: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in the Americas.

568 | The big world This means that the American situation replicates the gist of the African situation and thus confirms what we have learned so far from scrutinizing the systems of spatial interrogatives cross-linguistically, namely that WHENCE tends to correlate with structural complexity and vice versa. Asia resembles Africa insofar as there are five syllabic sizes. The distribution of spatial categories over syllabic sizes in Asian languages is reminiscent of the patterns we know from Africa and the Americas. If we discount the relatively moderate differences of the individual values, Diagram 152 can be seen as a repetition of Diagrams 148 and 150 above because constructions with a size of three syllables or more preferably express WHENCE whereas constructions of smaller size are mostly representatives of WHERE and/or WHITHER. 100% 90%

4

24

80% 70%

30 4

10

60%

20

50

50%

30% 20%

whither

23

40% 15

whence

1 where

50

10%

19

5

2

2

0% 1 syllable

2 syllables

3 syllables

4 syllables

5 syllables

Diagram 152: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Asia.

Diagram 153 largely corroborates what we have previously stated, namely that disyllabicity is the most frequent pattern. It is especially frequent with the spatial interrogatives of Place and Goal. In both of these cases, significantly more than half of all constructions consist of two syllables. In contrast to these categories that of WHENCE displays a tendency to being expressed by trisyllabic constructions. Two thirds of all WHENCE-constructions involve more than two syllables.

Constructional complexity | 569

2 2

100% 90%

19

80%

1 5

4

23

20

5 syllables

70%

4 syllables

60% 50%

30

50

40%

3 syllables

50

30%

2 syllables

20%

24

10%

15

0%

10

where

1 syllable

4

whither

whence

Diagram 153: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Asia.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the languages of Oceania conform to the overall picture. There are six different syllabic sizes of constructions in Oceania. Diagram 154 gives evidence of another concentration of constructions within the range from two to three syllables. 100% 90%

7

80% 70% 60%

14

34

41

46

50%

20% 10% 0%

6

46

40% 30%

17

14 20

68

whence

2

whither

where

43

9

1

1 syllable 2 syllables 3 syllables 4 syllables 5 syllables 6 syllables Diagram 154: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of syllables in Oceania.

570 | The big world The positions of WHERE and WHITHER are especially strong with monosyllabic and disyllabic constructions. In contrast, WHENCE dominates with constructions whose size exceeds trisyllabicity. It is worth noting that in contrast to the previous three areas, Oceania yields almost balanced shares of about a third of all trisyllabic constructions for WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE. The turning-point is no longer located in the transition zone between disyllabicity and trisyllabicity. In Oceania, it is relocated to the transition from constructions of three syllables to constructions of four syllables. The values given in Diagram 155 do not yield as straightforward a picture as the statistics above since the importance of disyllabicity is reduced in comparison to its dominance in Africa, the Americas, and Asia. 100%

6 syllables

90% 80%

5 syllables

70% 60%

4 syllables

50% 40%

3 syllables

30% 20%

2 syllables

10% 0%

where

whither

whence

6 syllables

0

0

2

5 syllables

0

1

6

4 syllables

9

14

17

3 syllables

43

46

41

2 syllables

68

46

34

1 syllable

20

14

7

1 syllable

Diagram 155: Distribution of constructions per spatial interrogative according to the number of syllables in Oceania.

Monosyllabicity is but a minor option on a par with tetrasyllabic constructions. It is telling that the shares claimed by monosyllabic constructions and tetrasyllabic constructions are the same for WHITHER but give evidence of a switch with the other two categories. Monosyllabicity accounts for 14% of all WHERE-

Constructional complexity | 571

construction but only for 6% of all WHENCE-constructions. With tetrasyllabicity it is the other way round: constructions with a size of four syllables cover 6.5% of all WHERE-constructions but 16% of all WHENCE-constructions. By and large, the languages of Oceania lend further support to the idea that a relatively high degree of structural complexity tends to correlate with the spatial interrogative of Source. This tendency is visible also from the average number of syllables as given for each category and each continent in Diagram 156. In each of the continents, the highest average is always that of WHENCE. In contrast, the individual averages of WHERE and WHITHER are lower than the general average per area. 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

where

whither

whence

average per area

Africa

1.85

1.79

2.06

1.89

America

2.04

2.11

2.54

2.22

Asia

2.15

2.29

2.95

2.45

Oceania

2.29

2.52

2.87

2.53

average

2.10

2.20

2.62

2.29

Diagram 156: Average number of syllables per construction and continent.

It is clearly visible that the averages of WHENCE approximate values which are relatively close to 3.0 syllables per construction. In contrast, the averages reported for WHERE are relatively close to 2.0 syllables per construction. Not surprisingly, the averages of WHITHER are located in the zone between these two extremes. The sentential examples which we provide in this subsection are meant to complement the already extensive prior documentation of cases in which the number of syllables is either decisive for the distinction of the constructions or occurs epiphenomenally as an additional factor. We start with the Nilo-Saharan language Otoro (Sudan). The examples in (230) show that all of the spatial interrogatives are mono-word constructions.

572 | The big world (230) (230.1)

(230.2)

(230.3)

Otoro Place ŋa gwɔ [nɛ]? you 2SG:be [Q1]P?/G? ‘Where are you?’ Goal ŋa gwuvidhi [nɛ]? [Q1]P?/G? you 2SG:move ‘Where are you going?’ Source ŋa gwuvidhi [nugɔgɛ]? you 2SG:move [Q2]S? ‘Where did you come from?’

[Stevenson 2009: 296]

There is suppletion because the syncretic nɛ ‘where = whither’ and the WHENCEconstruction nugɔgɛ ‘whence’ cannot be derived from each other on the basis of synchronically valid rules. The word-forms are morphologically opaque to us. What makes a difference nevertheless is the number of syllables. The monosyllabic spatial interrogative of Place/Goal forms a contrast to the spatial interrogative of Source which is an example of trisyllabicity. The parameter of the number of words is irrelevant for the case at hand. The same is probably true of the number of morphs. In terms of structural complexity, it is solely the number of syllables which distinguishes WHERE = WHITHER from WHENCE.72 In Crow (Siouan), the situation is similar to the previous case. The examples in (231) show that the spatial interrogatives are frequently incorporated into the polysynthetic verb. (231) (231.1)

(231.2)

Crow Place dii-[shóo]-ʔ? you-[Q]P?-INTERR ‘Where are you?’ Goal [shóo-ss]-da-lee-wia-laa-ʔ? [Q-GOAL]G?-2A-go-going_to-2A-INTERR ‘Where are you going to go?’

[Graczyk 2007: 425]

|| 72 Otoro (Stevenson 2009: 296) also attests to (a) an interrogative verb –adha ‘be where’ (as in gwiji gw-adha? ‘Where is the person?’) and to (b) a semantically special interrogative of Place kwada ~ ka ‘in what place’ (as in ŋa gwɔ kwada/ka? ‘In what place are you?’). For the purposes of this study, we have counted in the interrogative verb but have excluded the (b)-case because the latter is an example of overdifferentiation.

Constructional complexity | 573

(231.3)

Source [shóo-kaa]-la-loo-ʔ? [Q-SOURCE]S?-2A-come-INTERR ‘Where did you come from?’

Graczyk (2007: 425–456) mentions that there are differences as to the incorporability of the constructions of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE. The latter seems to behave special in this domain. However, all three spatial interrogatives may be used as independent syntactic words as well. They are thus mono-word constructions. The number of words is the same whereas the number of syllables is not. WHERE and WHITHER are both monosyllabic as opposed to disyllabic WHENCE. It may be argued that the number of morphs is also distinctive since shóo ‘where’ is identical to the common Q-stem and bears no overt marker of directionality, i.e. the WHERE-construction gives evidence of zero-marking. Both WHITHER and WHENCE, however, are represented by dimorphic constructions. The marker of directionality is purely consonantal in the case of -ss ‘to’ but syllabic in the case of -kaa ‘from’. There is a second WHERE-construction shóon ‘where’73 which hosts the monoconsonantal locative affix -n so that dimorphism applies as well in this case. This means that the number of morphs is the same for all members of the paradigm. Their complexity is different exclusively on the parameter of the syllabic structure of the constructions.74 In the Austronesian languages Kambera (Indonesia), the constructions differ not only on the level of syllables but also on those of morphs and words, cf. (232). (232) (232.1)

(232.2)

Kambera Place [La nggi]-ya-ka nyuna? [LOC Q]P?-3SG.AG-PERF he ‘Where is he?’ Place [Nggi] rama dingu kawài? [Q]P?/G? work be just_now ‘Where [have you] been working just now?’

[Klamer 1998: 134]

[Klamer 1998: 134]

|| 73 In the Crow grammar by Graczyk (2007), there is no uncontroversial example of shóon ‘where’ being used as a spatial interrogative of Place. We therefore refrain from discussing the evidence in any detail here. 74 Crow too testifies to overdifferentiation in the cell of WHERE because there is a specific WHERE-construction shóohtee ‘where exactly’ (involving “the locative suffix -htaa ‘specific location’” [Graczyk 2007: 426]).

574 | The big world (232.3)

(232.4)

Goal [Klamer 1998: 133] [Nggi] lua-mu hena? [Q]P?/G? go-2SG.GEN over_there ‘Where are you going?’ Source [Klamer 1998: 134] [Nggi mbara]-ya na ngia pa-weli-na [Q direction]S?-3SG.AG DET place RMS-move_from-3SG.GEN na ngilu? DET wind ‘Where [= which direction] does the wind come from?’

The parallel increase of complexity on the levels of words, morphs, and syllables (and segments, for that matter) is of course trivial in the sense that a plus in complexity on a higher level automatically creates a plus in complexity also on lower levels. If a construction consists of several words this means of necessity that several morphs are involved as well. Multi-word constructions are also a good basis for assuming polysyllabism because it can be assumed that words tend to involve a syllable peak (although this is not absolutely compulsory). There is thus a very high probability that polysyllabism can be predicted if multi-word constructions are identified. Loniu is an Austronesian language spoken in Papua New Guinea. The paradigm of spatial interrogatives of this language is interesting because it illustrates zero-marked Goal in a paradigm of three formally distinct constructions, cf. (233). (233) (233.1)

(233.2)

(233.3)

Loniu Place umʷɛ hetow [it-ɛhɛ]? house 3PCL [it_is-Q]P? ‘Where are their houses?’ Goal ɔw ma kala [ɛhɛ]? 2DU INTENT POT.NS.go [Q]G? ‘Where are you two going?’ Source wɔw [pɛti ɛhɛ]? you [from Q]S? ‘Where are you from?’

[Hamel 1994: 153]

The Q-stem ɛhɛ ‘whither’ is disyllabic and functions also as spatial interrogative of Goal. The WHERE-construction is longer by a syllable. The mono-word con-

Constructional complexity | 575

struction itɛhɛ ‘where’ is probably a univerbation of itɔ ɛhɛ ‘it is where’ as Hamel (1994: 153) assumes. The WHENCE-construction is a multi-word construction of four syllables – pɛti ɛhɛ ‘whence’ conforms to the usual pattern of a PP.75 The addition of a morph to the Q-stem yields a polymorphic construction. The combination of the Q-stem with another syntactic word yields an even more complex syllabic structure.

4.2.5 Segments The number of segments is distinctive in 70% of all of the non-European sample languages. The areas, however, differ widely as to how much weight they attribute to this parameter. The following percentages refer to the share of those varieties in which the number of segments is the same for all members of the paradigm:  Africa: 37 varieties/72 = 51%  Americas: 33 varieties/81 = 41%  Oceania: 16 varieties/83 = 19%  Asia: 5 varieties/67 = 7%  total: 91 varieties/303 = 30% With less than a third of the non-European sample languages equal segmental complexity is a minority option. However, this option accounts for half of all cases in Africa and almost as many cases in the Americas. In contrast, the languages of Oceania and especially those of Asia severely limit the number of cases of identical number of segments. In Asia, this phenomenon is clearly exceptional. The length of the constructions ranges from the minimum of a single segment to the maximum of thirteen segments. Very short as well as very long chains of segments are infrequent. The bulk of the constructions comprises between three and six segments. We divide the range of sizes of the construction into three categories, namely Category A SHORT (= up to two segments), Category B NORMAL (= between three to six segments), and category C LONG (= seven or more segments). To keep the discussion as short as possible, we will address Categories A and C exclusively. || 75 Note that Hamel (1994: 150) assumes that WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism applies because with reference to the functions of the interrogative ɛhɛ ‘whither’ she specifies that it is used to encode “origin” and “destination”. However, for the former function, we have only found examples of pɛti ɛhɛ ‘whence’.

576 | The big world Diagram 157 surveys the frequency of the different segmental sizes in the languages of Africa. 100% 90%

7

80%

66 13

70% 60%

13

50% 40%

whither 7

30% 20%

whence

69

14

81

10%

where

6

0% A (1-2 segments)

B (3-6 segments)

C (7-13 segments)

Diagram 157: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Africa.

There are altogether thirty-four cases which belong to Category A. Of these thirtyfour cases, fourteen (= 41%) are WHERE-constructions. The WHERE-constructions are twice as frequent as WHENCE-constructions in this category. In contrast, Category C comprises twenty-six cases, half (= thirteen) of which are WHENCE-constructions. The six WHERE-constructions in this category account for less than a quarter of all cases of segmentally long constructions. In both categories, WHITHER is situated between WHERE and WHENCE – but winds up relatively close to WHERE. The situation in the Americas is largely comparable to that of the languages of Africa, cf. Diagram 158. Of the fourteen cases in Category A, exactly 50% (= seven cases) go to the credit of the spatial interrogatives of Place. The WHENCE-constructions cover only 21% of the cases. As to the Category C, the shares are distributed inversely. With a share of 54%, the WHENCE-constructions form the majority option. In contrast, WHERE is responsible for only 21% of all cases in Category C. As before, WHITHER is located in the zone between WHERE and WHENCE. This time, however, WHITHER is always closer to the spatial interrogative which is representative of the minority of a category, i.e. in Category A WHITHER sides with WHENCE but in Category C WHITHER is closer to WHERE.

Constructional complexity | 577

100% 90%

3

80% 70% 60%

68 26

4

whither

40% 30% 20%

whence

80

50%

12 7

where

91

10%

10

0% A (1-2 segments)

B (3-6 segments)

C (7-13 segments)

Diagram 158: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in the Americas.

In Asia, the statistics paint an even clearer picture because there are no WHENCEconstructions in Category A at all. Three quarters of all cases in this category are WHERE-constructions, cf. Diagram 159. 100% 90% 80%

36 2

70% 60%

71

46 whence

50%

whither

40% 30%

3

20%

74

10%

16

where

11

0% A (1-2 segments)

B (3-6 segments)

C (7--13 segments)

Diagram 159: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Asia.

578 | The big world In Asia, Category C is relatively densely populated since there are seventy-three cases of long constructions. Forty-six of these constructions express the spatial relation of Source, i.e. 63% of all members of Category C are WHENCEconstructions. The share of WHERE-constructions is down to 14%. Both in Category A and Category C, WHITHER associates closely with WHERE without replicating the latter category’s percentages exactly. Unsurprisingly, the languages of Oceania conform to the general pattern, too, cf. Diagram 160. There are eighteen cases of the Category-A-type. The category of WHERE covers half of all cases of this category since it has a frequency of nine with short constructions. In contrast, WHENCE-constructions are representative of 22% of all members of Category A. The number of cases is relatively high in Category C. There are a total of 106 cases. Of these 106 cases, forty-five are WHENCEconstructions. Thus, WHENCE-constructions constitute 42% of all Category-C-type constructions whereas WHERE-constructions yield a share of 27%. As expected the percentages computed for WHITHER are located between those of WHERE and WHENCE. In the case of Category A, WHITHER is close to WHENCE. However, in the case of Category C, WHITHER is relatively close to WHERE. 100% 90%

4

58

80% 70% 60%

45 5

84

whence

50% 32

40% 30% 20%

9

whither where

102 29

10% 0% A (1-2 segments)

B (3-6 segments)

C (7-13 segments)

Diagram 160: Distribution of spatial interrogatives per construction according to the number of segments in Oceania.

Constructional complexity | 579

The above-mentioned different preferences of WHERE and WHENCE as well as the in-between status of WHITHER are phenomena which come to the fore also in the average number of segments per construction. In all of the continents, there is a cline across the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. This means that WHERE always claims the lowest average. The average of WHITHER is always higher than that of WHERE but lower than that of WHENCE. This means that the averages of WHENCE always exceed those of the other two members of the paradigm. Accordingly, the overall averages of the three categories reflect this pattern closely: the average WHENCE-construction counts one segment in excess of the average WHITHER-construction which in turn is more complex than the average WHEREconstruction (albeit by a narrow margin). It is worth noting that the areas differ from each other as to the average number of segments per construction. The average construction is shortest in Africa and longest in Asia. Except in Africa, the averages generally exceed the number of five segments, cf. Diagram 161. The especially marked character of WHENCE results clearly from Diagram 161. The same is true of the relative unmarked status of WHERE. It is not as easy as that to judge the situation in the case of WHITHER. It is neither as highly marked as WHENCE nor is it of the same status as WHERE. This is a scenario which is familiar to us from the previous sections devoted to the issue of constructional complexity. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

where

whither

whence

average per area

4.07

4.13

4.74

4.30

America

4.58

4.87

5.70

5.03

Asia

4.82

5.17

6.82

5.58

Oceania

4.91

5.37

6.32

5.48

average

4.63

4.90

5.90

5.11

Africa

Diagram 161: Average number of segments per construction outside Europe.

580 | The big world The sentential examples we are about to discuss are meant to complement the many prior cases which attest to differences in the number of segments of the constructions. Since there is already ample evidence of this phenomenon we content ourselves with presenting a small number of cases of interest. A case in point is Oromo, cf. (234). (234) (234.1)

(234.2)

(234.3)

Oromo Place Abbaan kee father:SUBJ M:POSS.2SG ‘Where is your father?’ Goal Isaan [eessa] deemu? they [Q]P?/G? go:3PL ‘Where are they going?’ Source [Eessaa] dhufta? [Qa]S? come:2SG ‘Where do you come from?’

[Griefenow-Mewis & Bitima 1994: 33] [eessa] jira? [Q]P?/G? M:EXI [Griefenow-Mewis & Bitima 1994: 191]

[Griefenow-Mewis & Bitima 1994: 191]

There is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism because the mono-word construction eessa ‘where = whither’ functions both as spatial interrogative of Place and spatial interrogative of Goal as the examples (234.1) and (234.2) illustrate. The WHENCEconstruction is also a mono-word construction. It is based on the Q-stem which is identical to the syncretic spatial interrogative of Place and Goal. The WHENCEconstruction eessaa ‘whence’ differs from the WHERE=WHITHER-construction eessa ‘where = whither’ exclusively on the parameter of the number of segments. The spatial interrogative of Source is represented by the more complex of the two constructions because the final vowel of eessaa ‘whence’ is long as opposed to the short final vowel in eessa ‘where = whither’. Since we have stipulated in Section 2 that long vowels are counted as a sequence of two segments, eessaa ‘whence’ exceeds the length of the phonological chain of eessa ‘where = whither’ by a segment. The examples from Apache in (235) show that there are other apparently rather subtle segmental differences which help telling the constructions apart. (235) (235.1)

Apache (San Carlos) Place [Ha-yú] nigowąh? [Q-at]P?/G?2PL:home ‘Where is your home?’

[De Reuse 2006: 85]

Constructional complexity | 581

(235.2)

(235.3)

Goal [Ha-yú] nałkai? [Q-at]P?/G? 2PL:go.PAST ‘Where did you go?’ Source [Ha-dí’] nołkaihi? [Q-from]S? 2PL:come ‘Where do you come from?’

[De Reuse 2006: 75]

[De Reuse 2006: 75]

All constructions of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives are mono-word constructions. They also share the properties of disyllabic and bimorphic structure. These similarities notwithstanding, the constructions are distinct because their phonological/morphological substance differs quantitatively. There is WHERE= WHITHER-syncretism. The syncretic hayú ‘where = whither’ is made up of four segments. The WHENCE-construction counts five segments because the wordfinal segment is a glottal stop /ʔ/ (= orthographic ). De Reuse (2006: 77) explains that there is an additional spatial interrogative of Place hagee ‘where exactly’ which “is used to describe the precise location where something or someone is at in combination with the verb nashãã, nanãã, naghãã, etc.” This means that hagee ‘where exactly’ can only occur in combination with the Apache copular verb. Semantically it is specialized so that we can exclude it from further scrutiny since it does not fulfill the condition of inquiring about general location. De Reuse (2006: 77) also mentions an alternative WHENCEconstruction hayudí ‘whence’ which is trisyllabic, comprises three morphs, and yields a phonological chain of six segments, meaning: this allomorph of WHENCE is considerably more complex than the other members of the paradigm. The situation in Bhujel (Sino-Tibetan) is comparable to some extent to that of Apache. First of all, the examples in (236) attest to optional WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism. (236) (236.1)

(236.2)

Bhujel Place [gʰɑŋ]-te krom [Q1]P?/G?-2 marriage ‘Where did you marry?’ Goal [gʰɑŋ]-te al-na? [Q1]P?/G?-2 go-NPAST ‘Where do you go?’

rakʰ-al? do-PAST

[Regmi 2012: 124]

[Regmi 2012: 124]

582 | The big world (236.3)

(236.4)

Goal dyo [gakət] cʰo-al? 3SG [Q2]G? go-PAST ‘Where did he go?’ Source naŋ-te [gɑkət-lyɑm] wɑŋ-ɑl? 2SG-2 [Q2-ABL]S? come-PAST ‘Where did you come from?’

[Regmi 2012: 123]

[Regmi 2012: 124]

There are two different Q-stems, namely (a) the one that is identical to the syncretic WHERE=WHITHER-construction gʰɑŋ ‘where = whither’, and (b) gɑkət ‘whither’ which serves as basis for the formation of the spatial interrogative of Source. There is thus suppletion. All three of the constructions are mono-word constructions, the most complex of which is gɑkətlyɑm ‘whence’ because it consists of two morphs, is trisyllabic, and requires a chain of nine segments. The two Q-stems Q1 and Q2 cannot be told apart on the morphological level. On the parameters of the number of syllables and segments, however, it becomes clear that the specialized WHITHER-construction is more complex than the WHERE=WHITHER-construction because the former boasts a syllable and two segments in excess of the monosyllabic syncretic gʰɑŋ ‘where = whither’ whose chain of segments comprises only three units. Our last example is Tinrin – a Melanesian language of New Caledonia. The examples in (237) are indicative of the absence of syncretism. (237) (237.1)

(237.2)

(237.3)

Tinrin Place [âe] nrâ fwi mwâ? [Q]P? 3SG do hut ‘Where did he build a hut?’ Goal fadrò [were-e]? walk [to-Q]G? ‘Where are you going?’ Source fadrò [ghe-e] fadrò? walk [from-Q]S? walk ‘Where do you come from?’

[Osumi 1995: 232–233]

There are three mono-word constructions. Those of the dynamic spatial relations are based on the short allomorph -e of the Q-stem which combines with prepositions to yield a mono-word construction. They reflect the following con-

Constructional complexity | 583

struction frame: [Prep-Q]whither/whence. This derivational relation explains why the WHITHER-construction and the WHENCE-construction are phonologically more sizable than the WHERE-construction. In comparison to the bisegmental âe ‘where’, the constructions were-e ‘whither’ and ghe-e ‘whence’ display a surplus of three segments and two segments, respectively. Note that there is multiple allomorphy. Osumi (1995: 232) reports that multi-word alternatives exist “in careful speech” which preserves the long form of the Q-stem âe ‘where’ which does not coalesce with the prepositions. The author also mentions a complex spatial interrogative of Place ruu-e ‘where’ which involves the preposition ruu ‘at’ (Osumi 1995: 233). It is unclear to us whether the alternative WHEREconstruction is a case of general or special location. We have refrained therefore from taking it into account in our survey. Similarly, we have not included the above multi-word alternatives because our source does not provide systematic evidence of their use.

4.2.6 The scores The above constellations of structural facts can be summarized in analogy to the reviews of the scores of the European LPP-varieties of the previous sections. We acknowledge that the results of the European LPP-varieties and those of the non-European languages are not properly comparable since they lack a common empirical basis. This problem notwithstanding it is still possible to see whether or not the results which we have gained on a heterogeneous basis (= non-European) resemble the results we have gained on the basis of a common reference text (= European). In point of fact, the results are strikingly similar. Table 332 surveys the results for the non-European sample languages as a whole. We do not discriminate the different areas. Two explanations are called for (as to the categories marked by asterisks in Table 332). To facilitate comparison with the European results in Section 4.4 below, we add the rubric of morphemes although we have not looked at this category specifically. We have taken the liberty to copy the scores of the spatial categories on the parameter of the number of morphs per construction. On the assumption that morphs and morphemes tend to yield identical results also in the European part of our study, we consider non-European morphemes to behave similarly to their European counter-parts. The second problem is posed by the score of ‘0’ for WHITHER on the parameter of zero-marking. Directionality is zero-marked with WHITHER considerably more frequently than zero-marking affects WHENCE. However, zeromarking with WHITHER is clearly less frequent than in the case of WHERE.

584 | The big world Table 332: Scores for the complexity levels of spatial interrogatives in non-European varieties. Level

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

words

0

1

2

morphs

0

1

2

morphemes*

0

1

2

zero-marking

0

0**

1

syllables

0

1

2

segments

0

1

2

Total

0

5

11

The above scores are in no way unexpected because they conform to the patterns we are familiar with from the European LPP-varieties. On the basis of this conformity, it is legitimate to assume that we have identified the crosslinguistically dominant rank-order which corresponds to the markedness hierarchy to which we have referred repeatedly in the foregoing sections (cf. Scheme 2 in Section 1 and Scheme 4 in Section 2 above). The unmarked status of WHERE, the marked status of WHENCE, and the in-between status of WHITHER are evident from the graphical rendering of the above scores in Diagram 162. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 where

whither

whence

Diagram 162: Scores of complexity of non-European varieties.

We already know that it makes no difference whether we look at the spatial interrogatives from the European perspective or from the non-European perspective. In both cases, the scores are distributed similarly so that everything speaks in favor of adopting the markedness hierarchy of Scheme 4 as the cross-

Derivation patterns | 585

linguistically preferred option. We consider the markedness hierarchy confirmed, cf. Scheme 24.

Scheme 24: Markedness hierarchy (confirmed).

What needs to be discussed below is the flexibility of this hierarchy, i.e. the possibility of deviating from the preferred rank-order. We return to this issue in Section 5 below.

4.3 Derivation patterns The above findings are corroborated by the preferences that come to the fore in the realm of derivation. Table 333 surveys the absolute frequency of the basic patterns. The absolute numbers refer to the languages which attest a given pattern. Since overabundance makes it possible that a language gives evidence of several patterns the totals may be higher than the actual number of languages from a given region. Table 333: Distribution of basic patterns of relation (absolute frequency). Pattern

Africa

Americas

Asia

Oceania

Sum

AAA

54

70

52

75

251

ABB

6

4

6

5

21

ABA

5

5

5

5

20

BBB

3

3

4

5

15

AAC

5

1

1

0

7

ABC

1

1

4

0

6

BBC

0

0

0

1

1

Total

74

84

72

91

321

The values speak for themselves. In each of the regions, the pattern AAA is overwhelmingly dominant. None of the other patterns is a competitor worth speaking of since none of these additional patterns exceeds 9% in any region individually. All minor patterns taken together cover less than a quarter of all instances. Diagram 163 shows that the four non-European areas yield relatively

586 | The big world similar results. This unequivocal preference for the pattern AAA lends support to the hypothesis that the spatial relation of Place is crucial for the organization of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives because its stem and/or its entire construction A are the basis for the formation of the other members of the same paradigm. In addition, there are two minor patterns ABA and AAC in which A is responsible for two of three constructions of a given paradigm. These two patterns yield a turnout of twenty-seven cases. Thus, A is dominant in 278 instances or 87% of all cases across the non-European areas. With thirty-seven instances B is dominant only in 11.5% of all cases. There is no evidence of dominant C. It is also worth noting that the pattern ABC with three derivationally independent members accounts for only 2% of all cases and is absent from Oceania. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

pattern AAA

50%

others

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa

Americas

Asia

Oceania

average

Diagram 163: Shares of basic patterns of relation.

The incidence of overt material derivation by morphological means yields a picture which is in conformity with the above situation. In Diagram 164 we indicate the frequency of pairwise derivation relations. Only WHERE and WHITHER can serve as basis for morphological derivation. WHENCE is always on the receiving end, in a manner of speaking, because it is never attested in the function of basis of a derivational process. By far the most frequently employed derivation basis is WHERE which covers about 80% of all cases. The derivation pattern WHERE > WHITHER accounts for some 38% of all cases whereas the inverse relation WHITHER > WHERE is down to 4% of all cases. The share of 57.5% characterizes the derived construction of WHENCE as a majority option. Diagram 164 shows that the

Comparison: European vs. non-European languages | 587

derivation basis WHERE is the vastly preferred option in all of the four areas under scrutiny. By and large the non-European languages are in line with the insights we have gained from the analysis of the European languages. The three spatial categories Place, Goal, and Source form a set of partners of unequal status. Place enjoys a great many privileges. Goal and Source in contrast are largely dependent upon Place in the sense that their expressions are based on or related to that of Place. The subaltern status of Source is especially striking. Since these observations hold both for the languages within and without Europe, one might expect that the comparison of the European and non-European situations in Section 4.4 yields a relatively homogeneous general picture. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

3 6

13

3 8

31

4 13

6 10

16 37

38

60

142

whither > where

whither > whence

50% 40% 30% 20%

where > whither

22

43

49

63

177

10%

where > whence

0% Africa

Americas

Asia

Oceania

average

Diagram 164: Shares of derivation patterns.

4.4 Comparison: European vs. non-European languages To avoid misunderstandings we repeat that the following comparison has a number of problematic aspects about it. The most serious of those is the absence of a common empirical basis. The European results have been calculated on the basis of the analysis of the sample text whereas in the case of the non-European languages no comparable frame of reference was available to us. The nonEuropean results reflect the properties of DGB-varieties. In contrast, the European results have been gained from the scrutiny of the LPP-varieties.

588 | The big world 4.4.1 Mismatches From Section 3.6.1.1 we already know that the European sample languages do not behave homogeneously as to their susceptibility to the different types of mismatches. Diagram 104 above for instance displays lines considerably varying in length which are indicative of different and at least partly geneticallyinduced preferences. Nevertheless, it is possible to calculate the overall average of the frequency of mismatches in Europe and compare it to the overall average in the non-European segment of our sample, cf. Diagram 165. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% syncretism

overabundance

suppletion

Europe

periphrasis

fused exponence

other

Diagram 165: Average frequency of mismatches inside and outside Europe.

The percentages in Diagram 165 refer to the number of languages which attest to a given mismatch in the European sub-sample and the non-European subsample, respectively. We see that outside of Europe the frequency of the mismatches decreases from right to left monotonously. In contrast, Europe boasts a second peak besides that constituted by syncretism. This second peak is associated with periphrasis – a mismatch which is widely underrepresented outside of Europe. The two sub-samples agree as to the prominence their memberlanguages attribute to the phenomenon of syncretism. This mismatch therefore calls for closer scrutiny.

Comparison: European vs. non-European languages | 589

In (169)–(170) above, we have put forward two competing predictions – in the shape of alternative working hypotheses. These predictions assume either that the five logically possible syncretic patterns are distributed over the nonEuropean languages along the lines of their distribution across the European languages or that there are area-specific preferences. Diagram 166 is suggestive of a largely parallel behavior of the two sub-samples. The Roman numeration of the patterns is the same which we have introduced in Section 4.1.1.6 above. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pattern I

Pattern II

Pattern III Europe

Pattern IV

Pattern V

other

Diagram 166: Comparison of the average frequency of syncretic patterns inside and outside Europe.

Except the striking differences as to Pattern V WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE, European and non-European sub-samples display largely the same preferences and dispreferences. Patterns III–IV are attested but marginally in both sub-samples. This means that WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) and (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER are patterns which lack statistical significance generally. Not only in Europe but also beyond this continent’s boundaries, the maximally distinct Pattern I WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE is the most frequently attested pattern. Pattern II (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE is strong in both sub-samples. However, in the non-European sub-sample Pattern II occupies the third rank after the neutralized Pattern V WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE which has zero-frequency in the European sub-sample. The absence of Pattern V from Europe is a negative areal trait. Furthermore, the European sub-sample displays percentages for Patterns I–II which exceed those

590 | The big world of the same patterns in the non-European sub-sample considerably. This statistical difference can be seen as another aspect of areality albeit one that strikes the eye less than the absence of a logically possible option in a given area.

4.4.2 Constructional complexity 4.4.2.1 The individual phenomena For the reasons we have put forward at the beginning of Section 3.6.2.1 we treat zero-marking separately from the bulk of the phenomena which associate with the complexity of constructions. In Europe zero-marking is almost twice as common as in the rest of the world. There are ninety-eight of the 140 European LPP-varieties which attest to zero-marking, i.e. 70% of the European LPPvarieties give evidence of this phenomenon. In contrast, the 112 non-European languages with distinctive zero-marking of directionality are equivalent to only 37% of the non-European sub-sample. The dominant preference for zeromarking is thus a distinguishing mark of the European sub-sample. This dominance must automatically diminish considerably if we include the cases of indistinctive zero-marking. This phenomenon is restricted to the non-European part of the sample since the syncretic Pattern V is unattested in Europe. Our statistics refer exclusively to cases of distinctive zero-marking. If we look at the individual spatial categories and their susceptibility to zero-marking, we notice that both sub-samples give evidence of the same cline, cf. Diagram 167. In Europe as well as outside Europe, WHERE is affected most by zero-marking, WHITHER comes in second place, whereas WHENCE is hardly ever subject to zero-marking. However, this parallel behavior goes along with striking quantitative differences. In Europe, WHERE is affected by zero-marking in 70% of all cases. In contrast, the same category testifies to zero-marking in only 27% of all cases in the non-European sub-sample. The differences are not as striking in the case of WHITHER although here too the European sub-sample displays a percentage of zero-marked forms which is noticeably higher than in the case of the non-European languages. In the remainder of this subsection, we review the average number of units per construction across categories by way of comparing the results of the European and non-European sub-samples. Because of the problems connected to the parameter of the number of morphemes, we skip this issue once again. We start with the number of words per construction. In Diagram 168, we see that there is a narrow surplus in the European sample in comparison to the non-European languages. According to the general average, European spatial interrogatives require 0.05 words more than their non-European equivalents.

Comparison: European vs. non-European languages | 591

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% where

whither Europe

whence

other

Diagram 167: Share of zero-marking per construction (comparison).

1.8

1.56

1.6 1.4 1.2 1

1.26

1.2 1.02

1.14

1.18

1.26

1.19

0.8

Europe other

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 where

whither

whence

general

Diagram 168: Average number of words per construction (comparison).

This hardly discernible excess is the more interesting because in the case of WHERE-constructions, the European average is smaller than the non-European average by 0.12. In point of fact, the main responsibility for the relatively high general average of the European constructions lies with the WHENCE-

592 | The big world constructions because the European spatial interrogatives of Source tend to be considerably more complex than those of the non-European sub-sample as to the number of words they involve. In sum, on the parameter of the number of words, the range of variation across the categories is relatively narrow for the non-European languages (viz. 0.12) whereas in the European languages the gap between the smallest and the biggest average is much wider (viz. 0.54). These differences do not alter the general picture since for both sub-samples the same pattern emerges: WHERE counts the least number of words whereas WHENCE has the most sizable constructions. WHITHER, on the other hand, is represented by constructions of medium size. What we have said about the number of words could also be repeated – with only minor modifications – for the parameter of the number of morphs. Diagram 169 tells us that the general averages of the two sub-samples are almost identical, the difference of 0.01 being much too small to count as statistically significant. 2.5 2.12 2 1.62 1.5

1.26

1.54

1.94

1.68 1.69

1.62

Europe other

1 0.5 0 where

whither

whence

general

Diagram 169: Average number of morphs per construction (comparison).

The averages of WHITHER are absolutely identical for both sub-samples. As to the average of WHERE, the number of morphs is smaller by 0.28 in the European subsample. In contrast, European WHENCE-constructions yield an average which exceeds that of the non-European languages by 0.18. Like in the previous case, the European sub-sample testifies to a preference for relatively short WHEREconstructions and relatively long WHENCE-constructions. The distance between

Comparison: European vs. non-European languages | 593

the two extremes is 0.86. The non-European sub-sample yields a difference of 0.40. Again, the general picture is unaffected by these differences of the two sub-samples. In the European sub-sample as well as in the non-European subsample, WHERE-constructions are relatively short as opposed to the relatively long WHENCE-constructions whereas the WHITHER-constructions have a size which approximates the general average of all constructions. Interestingly, the situation changes when we enter the realm of phonology. Diagram 170 shows the non-European averages to exceed those of the European sub-sample for each of the categories on the parameter of the number of syllables per construction. 3 2.5

2.32

2 1.5

2.10

1.82

2.62 1.89

2.2

2.29

1.4

Europe other

1 0.5 0 where

whither

whence

general

Diagram 170: Average number of syllables per construction (comparison).

The differences on this parameter are not negligible. As to the general average, the European constructions are shorter than the non-European constructions by 0.4. For the individual categories the differences range from the maximum of 0.7 (= WHERE) via 0.38 (= WHITHER) to the minimum of 0.3 (= WHENCE). In each category, the non-European averages exceed 2.0 syllables. The European subsample, on the other hand, goes beyond disyllabicity only in the case of WHENCE. The disproportion of the construction sizes is especially pronounced in Europe. Between the averages of WHERE and WHENCE, there is a gap of 0.92, i.e. almost a full syllable. In the non-European case, the distance between the same categories is down to 0.52. Yet, both sub-samples agree as to the relatively small size of

594 | The big world the WHERE-constructions as opposed to the relatively big size of the WHENCEconstructions. There is also agreement across the sub-samples as to the medium-length of the WHITHER-constructions. The average syllabic structure of the spatial–interrogative constructions yields quantitative results which seem to foreshadow those which we have gained on the parameter of the number of segments per construction, cf. Diagram 171. 7 5.68

6

5.9

5 4

3.29

4.63

4.2

4.4

4.9

5.11 Europe

3

other

2 1 0 where

whither

whence

general

Diagram 171: Average number of segments per construction (comparison).

As in the previous case, the construction sizes of the non-European sub-sample exceed the construction sizes of the European sub-sample. The general average displays a gap of 0.7 between the two sub-samples. The gap is much wider if we compare the averages of the WHERE-constructions for which the non-European languages yield a surplus of 1.34. In contrast, the gap is relatively narrow with 0.22 in the case of WHENCE. The distance of WHERE and WHENCE in the European sub-sample amounts to 2.39, i.e. the WHENCE-constructions tend to be longer by two segments. In the non-European sub-sample the distance is less extreme, namely only 1.27. This means that WHENCE-constructions exceed WHERE-constructions in length by a segment. The European sub-sample and the non-European sub-sample are in agreement with each other as to the order of the categories according to the average size of their constructions. The number of segments is relatively low with WHERE. It is relatively high with WHENCE. As to WHITHER, the

Comparison: European vs. non-European languages | 595

number of segments is neither particularly high nor particularly low. This means that on the four size-related parameters the same order of the categories emerges: WHERE < WHITHER < WHENCE.

4.4.2.2 The scores The foregoing discussion has prepared us for this short subsection. The lowlevel differences of the European and the non-European sub-samples notwithstanding, there are robust foundations for generalizations. These generalizations come in the shape of the complexity scores in Diagram 172. What the diagram shows is that the two sub-samples yield almost identical graphs. There is a constant increase of complexity when we move from left to right in the diagram. The scores of WHERE are close to or identical with ‘0’. The scores of WHENCE are close to or identical with ‘11’. In the middle position we find the scores of WHITHER which oscillate around ‘4’. For better comparability, we have followed the practice we have employed in connection with Diagram 162 above, i.e. we have assumed that the parameter of the number of morphemes per constructions yields the same results as the parameter of the number of morphs. The scores of the European sub-sample are based on Diagram 112 above. 12 10 8 other

6

European

4 2 0 where

whither

whence

Diagram 172: Complexity scores (comparison).

In conclusion, the following statements can be made as to the behavior of the European and non-European sub-samples:

596 | The big world  Both the predictions formulated in (169)–(170) are borne out by the facts insofar as on the one hand, there is agreement across the sub-samples as to the infrequency of the syncretic Patterns III–IV. In Europe as well as outside Europe, the syncretic Patterns I–II are relatively common phenomena, i.e. WHERE=WHITHER syncretism is not an exclusive Europeanism. What distinguishes Europe from the rest of the world is the absence of the syncretic Pattern V which in turn is a characteristic (but not a monopoly!) of Sub-Saharan Africa. There is thus evidence of cross-linguistic homogeneity and at the same time of areal preferences and dispreferences.  It makes no difference where a language is spoken. Wherever there are different degrees of complexity of the constructions of a given paradigm of spatial interrogatives, there is an overwhelming probability that the complexity increases from WHERE via WHITHER to WHENCE. Additional phenomena support the interpretation of this complexity scale as a manifestation of what we label a markedness hierarchy. Since this markedness hierarchy of the spatial interrogatives forms a perfect parallel with the markedness hierarchy of the spatial relations as discussed in Section 1 (cf. Scheme 25), it could be argued that the two hierarchies can be unified by way of cancelling the feature of interrogativity since it does not seem to make any difference whether we look at declarative clauses or at interrogative clauses. To justify this unification it is necessary to prove empirically that the ranking order of the spatial categories is the same in a given language independent of sentencemodality. However, this is an issue to be tackled in future studies.

5 Spatial relations across sentence-types In this section we check to what extent the formal distinctions made in the realm of spatial relations may vary across the two major sentence-types of declaratives and interrogatives. To this end we focus on the issue of syncretism. Other mismatches and further aspects of constructional complexity are touched upon only unsystematically. For obvious reasons, we restrict the discussion to a relatively small selection of illustrative cases because an in-depth comparison of the similarities and dissimilarities of the systems of spatial relations in declarative and interrogative clauses presupposes the clarification of all open questions which arise in connection with the analysis of the grammar of space in declaratives. Since there are still many unsolved problems exactly in this area, a separate dedicated study is required which would inevitably burst the seams of this inquiry.76 Logically, there are four possibilities in which a given language may organize the paradigm of spatial categories across sentence-types in connection to the presence or absence of syncretism, cf. Table 334. Table 334: Tetrachoric table of absence/presence of syncretism of spatial relations in interrogatives and declaratives. Declarative

Interrogative

yes

no

yes

A

C

no

B

D

|| 76 We are currently preparing a crosslinguistic in-depth study on the adverbial demonstratives corresponding to the English paradigms of there – thither – thence and here – hither – hence in order to compare the results we have gained from our research on spatial interrogatives with those of the follow up study. The adverbial demonstratives can be understood as the nearest functional equivalent the spatial interrogatives have in the domain of declarative sentences. For reasons of time, the inclusion of adverbial demonstratives in this study has not been possible.

DOI: 10.1515/9783110539516-005

598 | Spatial relations across sentence-types If both interrogatives and declaratives give evidence of syncretism of spatial categories, we have an instance of a combination of Type A. Type A is especially interesting since it leaves open the possibility that declaratives and interrogatives opt for different syncretic patterns. If neither of the sentence-types attests to any kind of syncretism, the resulting combination is representative of Type D. Typologically Type D is the least interesting because it not only excludes a priori the possibility of sentence-type-dependent variation but also fails to reflect any hierarchical order of the spatial categories. Its cell is shaded grey in order to mark its special status. More interesting are Types B and C which combine a sentence-type which lacks syncretism and a sentence-type which is subject to syncretism of spatial relations. In the case of Type B, it is the marked sentencetype of interrogatives which is unaffected by syncretism whereas in Type C the unmarked sentence-type of declaratives is free of syncretism. For a tetrachoric table to typologically make sense there must be an impossible/unattested type among the four logically possible options. It is tempting to hypothesize that if any of the types mentioned in Table 334 remains to be unattested crosslinguistically, the likeliest candidate for this empirical gap is Type B. We will see below whether or not this hypothesis is borne out by the facts. In Table 335, we specify the twenty-five logically possible combinations of syncretic patterns in the two sentence-types under inspection. The capital letters A-D refer back to the types introduced in the previous table. For better recognition, those types which show up in several cells are additionally indexed numerically. Table 335: Logically possible combinations of syncretic patterns in interrogatives and declaratives.

Place ≠ Goal ≠ Source

(Place = Goal) ≠ Source

Place ≠ (Goal = Source)

(Place = Source) ≠ Goal

Place = Goal = Source

Interrogative

Declarative

WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE

D

B1

B2

B3

B4

(WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE

C1

A1

A2

A3

A4

WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE)

C2

A5

A6

A7

A8

(WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER

C3

A9

A10

A11

A12

WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE

C4

A13

A14

A15

A16

Identity across sentence-types | 599

The parallel absence of syncretism from both sentence-types is restricted to a single cell of the matrix (= Type D). Of Types B-C there are four different realization forms each. Type A alone, however, covers a range of sixteen potential realization forms. In Table 335, the grey-shaded cells host (sub-)types which give evidence of identical syncretic patterns in both sentence-types. This constellation of parallel syncretic patterns in declaratives and interrogatives is characteristic of the Types D, A1, A6, A11, and A16. These five cases can be taken to speak in favor of a common principle of organization of the grammar of space independent of the sentence-type. In other words, they instantiate the Scenario I as presented in (4) above (cf. Section 1.3). It is worth noting though that two of these types – A6 and A11 – involve syncretic patterns which are considered highly marked in the extant literature on spatial relations in declaratives (as discussed in Section 1.2 above) and have been shown to have the status of rara (if not rarissima) in the realm of interrogatives in this study. There are altogether fourteen constellations in which at least one of the sentence-types involves a marked pattern of syncretism, namely A2, A3, A5, A7, A8, A9, A10, A12, A14, A15, B2, B3, C2, and C3. Since these cases are at variance with the conditions formulated in Scenario II in (5) above, one may hypothesize that empirical evidence of the existence of the types under debate will be very scarce because they violate general principles. From the discussion in Section 1.2.2 above we know that in declarative clauses two of the syncretic patterns, namely Place ≠ (Goal = Source) and (Place = Source) ≠ Goal, are statistically insignificant according to the extant cross-linguistic studies devoted to the grammar of space. Since these patterns correspond to the minor syncretic patterns WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) and (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER on the side of interrogatives, it is improbable that combinations of two of these marked patterns in one and the same language occur at all. If, however, there is sufficient proof of the existence of these patterns, those of the constellations which show declaratives and interrogatives to follow different principles can be seen as supporting Scenario III (as presented in [6] above). This holds especially for the sub-types of Type A. The problem seems to be less serious in the case of Types A4, A8, A12, A13, A14, A15, B4, and C4 because the distinctions are neutralized in one of the sentence-types and thus the combination of two marked patterns is barred. The indistinction of the spatial categories in interrogative clauses (= Types A13, A14, A15, and C4) can be explained as the expectable neutralization of formal distinctions in the marked sentence-type. This argument does not count in the case of A4, A8, A12, and B4 since these four sub-types display neutralization in declaratives in combination with differentiation in interrogatives. Accordingly, the unmarked sen-

600 | Spatial relations across sentence-types tence-type would be characterized by formal underdifferentiation of categories which are kept distinct in the marked context. In the following subsections we will discuss evidence of each of the four major Types A, B, C, and D separately. For the reasons mentioned above, we cannot conduct a full-blown quantitative study of the cross-linguistic distribution of the types and sub-types. We have to make do with a mostly qualitative interpretation of cases which consider being representative of a given type. To avoid confusion, we emphasize that the comparison of the system of spatial relations of interrogatives and declaratives is strictly limited to the area of general location as explained in Section 1.4.1 above. For the purpose of comparison, we contrast the paradigms of spatial interrogatives with the paradigms of spatial categories as expressed in NPs either directly on the noun (= case inflexion) or adpositionally.77 To create a higher degree of suspense, we start from the wrong end, in a manner of speaking, and then continue counter-intuitively with an assortment of sub-types of Type A. We have opted for discussing first those types which are unspectacular and only then turn our attention to those types which are more interesting in the sense that they display unexpected properties. Thus, contrary to what the alphabetical order suggests, Section 5.1 is dedicated to the discussion of cases which display identical patterns in both sentencetypes. The topic of Section 5.2 is those cases which attest to variation across sentence-types. The conclusions are drawn in Section 5.3.

5.1 Identity across sentence-types 5.1.1 Type D – no syncretism The genetic isolate Ket illustrates Type D. Being a Type-D language means that there are paradigms with three distinct constructions in both interrogative clauses and declarative clauses. Table 336 shows that this is actually the case in Ket.78 || 77 We acknowledge that restricting the comparison to nouns in declarative sentences is a simplification. It could be argued that spatial adverbials of the type of English there = thither = thence/here = hither = hence and other word-classes or sub-classes thereof are equally good candidates for being compared to spatial interrogatives. Our decision to look exclusively at the distinction of spatial categories within NPs is mainly motivated by practical and technical issues. Future research will reveal whether or not the inclusion of further word-classes yields different results as to the homogeneity/heterogeneity of the grammar of space. 78 In the Latinate transcription of Ket examples, upper-case numbers indicate tone (cf. further examples in this section).

Identity across sentence-types | 601

Table 336: Ternary paradigms in Ket interrogatives and declaratives. Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

bi-s’ɛŋ

N-CLASS-ŋta ~ N-ka/-ɣa

Goal

bil’-ɛs’ ~ bil’-tan’

N-CLASS-ŋa

Source

bil’-il’ ~ bi-n’il’

N-CLASS-ŋal’

For each of the spatial relations, there is a distinct construction in each of the sentence-types. We have Pattern I WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE on the one side and Place ≠ Goal ≠ Source on the other side. The common principle is that of maximal distinctivity. Independent of the sentence-type, all three of the spatial categories of general location are distinguished formally from each other. Furthermore, in both sentence-types each of the categories is overtly expressed by dedicated morphological markers. This higher level homogeneity does not preclude heterogeneity on the lower levels. First of all, the internal structure of the constructions is not the same for spatial interrogatives and spatially specified NPs. Only in the latter case is the dedicated marker of the spatial relation – a case suffix – preceded by a gender or class marker which is attached to the stem of the noun. The separate class marker is absent from the locative construction of feminine and inanimate nouns – the morphological case locative being excluded from the paradigm of masculine nouns which only allows for the functionally equivalent adessive; however, the locative exponents -ka and -ɣa are themselves sensitive to gender, since -ka attaches to stems of feminine nouns whereas -ɣa is admissible only with inanimate nouns (Werner 1997: 104). Unsurprisingly, the spatial interrogatives lack the typical noun category of gender/class. On top of this, there is the additional disagreement of spatial interrogatives and case-inflected nouns as to the markers of the spatial relations. None of the case-suffixes which are used on nouns seems to be employed also with the spatial interrogatives. This impression is certainly incorrect in the case of the spatial interrogative of Source. Werner (2002, I: 126) assumes that bil’il’ ~ bin’il’ ‘whence’ can be analyzed as consisting of a stem 4bil’ ‘far (away)’ and the ablative morpheme -(n)il’ which diachronically goes back to -ŋal’, i.e. the regular ablative suffix as found in the declension of nouns. Synchronically, the identity of the markers is blurred, however. For the WHITHER-construction bíl’tan ‘whither’, Werner (2002, I: 126) argues that the allative postposition tan’ ‘to(wards)’ attaches either to the above

602 | Spatial relations across sentence-types stem 4bil’ ‘far (away)’ or to that of bíl’a ‘how’.79 This means that the internal structure of this WHITHER-construction is not only different from the corresponding allative construction of nouns but also of that of the spatial interrogative of Source. An erstwhile postpositional phrase [Q-Post]whither contrasts with caseinflected word-forms of the types [Q-ABLATIVE]whence and [N-CLASSIFIER-ALLATIVE]allative. The two remaining constructions of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives – bil’ɛs’ ‘whither’ and bis’ɛŋ ‘where’ – are undoubtedly morphologically complex. However, the units which attach to the stem bi(l)- are derivational and not inflexional. In the case of the spatial interrogative of Goal bil’ɛs’ ‘whither’, Werner (2002, I: 242) assumes a combination of 4bil’ ‘far (away)’ and the suffix -ɛs which serves to derive adverbs. Similarly, the spatial interrogative of Place bis’ɛŋ ‘where’ is said to result from a combination of a stem bi- and the derivational suffix -s’ɛŋ whose task it is to create adverbs (Werner 2002, II: 186). We thus have a third pattern, namely [Q-ADVERBIAL]where/whither. The equivalent wordforms on the side of the nouns are bona fide instances of morphological casemarking. In terms of the morphological make-up, most of the constructions in interrogative clauses differ from those which are employed in declarative clauses. Moreover, there is also heterogeneity within the paradigm of spatial interrogatives on this parameter. What adds to the heterogeneity on the micro-level is overabundance. On the one hand, overabundance affects spatial constructions in both sentence-types. However, overabundance can be found with WHITHER and WHENCE with spatial interrogatives whereas the same phenomenon is attested only with Place in declaratives. The sentential examples in (238)–(239) provide a survey of the above spatial constructions. (238) (238.1)

(238.2)

Ket – interrogative Place Uk te.t [bi-s’ɛŋ] t-l’ɔveravet? your husband [Q-ADV]P? 3SG.M-work ‘Where does your husband work?’ Goal En’ [bil’-ɛs’] kuɣɔtn’? now [Q-ADV]G? 2:go_away ‘Where are you going now?’

[Werner 1997: 364]

[Werner 1997: 364]

|| 79 It is unclear to us why this alternative stem is not also assumed for the morphological analysis of the other members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Ket.

Identity across sentence-types | 603

(238.3)

(238.4)

(239) (239.1)

(239.2)

(239.3)

(239.4)

Goal [Bil’-tan’] bu dɛjtolot? [Q-to]G? he run ‘Where has he run?’ Source [Bil’-il’] kiks’ives’? [Q-ABL]S? 2:come:MOM ‘Where do you come from?’

[Werner 2002, I: 126]

[Werner 1997: 364]80

Ket – declarative Place [Werner 1997: 115]81 Ap bis’ep tur’e kɔla-di-ŋtɛ-r’a my sibling DEM.PROX:F school-F-ADESS-be.3SG.F ‘My sister is in this school.’ Place [Werner 1997: 114] Ass’el’ l’ɛs’-ka duɣaraq. wild_rendeer forest-LOC 3M:live ‘The wild rendeer lives in the forest.’ Goal [Werner 1997: 113] Qar’iya bu ɛŋŋuŋ-di-ŋa ɔɣɔn’. afterwards he village-INANIM-DAT go ‘Afterwards he went to the village.’ Source [Werner 1997: 113] 3 kʌːn quŋ-di-ŋal’ daejbutolut. fox birch-tree_tent.PL-INANIM-ABL 3SG.F:run ‘The fox ran away from the birch-tree tents.’

Since all spatial categories are expressed overtly no matter what sentence-type applies, there is no evidence of zero-marking. All of the constructions are examples of mono-word constructions. Each of the exponents is monosyllabic. They involve either two segments or three segments. The least complex exponents are  for declaratives: the locative -ka ~ -ɣa and the allative -ŋa with two segments each,  for interrogatives: the adverbial derivator -ɛs’ on WHITHER and the ablative marker -il’ on WHENCE.

|| 80 We have been unable to find a sentential example which involves the allomorph bin’il’ ‘whence’. 81 The vowel [a] of the adessive suffix alternates regularly with [ɛ] under certain morphonological conditions.

604 | Spatial relations across sentence-types Relatively short units can be found with each of the spatial categories. If any of the spatial categories stands out at all, it is that of Goal because it is represented by markers of two segments in both of the sentence-types. However, we do not take this to be full-blown proof of the relative unmarkedness of Goal. What can be concluded instead is that higher-level identity of the principles according to which the paradigms of spatial categories are organized in the sentence-types under scrutiny is compatible with a relatively high degree of dissimilarity of the same paradigms on lower levels.

5.1.2 Identity-cum-syncretism 5.1.2.1 All the same The exact opposite of the Ket case is Palauan which serves as representative of Type A16. The paradigms in Table 337 demonstrate that no distinction whatsoever is made so that Place, Goal, and Source are expressed in an identical way and the constructions of the corresponding spatial interrogatives of Place, Goal, and Source are also indistinguishable. Table 337: Neutralized paradigms in Palauan interrogatives and declaratives. Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

ęr ker

ęr a N

Goal

ęr ker

ęr a N

Source

ęr ker

ęr a N

The Palauan language realizes Pattern V WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE. There is syncretism of all spatial categories not only under interrogation but also in declarative clauses, i.e. we also have the pattern Place = Goal = Source. The constructions have the structure of a binary PP which involves the multi-purpose relational word ęr for which Josephs (1975: 278) provides a long list of English translations, namely ‘in, at, on, to, from, of, out of, because of, for’, etc. The spatial interrogatives involve the Q-stem ker ‘where’ which cannot occur in isolation. It functions as complement of ęr. In contrast to the Q-stem ker, complement nouns are always accompanied by the ubiquitous specifier a. If the complement of the preposition ęr is not a noun (such as the demonstrative tia ‘this place, here’), the specifier is not used (Josephs 1975: 278). In any event, spatial constructions are multi-word syntagms both in interrogative clauses and

Identity across sentence-types | 605

in declarative clauses.82 Since there is the obligatory relational marker ęr in each of the constructions, we are not dealing with zero-marking. There is overt marking without differentiation of the spatial categories. The sentential examples in (240)–(241) show that the indistinctiveness of the constructions holds for both sentence types.83 (240) (240.1)

(240.2)

(240.3)

(241) (241.1)

Palauan – interrogative Place [Josephs 1975: 424] Kę milsa a Satsko [ęr ker]? you see SPEC Satsko [LOC Q]P?/G?/S? ‘Where did you see Satsko? Goal [Josephs 1975: 408] A Droteo ng mlo [ęr ker]? SPEC Droteo PRO go [LOC Q]P?/G?/S? ‘Where did Droteo go?’ Source [Josephs 1975: 425] Ng tilobęd [ęr ker] a rękung? PRO emerge [LOC Q]P?/G/S? SPEC crab ‘Where did the crab emerge from?’ Palauan – declaratives Place A John a mlad SPEC John SPEC die ‘John died in America.’

ęr

a

LOC

SPEC

[Josephs 1975: 278] Merikel. America

|| 82 Josephs (1975: 425) mentions that a short form of the general spatial interrogative construction ęr ker ‘where = whither = whence’ is possible in sentence-final position where it is often reduced to mono-consonantal [r] which coalesces with the preceding syntactic word to form a phonological word. This reduction being optional, we have not included the short allomorph in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives in Table 337. 83 Josephs (1975: 289) states that “[i]n order to ask a question about the source, we use a source phrase consisting of the relational word ęr followed by the question word ker ‘where?’ (or sometimes ngara ‘what?’) if the source is a place […].” Superficially, this seems to indicate a case of overabundance in the cell of WHENCE involving an allomorph that is unique to the spatial interrogative of Source. However, ker and ngara do not have the same status which can be deduced from the fact that ęr does not directly combine with ngara ‘what’. In point of fact, in combinations with ęr the interrogative ngara ‘what’ behaves like a noun and thus takes the general specifier a; a ngara may then be translated as ‘what thing’, i.e. as an inquiry about a particular object and not about a spatial region. This object-orientation impels us to exclude the latter construction from the discussion of the grammar of space in Palauan.

606 | Spatial relations across sentence-types (241.2)

(241.3)

Goal [Josephs 1975: 285] Ak mo ęr a bebul a rois. I go LOC SPEC top SPEC mountain ‘I am going to the top of the mountain.’ Source [Josephs 1975: 288] A rękung a tilobęd ęr a blsibs. SPEC crab SPEC emerge LOC SPEC hole ‘The crab emerged from the hole.’

The parallel behavior of the spatial constructions in interrogatives and declaratives in Palauan can be taken as evidence of the workings of common principles of organization of the grammar of space. No matter how different the Types D and A16 are on the micro-level, they nevertheless support the hypothesis of Scenario I in (4) above.

5.1.2.2 Identical patterns of partial syncretism In the previous subsection we have seen that fully neutralized sets of spatial constructions are compatible with each other across sentence-types – the same as fully differentiated paradigms of spatial interrogatives co-occur with paradigms of three distinct spatial constructions of general location in the area of declarative clauses as demonstrated in Section 5.1.1. Since these extremes of full differentiation and total neutralization allow for parallel behavior of the two sentence-types, it can be assumed that other syncretic patterns harmonize equally well with one another. In this context, it is only logical that we come back to Albanian and Saami whose spatial interrogatives have already been discussed in Sections 3.4.2.3 and 3.5.2.1, respectively.

5.1.2.2.1 Types A1 and A6 – Albanian In Section 3.4.2.3 we have adduced empirical evidence of the combination of two syncretic patterns in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of several Albanian varieties, namely the co-occurrence of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism and WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism with overabundance in the cell of WHITHER (cf. especially the examples in [102]–[103] above). It remains to be seen whether the integration of two syncretic patterns in one and the same paradigm is also reflected in declarative clauses. In this subsection, we concentrate exclusively on the standard variety of Albanian (Tosk). In point of fact, the double syncretism we know from the paradigm of Albanian (Tosk) spatial interrogatives is also attested in declaratives, cf. Table 338.

Identity across sentence-types | 607

Table 338: Identical syncretic patterns in Albanian (Tosk) interrogatives and declaratives. Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

ku

në NACC

Goal

ku ~ nga

në NACC ~ nga NNOM ~ prej NABL

Source

nga

nga NNOM ~ prej NABL

Parallel to the WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism of ku ‘where = whither’ there is Place=Goal syncretism manifested by the preposition në ‘in, to’ which governs the accusative of the complement noun. Moreover, the WHITHER=WHENCEsyncretism of nga ‘whither = whence’ finds two parallels in the two synonymous prepositions nga ‘to, from’ and prej ‘to, from’ which have nominative and ablative government, respectively. The cell of Goal is relatively crowded because it is occupied by three allomorphs in the declarative sentence-type. What strikes the eye additionally is the homophony of the syncretic spatial interrogative of Goal and Source nga ‘whither = whence’ with the equally syncretic directional preposition nga ‘to, from’. The spatial interrogative nga ‘whither = whence’ seems to be the remnant of an erstwhile multi-word construction whose complement – presumably the Q-stem ku – has disappeared. As mentioned above in connection with example (100), Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 381–382) argue that the bulk of the Albanian prepositions is ambiguous as to the distinction of static vs. dynamic. In the same paragraph the authors of the Albanische Grammatik state that nga and prej “dienen zur Bezeichnung des räumlichen Ausgangspunktes einer Bewegung”. Their employment for the opposite directionality is not mentioned at all. However, there is ample evidence of nga and prej being used not only in the function of an ablative preposition but also in the function of an allative preposition, cf. (243)–(244). The sentences in (242) document the Place=Goal syncretism of Albanian (Tosk). (242) (242.1)

(242.2)

Albanian (Tosk) – declarative/ Place=Goal syncretism Place banoj në Tiranë. live:1SG in Tirana ‘I live in Tirana.’ Goal do të shkoj FUT SUBORD go:1SG ‘I will go to Tirana.’

[Buchholz et al. 1977: 350]

në in

Tiranë. Tirana

608 | Spatial relations across sentence-types (243) (243.1)

(243.2)

(244) (244.1)

(244.2)

Albanian (Tosk) – declarative/ Goal=Source syncretism [Buchholz et al. 1977: 352] Goal po shkoj nga shkolla. PROG go:1SG DIR school:DEF.F ‘I am going to the school.’ Source sot nuk dola nga shtëpia. today NEG exit.AOR:1SG DIR house:DEF.F ‘I have not left (= exited from) the house today.’ Albanian (Tosk) – declarative/ Goal=Source syncretism [Buchholz et al. 1977: 441] Source84 shkoj prej Tirane gjer në Durrës. go:1SG DIR Tirana:ABL until in Durres ‘I go from Tirana as far as Durres.’ Goal bën udhë prej Jerusalemit. make:3SG journey DIR Jerusalem:DEF.ABL ‘He travels to Jerusalem.’

There is thus consistency across the sentence-types. The same patterns apply both on the side of declaratives and that of interrogatives. Moreover, Goal=Source syncretism is not the idiosyncrasy of an individual preposition but holds for several prepositions. Since it is not possible to characterize nga and prej either as ablative or allative preposition, they have to be classified as unspecific directional prepositions. In terms of complexity, all markers are monosyllabic units. It is worth noting that the syncretic expressions ku ‘where = whither’ and në ‘in, to’ consist of only two segments each whereas the expressions nga ‘whither = whence’, nga ‘to, from’, and prej ‘to, from’ are more complex since they involve three segments and four segments, respectively. These different sizes of the phonological chains of the constructions characterize WHENCE and Source as slightly more marked than WHERE and Place. As to WHITHER and Goal, the situation is particularly intriguing because the two categories have the choice of being expressed by either a relatively short or a relatively long chain of segments. This can be

|| 84 For this example, we had to add the finite verb shkoj ‘I go’.

Identity across sentence-types | 609

taken as a further piece of evidence of the middle position of WHITHER/Goal on the markedness scale of the three categories of general location.

5.1.2.2.2 Type A11 – Saami In Europe, the Saami varieties stand out because they attest to WHERE=WHENCEsyncretism. As Table 339 shows this syncretic pattern has its parallel in the realm of declaratives too. For the sake of brevity, we only look at data from Saami (North). Table 339: Identical syncretic patterns in Saami (North) interrogatives and declaratives. Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

go-s

Nlocative

Goal

go-sa

Nillative

Source

go-s

Nlocative

The spatial interrogatives of Place and Source involve the Q-stem go which hosts the locative case marker -s. In the singular, the same locative marker is used on nouns to specify the spatial relations of Place and Source (in the plural, the suffix -in is used). This means that the expressions of Place and Source are identical in both sentence-types. The Goal relation boasts a distinct expression which involves the illative case. On WHITHER, this marker is -sa which is typical of the declension of Saami pronouns whereas it is -i with nouns in the singular (-da in the plural) (Nickel 1990: 69–144). In terms of complexity, the locative marker is monoconsonantal whereas the illative marker is syllabic and thus of higher complexity. The employment of different case exponents notwithstanding, the organization of the paradigms of spatial categories is the same for interrogatives and declaratives. The sentential examples which illustrate the distribution of the spatial interrogatives of Saami (North) have been given in (149) above. These prior examples can be compared directly to the expression of the spatial categories in the declaratives clauses in (245). (245) (245.1)

Saami (North) – declarative Place Mun lean viesu-s. house-LOC I be:1SG ‘I am in the house.’

[Nickel 1990: 492–495]

610 | Spatial relations across sentence-types (245.2)

(245.3)

Goal Mun manan vissu-i. I go:1SG house-ILL ‘I go into the house.’ Source Mun boađán viesu-s. I come:1SG house-LOC ‘I come out of the house.’

The parallel is self-evident. The syncretism of Place and Source is firmly established across sentence-types. At the same time, the Goal relation is always encoded distinctly from the other spatial relations. Pantcheva (2011: 240–241) is thus well advised to consider the Saami evidence to be a serious challenge to her hypothesis that the pattern (Place = Source) ≠ Goal is barred universally from being realized in human languages. Since the pattern is consistent over all declinable word-classes in Saami (including numerals, pronouns, adjectives, etc.), it is certainly not just a case of “spurious” counter-evidence as Pantcheva (2011: 241) insinuates. Therefore, the Saami case deserves being studied in-depth. The same applies to the Albanian case discussed in the foregoing subsection whose Goal=Source syncretism falls square with one of the two “impossible patterns” of syncretism of Pantcheva’s (2011: 237). As in Saami, the supposedly impossible syncretism of Albanian recurs across all declinable word-classes of the language. It is thus not a marginal phenomenon because it gives structure to the system of spatial categories throughout the grammar of Albanian. The grammar of space in Albanian calls for closer scrutiny to evaluate it to the benefit of the linguistics of space in general. However, the necessary investigations are beyond the scope of this study and thus have to be postponed until a later occasion. The cases of Albanian and Saami are intriguing because they show that options which are classified as highly marked and which therefore are considered unlikely to dominate in any language of a cross-linguistic sample, prove strong enough to shape the paradigms of spatial category of an entire grammatical system. The strength of the syncretic patterns Place ≠ (Goal = Source) and (Place = Source) ≠ (Goal) in individual languages casts doubt about the tenability of a hypothesis which strictly excludes the possibility that any of these patterns occur in human languages at all. We grant that the patterns under inspection represent minor solutions which are probably statistical rarities. Nevertheless, neither is their existence categorically excluded nor are they destined to play only a secondary role in the grammar of space of a given language. One might argue that Albanian and Saami demonstrate that the systems of spatial categories tend to be organized homogeneously on the level of individual languages.

Different patterns | 611

This means that if a language opts for a marked pattern in one sentence-type (preferably that of declaratives), it also applies this marked pattern to the other sentence-type (in this case, to interrogatives). Section 5.2 puts this hypothesis to the test.

5.2 Different patterns According to the matrix in Table 335, there are twenty sub-types of Types A, B, and C which potentially involve the combination of paradigms of spatial categories which reflect different syncretic patterns in correlation to the sentencetypes. We have not been able to find absolutely compelling evidence of the existence of each of the said twenty sub-types. In many cases the descriptivelinguistic sources we have consulted provide but fragmentary information on the issue at hand. In other cases we fail to fully understand the systematicity of the phenomena described in the literature. Therefore we have refrained from including those cases from the catalogue which would require too many question marks in our sketch thereof. This does not mean that there are no doubtful cases left at all. As the following paragraphs are going to show the most serious uncertainties arise exactly in those cases which are the most interesting for the topic of our study.

5.2.1 Full neutralization on one side only 5.2.1.1 Indistinct spatial interrogatives 5.2.1.1.1 Zapotec (Isthmus) – A13 and C4 The first case we address is that of Zapotec (Isthmus) which represents the Types A13 and C4 of the above matrix. It has a common mono-word construction for all three spatial relations under interrogation, i.e. the question word is insensitive to directionality. In contrast, there are three distinct constructions in declarative clauses. Table 340 shows that the indistinct paradigm of spatial interrogatives combines with a paradigm of three fully distinct constructions on the side of the declaratives.

612 | Spatial relations across sentence-types Table 340: Different patterns in Zapotec (Isthmus) interrogatives and declaratives. Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

paraa

Ø N ~ ra N

Goal

paraa

ra N ~ ndaani N

Source

paraa

de ra N ~ de N

Where the spatial interrogatives do not reflect the different categories of directionality, declarative clauses distinguish neatly between Place, Goal, and Source. In all cells we have evidence of overabundance. There is zero-marking of Place besides a syncretic PP [ra N]place=goal whereas the two dynamic spatial relations are always overtly marked by prepositions. What strikes the eye most is the compositionality of one of the Source-constructions because it gives evidence of the combination of two prepositions one of which is identical to the preposition used for Goal and the other is borrowed from Spanish.85 The borrowed preposition de ‘from’ can also fulfill the function of Source marker without the Goal-marker ra ‘to’. The conditions which govern the distribution of the allomorphs in the cells of Place, Goal, and Source are still unclear to us.86 It can be assumed nevertheless that the formal differentiation of Goal and Source has been induced most probably by language contact with Spanish and thus is a relatively recent innovation. The sentential examples in (246)–(247) are taken from an early volume of the Archivo de lenguas del estado de Oaxaca – the predecessor of the later Archivo de las lenguas indígenas de México, meaning: the same proviso as to the quality of the data applies to both sources (cf. above). (246) (246.1)

Zapotec (Isthmus) – interrogatives Place [Paraa] nuu bišo’zo’? [Q]P?/G?/S? be.3SG father:2SG ‘Where is your father?’

[Pickett & Embrey 1974: 53]

|| 85 This is a recurrent pattern. The superlative preposition lu ‘onto’ combines with de ‘from’ to yield the complex expression of the delative as can be deduced from the following pair of sentences from Pickett & Embrey (1974: 107): (i) Guǰiba mistu lu yaga. ‘The cat climbed onto the tree.’ vs. (ii) Biete mistu de lu yaga. ‘The cat climbed down from the tree.’ 86 It is possible that the preposition ndaani encodes movement from a higher level into a container on a lower level. Zero-marking of Place is perhaps restricted to prototypical loci including toponyms. The same may also be true of the alternative Source-construction which involves only de ‘from’ without a second preposition.

Different patterns | 613

(246.2)

(246.3)

(247) (247.1)

(247.2)

(247.3)

(247.4)

(247.5)

(247.6)

Goal [Pickett & Embrey 1974: 107] [Paraa] biuu bišo’zo’? [Q]P?/G?/S? enter.3SG.PAST father:2SG ‘Where did your father go in?’ Source [Pickett & Embrey 1974: 107] [Paraa] biree bišo’zo’? [Q]P?/G?/S? exit:3SG.PAST father:2SG ‘Where did your father exit from?’ Zapotec (Isthmus) – declaratives Place Nuu bišo’ze Ø yoo. be.3SG father:1SG Ø house ‘My father is in the house.’ Place Ra giigu nuu bišo’ze. LOC river be.3SG father:1SG ‘My father is in the river.’ Goal Biuu bišo’ze enter:3SG.PAST father:1SG ‘My father went into the house.’ Goal Biaba Juan ndaani fall:3SG.PAST Juan into ‘Juan fell into the water.’ Source Biree bišo’ze de exit:3SG.PAST father:1SG from ‘My father came out of the house.’ Source Zeeda Juan de Lulá’. come:3SG Juan from Oaxaca ‘Juan comes from Oaxaca.’

[Pickett & Embrey 1974: 53]

[Pickett & Embrey 1974: 54]

[Pickett & Embrey 1974: 107] ra yoo. LOC house [Pickett & Embrey 1974: 109] nisa. water [Pickett & Embrey 1974: 107] ra yoo. LOC house [Pickett & Embrey 1974: 108]

The remaining problems that arise with the description of the system of Zapotec (Isthmus) spatial categories in declarative clauses are not serious enough to preclude the possibility of drawing the subsequent conclusion. Within a given language, the paradigms of spatial categories can be organized according to

614 | Spatial relations across sentence-types different principles so that declaratives make distinctions which are not reflected by interrogatives.

5.2.1.1.2 Khwe – A13, A14, and A16 Overabundance in the cells of the spatial categories contributes to the coexistence of several types and sub-types in one and the same language. The Khoisan language Khwe gives ample evidence of this phenomenon. Table 341 is indicative of overabundance as a pervasive trait of the grammar of space in the realm of declarative clauses. Table 341: Different syncretic patterns in Khwe paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives. Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

mà-X

N ki ~ N kà ~ N ò

Goal

mà-X

N ki ~ N kà ~ N okà

Source

mà-X

N okà ~ N kà

The variable X in the column of spatial interrogatives is a place-holder for the deictic morphemes -kí (which indicates proximity), -ká (which indicates distance), and -ɛ́ (which marks a Place as [+human]). These elements which coencode deictic categories and animacy are attached to the general Q-stem ma(a)- ‘which’ (Kilian-Hatz 2008: 232). The first two fillers of the X-slot – -kí and -ká – are clearly related to the postpositions ki ‘in, to (proximal)’ and kà ‘in, to, from (distal)’ which occur in the paradigm of spatial constructions in declarative clauses (Kilian-Hatz 2008: 223). The allomorphy is deictically motivated. The sole case of a functionally dedicated postposition is the locative marker ò ‘at, in’ which Kilian-Hatz (2008: 234) judges to occur only “rarely”.87 All other spatial postpositions are multifunctional. Interestingly, the disyllabic postposition okà ‘whither = whence’ is the most complex within the set of postpositions. Unsurprisingly, it is used to encode the spatial relation of Source (besides that

|| 87 In her inventory of the interrogative adverbials of Khwe, Kilian-Hatz (2008: 232) also mentions the ternary syntagm màa ŋú kà ‘where (lit. at which region)’. Since no example of its usage is provided, we exclude from the investigation on the grounds that it is probably an object-oriented construction and not a space-oriented construction.

Different patterns | 615

of Goal). On the other hand, it is the least complex postposition ò ‘at, in’ which expresses the spatial relation of Place.88 The interrogative clauses in (248) do not cover all combinations of the Qstem and the deictic postpositions for all of the spatial relations for the simple reason that our source does not provide the necessary examples. We therefore rely entirely on Kilian-Hatz (2008: 232–233) who asserts that proximal -kí and distal -ká are compatible with the meanings of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE. (248) (248.1)

(248.2)

(248.3)

Khwe – interrogative Place Tcá dì ‖áé à 2SG.M POSS camp COP ‘Where is your camp?’ Goal [Mà-kí] tcá [Q-PROX]P?/G?/S? 2SG.M ‘Where are you going?’ Source [Mà-ká] tcá [Q-DIS]P?/G?/S? 2SG.M ‘Where do you come from?’

[Kilian-Hatz 2008: 233] [mà-ká]? [Q-DIS]P?/G?/S?

kṹũ-à-tè? go-I-PRES

≠x’óá-à-tè? go_out-I-PRES

We start our overview of the spatial constructions in declarative sentences of Khwe with those expressions which are associated with the spatial relation of Place, cf. (249). (249) (249.1)

Khwe – declarative/Place proximal [Kilian-Hatz 2008: 223] Ti tɛ́-ɛ̀-tè Mṹũtc’iku ki. 1SG stay-I-PRES Mutciku LOC.PROX ‘I am (actually) living (here) in Mutciku.’

|| 88 Kilian-Hatz (2008: 221–223) has a section on bare spatial adverbials, i.e. there are static and dynamic predicates which take adjuncts directly. No postposition is needed. The author argues that the difference of overt marking and zero-marking of spatial relations is pragmatically motivated since “the type without a local postposition is rather used to focus on the kind of location itself – this focus may be even emphasized by the additional use of the focus/object marker à” (Kilian-Hatz 2008: 221). On this basis, we interpret the zero-marking of spatial relations as pragmatically marked and discount these constructions from our further review of the system of spatial relations of Khwe.

616 | Spatial relations across sentence-types (249.2)

(249.3)

distal [Kilian-Hatz 2008: 66] Tí n‖góɛ́-ngyáò kà tí n≠ũ̀ĩ tɛ́. 1SG moon-hide LOC.DIS 1SG sit stay ‘I am already sitting there on the place (which is called) hidingmoon.’ dedicated postposition [Kilian-Hatz 2008: 236] Tcárà-mà ‖xóm̀ ò tamaxa tc’áo-≠’àm̀ ò field-3SG.M river LOC also bush-side LOC tamaxa tɛ́-ɛ́-hĩ. also be-II-PAST5 ‘The fields were at the river as well as in the bush.’

From these and similar examples it is impossible to tell whether or not ò ‘at, in’ is used in order to neutralize the deictic distinctions which are specified automatically by ki and kà. The examples in (250) illustrate the options speakers of Khwe have when they want to express the spatial relation of Goal. (250) (250.1)

(250.2)

(250.3)

Khwe – declarative/Goal proximal [Kilian-Hatz 2008: 224] Tí m̀ dàrà-ná-kò tcá ki 1SG POSS visit-II-CONV 2SG.M LOC.PROX cì-ó-mà ≠‘ón! arrive-LOC-3SG.M be_nice ‘It will be nice for me to come to you (here) for a visit.’ distal [Kilian-Hatz 2008: 248] Róm̀, ǀx’ɛ́ɛ-‖’ṍã-ànì-m̀ kà! ho left-arm-side-2SG.M LOC.DIS ‘Ho, to the left!‘ ókà [Kilian-Hatz 2008: 66] Xùú tíì tí kṹũ tí ù ‖’áé-cì ókà! HORT 1SG go 1SG POSS camp-3SG.F DIR ‘Let me go to my camp!’

There are again three options of which two (cf. [250.1]–[250.2]) involve again the specification of the deictic categories whereas the postposition ókà ‘to, from’ seems to be exempt from indicating proximity or distance. Note, however, that diachronically ókà ‘to, from’ involves the noun ó ‘inside, place’ (= postposition ó ‘in, at’) and the distal locative postposition kà (Kilian-Hatz 2008: 235). Since the same postposition is also used in constructions of Source, it must be classified as directional postposition without specification of the direction. In this function, ókà competes with kà, cf. (251).

Different patterns | 617

(251) (251.1)

(251.2)

Khwe – declarative/Source ókà [Kilian-Hatz 2008: 67] Xà-djí yà-à-hĩ ‖xóm̀ à kx’áà-ca DEM-3PL.F come-II-PAST5 river OBJ drink-PURP tc’áó-m̀ ókà ≠x’óá-rá-kò. bush-3SG.M DIR go_out-II-CONV ‘And then they went out of the bush and came to the river to drink.’ distal [Kilian-Hatz 2008: 224] Móròcì Rúndù kà ≠x’óá-rá-kò […] Moroci Rundu LOC.DIS go_out-II-CONV ‘How Moroci came from Rundu …’

Khwe gives evidence of a rather intricate system of spatial categories on the side of the declarative clauses which combines with a relatively straightforward system on the side of the interrogative clauses. This case suggests that there can be significant differences in the internal organization of the paradigms of spatial categories in correlation to the sentence-types.

5.2.1.1.3 Shona – A14 The Bantu language Shona – a genetically unrelated (distant) neighbor of Khwe – yields a picture that is far less variegated than that of the previous subsection. Shona is a representative of Type A14 as is shown in Table 342. Table 342: Different syncretic patterns in Shona paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives. Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

kúpí

mu-N ~ pa-N

Goal

kúpí

ku-N

Source

kúpí

ku-N

The spatial-interrogative construction kúpí ‘where = whither = whence’ is insensitive to directionality, i.e. we have a case of WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism. On the side of the declaratives, there is syncretism, too. However, in this case, the syncretic pattern is restricted to the dynamic spatial relations. The Goal=Source syncretism forms part of a paradigm with two distinct expressions of Place, meaning there is overabundance with Place. The morphemes which are indicative of directionality are monosyllabic CV-prefixes on nouns which

618 | Spatial relations across sentence-types represent the locus of the spatial situation. This means that all of the spatial relations are expressed by constructions of the same constructional complexity. The spatial-interrogative constructions of Shona are illustrated by the examples in (252). Their declarative counter-parts can be found in (253) below. (252) (252.1)

(252.2)

(252.3)

(253) (253.1)

(253.2)

(253.3)

(253.4)

Shona – interrogative Place ùnógàrá [kúpí]? 2SG:PRES:live [Q]P?/G?/S? ‘Where do you live?’ Goal ùnóèndà [kúpí]? 2SG:PRES:go [Q]P?/G?/S? ‘Where do you go?’ Source ùnóbvá [kúpí]? 2SG:PRES:come [Q]P?/G?/S? ‘Where do you come from?’

[Brauner 1993: 44]

Shona – declarative Place tìnógàrá mu-Hàráré. 1PL:PRES:live LOC-Harare ‘We live in Harare.’ Place ndìnósévénzá pa-musíkà. 1SG:PRES:work LOC-market ‘I work on the market.’ Goal ndìnófámbá ku-Zìmbábwè. 1SG:PRES:travel DIR-Zimbabwe ‘I travel to Zimbabwe.’ Source ánòbvá ku-Jèrìmání. 3SG:PRES:come DIR-Germany ‘He comes from Germany.’

[Brauner 1993: 43]

As far as we can judge on the basis of the information provided by Brauner (1993), the two Place-markers pa- and mu- are fully synonymous. The rules which regulate their distribution are unclear to us. We therefore cannot determine whether we are dealing with free variation or a different kind of comple-

Different patterns | 619

mentary allomorphy. As to the dynamic spatial relations, the use of the syncretic prefix ku- ‘to, from’ for both the allative and the ablative function is sufficient justification for assuming a directional morpheme which is ambiguous as to the direction of the movement involved.

5.2.1.1.4 A problematic case: Kanuri – A15 and/or B3? The Nilo-Saharan language Kanuri is a tough nut to crack, in a manner of speaking. Before we address the problems which the Kanuri system of spatial relations poses we give our interpretation of the situation as presented in our reference text (i.e. Cyffer 1991), cf. Table 343. Table 343: Different syncretic patterns in Kanuri paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives. Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

ndâ

N-lan ~ N-(Ci)n

Goal

ndâ ~ ndâ-ro

N-ro

Source

ndâ ~ ndâ-n

N-lan ~ N-(Ci)n

We consider Kanuri to be an example of Type A15. It combines WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism with the pattern (Place = Source) ≠ Goal. This interpretation, however, is at odds with Pantcheva’s (2011) rebuttal of the hypothesis that this marked syncretic pattern holds for Kanuri. She argues that she found both Locative and Source expressions where the same postposition lán marks the Ground DP. However, they feature different verbs: non-motion verbs (work, live) in locative contexts and directed motion verbs (mostly leave and come) in Source contexts. Thus, it is plausible that lán is a purely locative postposition and the Source reading is due to the directed-motion verbs lexicalizing the Source and Ground heads. This proposal is strongly supported by the fact that the only interpretation of a noun marked by lán in non-verbal contexts is the locative one […]. (Pantcheva 2011: 239)

The quoted author bases her judgment on the Kanuri reference grammar by Hutchinson (1981) whereas we draw our information about Kanuri from Cyffer (1991) as mentioned above. It is therefore possible that we are dealing with two different doculects of Kanuri whose grammars of space differ so that different analyses of similar constellations of facts are possible. If we discount the possibility of two different Kanuri varieties for the sake of the argument, we can still challenge Pantcheva’s argument since she only mentions the spatial marker -lan (=

620 | Spatial relations across sentence-types her postposition lán) and passes tacitly over the existence of the allomorph -ǹ. According to Cyffer (1991: 33), -lan and -ǹ are functionally identical, i.e. they are synonyms. The examples in Cyffer (1991) are suggestive of free variation of the allomorphs (with -ǹ being replaced by -Cin on consonant-final stems: díwal ‘road’ + -ǹ → díwallin ‘on the road’ [Cyffer 1991: 33] – alternatively -lan is chosen in lieu of -ǹ in post-consonantal position [Cyffer 1991: 109]). Given that this scenario is correct, the morphology of the spatial interrogatives becomes crucial. The paradigm of spatial interrogatives allows the Q-stem ndâ to exert the function of the spatial interrogative of Place, Goal, and Source. Thus, directionality is not marked obligatorily. It can be marked overtly – but only in the cases of WHITHER and WHENCE. The sentential examples in (254) cover the possibilities only incompletely since there is no evidence of a WHENCE-construction which makes use of the bare Q-stem.89 (254) (254.1)

(254.2)

(254.3)

Kanuri – interrogative Place [Ndâ] Músa? [Q]P?/G?/S? Musa ‘Where is Musa?’ Goal [Ndâ] lenə́min? [Q]P?/G?/S? go.2SG ‘Where are you going?’ Goal [Ndâ-ro] lenə́min? [Q-ALL]G? go.2SG ‘Where are you going?’

[Cyffer 1991: 139]

[Cyffer 1991: 37]

[Cyffer 1991: 43]

|| 89 The Kanuri situation is complicated further by the unexplained occurrence of ndárá ‘where = whither’ and ndárân ‘where = whence’ in our reference text. On the one hand, the morphology of these items is in line with what we can observe with the spatial interrogatives in Table 343, namely that the Source relation is (always) overtly encoded whereas Place and Goal can be zero-marked. Examples: (i) Place (Cyffer 1991: 209): Ndárân kəlâ fóngnyen? ‘Where will we meet?’; (ii) Goal (Cyffer 1991: 265): Kə́rmá ndárá lenə́min? ‘Where are you going now?’, (iii) Source (Cyffer 1991: 177): Ndárân cilúwum? ‘Where do you come from?’ We are not certain as to the nature of the supposed affix -rá which attaches to the Q-stem ndâ-. It is possible that we are dealing with a derivation along the lines of the so-called place nouns and instrument nouns in -ram ~ -rám (Cyffer 1991: 132). Since these formations seem to be secondary, they are excluded from the further discussion of the Kanuri data.

Different patterns | 621

(254.4)

Source [Ndâ-n] kádim? [Q-LOC](P?/G?/)S? come.PAST.2SG ‘Where have you come from?’

[Cyffer 1991: 37]

In the glossary which accompanies Cyffer’s (1991: 362) Kanuri language course, the word-form ndân is given as translation equivalent of English where and from where. However, throughout the main body of the book, ndân is used exclusively in the function of the spatial interrogative of Source. On the other hand, there is no example of ndâ in this function. We discount the latter fact for the time being and focus on the correlation of ndân with the WHENCE-function. The final consonant of this spatial interrogative is the morpheme -ǹ which attaches to vowel-final stems without difficulties. If it is true that this -ǹ is preferably used with the spatial interrogative of Source and if it is further true that it is synonymous with -lan, then it is unlikely that we are dealing with a “purely locative postposition” as Pantcheva (2011: 239) assumes in the above quote. If it were the case that -ǹ is primarily a marker of Place which needs contextual information to invite a Source reading, the absence of this marker on the spatial interrogative of Place and its presence on the spatial interrogative of Source are illogical. On the basis of the evidence from the paradigm of the spatial interrogatives, it could be argued that the opposite seems to hold, namely that -ǹ is a purely ablative marker which needs contextual information to invite a Place reading. We do not claim that this is the ultimate solution of the riddles which the Kanuri data pose. Nevertheless, the discussion shows that the final word has not been said yet. A corpus-based analysis of Kanuri is urgently called for. With what we know about Kanuri today, we defend the hypothesis that there is Place=Source syncretism in this language. The examples in (255) support this idea. (255) (255.1)

(255.2)

(255.3)

Kanuri – declarative Place Músa Káno-(la)n. Músa Káno-LOC ‘Musa is in Kano.’ Goal Músa Káno-ro lejîn. go.3SG Musa Kano-ALL ‘Musa is travelling to Kano.’ Source Músa Káno-(la)n íshin. Musa Kano-LOC come.3SG ‘Musa is coming from Kano.’

[Cyffer 1991: 33]

622 | Spatial relations across sentence-types No matter how the Kanuri facts are interpreted in the end, each of the possible interpretations lends further credence to the hypothesis that the organization of the paradigms of spatial categories may differ widely between the sentencetypes.

5.2.1.2 Neutralized spatial categories with declaratives For the cases which we look at in this subsection we have to be lenient with ourselves because we are about to disobey our own principles. To discuss the possibility that combinations of neutralized spatial categories on the side of declaratives combine with paradigms of spatial interrogatives in which two or three of the spatial categories are expressed distinctly, we have to juggle with data which are problematic for some reason or other.

5.2.1.2.1 Munukutuba and Otomí – two doubtful cases of A12 Type A12 consists of a combination of WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism and an indistinct, i.e. general spatial expression in declarative clauses. The empirical evidence of this combination is scarce and also doubtful. The Bantu-based Creole language Munukutuba and the Otomí-variety spoken at San Andrés Cuexcontitlán, for instance, are potential representatives of this type, cf. Tables 344–345. Table 344: Different syncretic patterns in Munukutuba paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives. Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

wápì síkà

na N

Goal

wápì ndáámbù

na N

Source

wápì síkà

na N (?)

The spatial interrogatives of both varieties have been presented in (184)–(185) above. In the discussion of the evidence, we have emphasized already that Munukutuba and Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán) behave differently from their respective next of kin. This means that from the genetic point of view, we would expect both languages to attest to WHERE=WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism. However, this expectation is not met since in both languages, there is a distinct spatial interrogative of Goal which forms a paradigm together with a syncretic WHERE=WHENCE-construction.

Different patterns | 623

Table 345: Different syncretic patterns in Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán) paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives.90 Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

á ~ ánkʔu

khʌ ~ a

Goal

ánkʔu

khʌ ~ a

Source

á ~ ánkʔu

khʌ ~ a

In the case of Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán), the glossary provided by Lastra (1989: 146) gives ánkʔu as sole translation equivalent of Spanish dónde ‘where’. The variation of ánkʔu with glottal stop in the glossary and the isolated example of ánku without glottal stop in the main body of Lastra’s grammatical survey is a minor matter and thus can be discounted.91 A more serious problem is the fact that ánkʔu as spatial interrogative of Goal is a hapax since there is no other interrogative clause which inquires about the destination of a motion event. All other attestations of ánkʔu are instances of WHERE or WHENCE. We cannot be sure that it is restricted to the function of WHITHER. At the same time, it is equally impossible to assume that it cannot be replaced by á ‘where = whence’ in the function of the spatial interrogative of Goal. As to Munukutuba, the problem is of a similar nature. The distribution of the spatial interrogatives seems to be relatively clear although the empirical basis is much too small to draw any far-reaching conclusions. There is, however, a gap on the side of the spatial categories in declarative clauses. We have several examples of constructions which express Place and Goal. In contrast, there is not a single example of a Source-construction in Mfoutou (2009). The only way to fill this gap at least provisionally is external comparison with Bantu languages spoken in the same area as Munukutuba. This is a reconstructive strategy which we make use of only exceptionally because it adds a further dose of uncertainty to our data-base. To this end, we make use of data from a language which does not form part of our statistical sample, namely KiKongo. The area in which KiKongo is spoken overlaps largely with that of Munukutuba. It is

|| 90 Zero-marking of spatial relations in declarative clauses is also attested in Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán). The phenomenon seems to be restricted to toponyms as loci. We exclude these cases from our account of the system of spatial relations in this variety because zeromarking does not appear to be compulsory. 91 The same holds for the occasional absence of the diacritic on the initial vowel of ánkʔu. We assume that this is just a typographical error.

624 | Spatial relations across sentence-types also very likely that KiKongo has contributed substantially to the genesis of Munukutuba (Heine 1973: 54). It is therefore legitimate to compare the two languages. According to the information in Nsondé (1999), KiKongo has an invariable preposition ku ‘in, to, from’ which covers the functions of Place, Goal, and Source. This preposition is also part of the general spatial-interrogative construction kwé ~ kué ‘where = whither = whence’. KiKongo is thus a representative of A16 whereas Munukutuba is not, or so it seems. The lesson we learn from this brief excursus on KiKongo is that there is a very high probability of the Munukutuba preposition na to cover not only the functions of Place and Goal but also that of Source. The sentential examples of the two documented spatial relations in Munukutuba declarative clauses are given in (256). (256) (256.1)

(256.2)

Munukutuba – declaratives [Mfoutou 2009: 87] Place Mù bùtùkáákà nà Lùtétè. 1SG be_born:REMOTE LOC Lutete ‘I was born in Lutete.’ Goal Mbàà ngé kwíízà nà yínzò. OBLIG 2SG come LOC house ‘You must come to the house (= to my place).’

The spatial constructions which are used in declarative clauses of Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán) give evidence of overabundance in the sense that each cell of the paradigm is filled by the same two allomorphs, namely the syncretic prepositions khʌ and a, cf. (257)–(258). (257) (257.1)

(257.2)

(257.3)

Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán) – declarative/khʌ Place [Lastra 1989: 124] rʌ šúa rʌ-nčáha khʌ rʌ dăthé. DEF Juan 3SG.PROG:bathe LOC DEF river ‘Juan is having a bath in the river.’ Goal [Lastra 1989: 122] kʔʌ mą-tá bí-ñᵼ̌ti khʌ kʔʌ rʌ ngų̌. this POSS.1SG-father 3SG.PRET:enter LOC this DEF house ‘My father went into this house.’ Source [Lastra 1989: 122] kʔʌ mą-tá bí-bᵼ̌ni khʌ kʔʌ rʌ ngų̌. this POSS.1SG-father 3SG.PRET:exit LOC this DEF house ‘My father came out of this house.’

Different patterns | 625

(258) (258.1)

(258.2)

(258.3)

Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán) – declarative/a Place [Lastra 1989: 56] mą-pahpá rʌ-ʔbᵼ&i a ngų̌. POSS.1SG-father 3SG.PROG-be LOC house ‘My father is (currently) in the house.’ Goal [Lastra 1989: 95] gégé ši-mą́ gí-má a nsᵼ̌hni. 3SG 3SG.PERF:say 2SG.FUT:go LOC Toluca ‘He told you to go to Toluca.’ Source [Lastra 1989: 124] kʔʌ rʌ šúa ri-hnįhį a nsɨhni. this DEF Juan 3SG.PROG:come LOC Toluca ‘This Juan is coming from Toluca.’

As to the semantics of khʌ and a, it is possible that the former associates more with functions as those of the inessive, illative, and elative, i.e. with situations in which the locandum is fully included in the locus at one point of the event, whereas a is either neutral or more of an adessive, allative, and ablative kind. If these differences can be shown to be the case, we are no longer dealing with allomorphy but with overdifferentiation. What also strikes the eye is the phonological similarity of the syncretic spatial interrogative á ‘where = whence’ and the general locative preposition a ‘in, to, from’ – the only difference being that the latter has no high tone. If the two morphemes are related diachronically, we have a situation which is remotely similar to that of nga ‘whither = whence’ = nga ‘to, from’ in Albanian (cf. above).

5.2.1.2.2 Tamasheq – A8 or B4 The next case is difficult for reasons other than those which are responsible for the problems we have experienced in connection with the data from Munukutuba and Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán). The Berber language Tamasheq which has occupied our minds already in Section 2.2.2 above is documented in a descriptive grammar of high quality (Heath 2005). There are no gaps or erroneous interpretations. The question that arises is whether Tamasheq is a Type-A8 language or rather represents Type B4. In Table 346 we present the paradigms of the spatial categories in interrogative and declarative clauses.

626 | Spatial relations across sentence-types Table 346: Different syncretic patterns in Tamasheq paradigms of interrogatives and declaratives. Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

əndék ~ əndəké ~ əndé

dæ̀ɤ N

Goal

mí

dæ̀ɤ N

Source

mí=dd

dæ̀ɤ N

Before we address the evidence from the declarative clauses, we have to identify the uncertainty as to the correct classification of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. In our previous references to Tamasheq we have always classified the paradigm of spatial interrogatives as an example of Pattern I WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. This practice is justified on the grounds of the analysis of the interrogative clauses in (259). (259) (259.1)

(259.2)

(259.3)

Tamasheq – interrogative [Heath 2005: 653] Place [əndeké]-tæt t-ənháy-æd? [Q1]P?-3SG.F.OBJ 2SG-see.RESULT-2SG.SUBJ ‘Where did you see her?’ Goal [mí] t-əkké-d? [Q2]G? 2SG-go_to.RESULT-2SG.SUBJ ‘Where are you going?’ Source [mí-dd] i-ffál? [Q2-CENTRIPETAL]S? 3SG.M.SUBJ-leave.RESULT ‘Where does he come from?’

However, there is an alternative way to analyze the constructions of the dynamic spatial relations. If we consider the centripetal clitic =dd to fall outside the WHENCE-construction, the revised version of the above interrogative clauses in (259.2)–(259.3) yields the following results, cf. (260). (260) (260.1)

Tamasheq – interrogative/alternative analysis Goal [mí] t-əkké-d? [Q2]G?/S? 2SG-go_to.RESULT-2SG.SUBJ ‘Where are you going?’

[Heath 2005: 653]

Different patterns | 627

(260.2)

Source [mí]-dd i-ffál? [Q2]G?/S?-CENTRIPETAL 3SG.M.SUBJ-leave.RESULT ‘Where does he come from?’

Under this alternative analysis, the paradigm of spatial interrogatives of Tamasheq testifies to WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism. There are two reasons which lend support to the alternative analysis. First of all, it is unclear whether the centripetal clitic is obligatory or optional. Note that the centrifugal clitic =(h)ín is not employed for the spatial interrogative of Goal. The function of =dd is specifying “direction of movement (whether completed or not) toward the deictic center, usually the speaker’s ‘here’ but sometimes another deictic center within a narrative” (Heath 2005: 598). This meaning component is of course consistent with the Source reading of the spatial interrogative. Secondly, Heath (2005: 281) emphasizes that “Tamasheq (like Songhay) has no ablative case”. This statement can be taken to mean that there are no established distinct Source constructions so that syncretism is a necessity. In the case of the spatial interrogatives, the syncretic pattern is that of WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE). This interpretation falls square with the properties of other southerly varieties of Berber, all of which attest to WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism (cf. 323 above). What blurs this picture a bit is Heath’s hypothesis according to which the functions of the ablative are taken over by the expression that is used for the spatial relation of Place as in the case of the preposition ɤòr ‘at/to the place of someone’ (Heath 2005: 283). However, on closer inspection, it comes to the fore that this preposition and others like it are already syncretic as to Place and Goal because the distinction of [static] vs. [dynamic] is not made in the system of Tamasheq prepositions. Thus, the replacement of Source with Place is not a compelling scenario. As the examples in (261) show the basic spatial preposition dæɤ ‘in, to, from’ fulfills all three functions. (261) (261.1)

(261.2)

Tamasheq – declaratives [Heath 2005: 282–283] Place ə̀zzæʏ-æn dæɤ ǽ-kall én-dæɤ. dwell.PERF.POSITIVE-3PL.M LOC SG-land DIS-ANAPH ‘They have lived in that country.’ Goal ĭ i-ttǽr-æn a-hĭ Ø-æj dæ̀ɤ lækkol. DEM 3SG.M.SUBJ-seek DEM-1SG.OBJ 3SG.M.SUBJ-do.IMPERF LOC school ‘…one who had sought to put me in(to) a school.’

628 | Spatial relations across sentence-types (261.3)

Source a-w-a ɤærr à-tæ DEM-M-DEM.SG indeed FOC-3PL.M.OBJ ĭ-kkæs-æn dæɤ ǽ-kall. 3SG.M.SUBJ-remove.PERF.POSITIVE-PTCPL.M.SG LOC SG-land ‘That is precisely what removed them from the land.’

Directionality is not formally marked in declarative clauses. All three of the spatial relations are expressed identically. In interrogative clauses, however, a distinction is made between Place and the dynamic spatial relations. Depending on the analysis of the centripetal clitic, it is possible to claim that either WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism applies or a paradigm with three distinct constructions exists. In either case, the organization of the paradigms of spatial categories is different across the sentence-types.

5.2.2 Different patterns of syncretism: Persian – Type C1 Since we have no evidence at all of Type A4 with neutralized spatial relations on the side of declaratives in combination with WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism on the side of interrogatives, we continue our survey with discussing evidence from language systems in which a ternary set of distinct constructions in declarative clauses exists alongside a paradigm of spatial interrogatives which reflect partial syncretism. As a matter of fact, what evidence we have found for combinations of this kind is representative exclusively of Type C1. No other of the logically possible combinations of differently organized syncretic patterns can be shown to exist on the basis of our collection of data. Type C1 seems to be relatively common cross-linguistically (according to our quantitatively unsubstantiated impression). Type C1 involves the combination of Place ≠ Goal ≠ Source and (WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE. The Persian data in Table 347 are representative of this combination.92

|| 92 Table 347 excludes the colloquial spatial interrogative ku ‘where’ which Alavi & Lorenz (1988: 247) mention in connection with the description of constructions in which the copula is optional as, e.g., parwāne [ku]? ‘Where is Parwane?’ without copula as opposed to parwāne [koğā]-st? ‘Where is Parwane?’ with cliticized copula on the spatial interrogative. Since no further information of the uses to which ku ‘where’ is put are given, we cannot be certain that it is restricted to the function of spatial interrogative of Place.

Different patterns | 629

Table 347: Different patterns in Persian interrogatives and declaratives. Spatial relation

Interrogative

Declarative

Place

koğā

dar N (~ Ø N)

Goal

koğā

be N (~ Ø N)

Source

az koğā

az N

There is WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism with zero-marking of directionality. The WHENCE-construction has the internal structure of a PP and in this resembles one of the construction types which are employed in declarative clauses. The latter have the shape [Prep N]spatial relation (cf. [Prepablative Q]whence). The preposition which is used to express the Source relation is identical to the preposition which is used in the WHENCE-construction, namely az ‘out, from’. However, directionality is not always encoded overtly with declaratives. For the expression of Place and perhaps less commonly also for the expression of Goal, zero-marking of spatial relations is an option in declarative clauses, too. As the discussion of the extant literature on this issue in Stolz et al. (2014: 83–84) shows it is still largely unclear which restrictions regulate the choice of construction in Persian. Some authors (Malchukov & de Swart 2009: 354) assume that zero-marking is optionally possible with toponyms which function as Place. Mahootian (1997: 165– 166), however, argues that the locative preposition dar and the allative preposition be are far from compulsory in the construction of Place and Goal. The evidence adduced in Mahootian’s grammar of Persian suggests that zero-marking is not necessarily the monopoly of toponyms. Moreover, the grammarian of Persian does not define the domain of zero-marking on the basis of the semantics of the Ground (alone). To Mahootian’s mind it is the parameter of timestability which is decisive such that the feature [+permanent] of the verbal predicate is said to license the use of the prepositions. In case of a verbal predicate which is characterized as [–permanent] zero-marking is the rule. We have put the option of zero-marked spatial relation in brackets because it seems to us that special conditions must be fulfilled in order for a spatial relation to be zero-marked. We therefore refrain from documenting this phenomenon with sentential examples. It must be noted, however, that zero-marking is associated with exactly the same categories in declarative clauses and interrogatives clauses. Zero-marking is possible with Place and Goal as well as with WHERE and WHITHER. This means that zero-marking is also responsible for Place=Goal syncretism and WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. The Source relation is always expressed overtly not matter what sentence type.

630 | Spatial relations across sentence-types Given that the optional zero-marking of spatial relations in declaratives can be discounted on account of the special character of the conditions under which it is possible (or even obligatory), we can compare the evidence from the domains of interrogatives and declaratives. The spatial interrogatives are presented in sentential context in (262). (262) (262.1)

(262.2)

(262.3)

Persian – interrogative Place parwāne [koğā]-st? Parwane [Q]P?/G?-be.3SG ‘Where is Parwane?’ Goal mo’allem [koğā] raft? go:PAST teacher [Q]P?/G? ‘Where did the teacher go?’ Source in hame-rā [az koğā] DEM all-OBJ [from Q]S? ‘Where have you got all this from?’

[Alavi & Lorenz 1988: 247]

[Alavi & Lorenz 1988: 35]

[Alavi & Lorenz 1988: 113] āwardi? get:PAST:2SG

There is a common Q-stem koğā which is also identical with the syncretic spatial interrogative of Place and Goal. Only the WHENCE-construction comprises two syntactic words. The other members of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives are mono-word constructions. In the declarative clauses, all constructions are multiword syntagms which consist of a preposition and its complement (if we discount optional zero-marking as discussed above). The examples are given (263). (263) (263.1)

(263.2)

(263.3)

Persian – declarative Place [Alavi & Lorenz 1988: 48] dar tehrān wa dar berlan budam in Teheran and in Berlin be:PAST:1SG ‘I was in Teheran and in Berlin. Goal [Alavi & Lorenz 1988: 67] emšab be-sinemā mirawam tonight to-cinema PRES:go:1SG ‘Tonight I will go to the cinema.’ Source [Alavi & Lorenz 1988: 108] šaxs-e awwal-i ke az otāġ birun āmad REL from room outside come:PAST person-EZ first-SPEC pesar-aš bud. son-3SG be:PAST ‘The first person who came out of the room was his son.’

Gaps | 631

If we account for zero-marking of spatial relations in declarative clauses, the paradigms of the spatial categories resemble each other across sentence-types. If, however, we exclude zero-marking in declaratives, the organization of the paradigms differs in correlation to the sentence-types. On the side of the declaratives, more distinctions are made formally than there are on the side of the interrogatives.

5.3 Gaps Our above probably incomplete survey of representative cases testifies to the existence of the four major Types A, B, C, and D. The tetrachoric Table 334 is thus shown not to fulfill the typologist’s expectations because none of the four types is unattested. This means that if there are any restrictions as to the combinations of syncretisms, those must be sought on the lower levels. We have not been able to find sufficiently convincing proof of the existence of several of the logically possible combinations of paradigms of spatial categories in the two sentence-types. Table 348 tells us that a dozen types are unattested. This means that almost 50% of the potential variation fails to show up empirically. In Table 348, the attested types are identified by grey shading. Table 348: Attested combinations of syncretic patterns in interrogatives and declaratives.

Place ≠ Goal ≠ Source

(Place = Goal) ≠ Source

Place ≠ (Goal = Source)

(Place = Source) ≠ Goal

Place = Goal = Source

Interrogative

Declarative

WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE

D

B1

B2

B3

B4

(WHERE = WHITHER) ≠ WHENCE

C1

A1

A2

A3

A4

WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE)

C2

A5

A6

A7

A8

(WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER

C3

A9

A10

A11

A12

WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE

C4

A13

A14

A15

A16

632 | Spatial relations across sentence-types This matrix needs to be commented upon. First of all, our failure to provide examples of certain combinations may be conditioned at least to some extent by the nature of the sources on which our analyses are based. Secondly, it is likely that we have misinterpreted the descriptive material and/or corpora so that we have not taken notice of the existence of a given combination. Apart from these more or less technical obstacles which may or may not have prevented us from recognizing what is structurally there in a given language, the missing types themselves are telling. The majority of the supposed empirical gaps involve combinations with one or both of the two paradigms being a marked option. The Types A2, A3, B2 and B393, for instance, presuppose the existence of marked syncretic patterns with declaratives. Types A5, A9, C2 and C3, on the other hand, are marked insofar as they involve syncretic patterns which are exceptional with interrogatives crosslinguistically. Types A7 and A10 are examples of a combination of marked options on both sides. Especially the latter are not to be expected to turn up frequently because they are based on a combination of syncretic patterns which are already statistically underrepresented by far in both sentence-types. This means that the realization of the hitherto empirically unattested combinations might not be precluded on principle. The low frequency of the individual patterns which should be part of the combination limits the probability of their cooccurrence to a minimum. However, the possibility cannot be completely ruled out that a considerably larger sample of languages might provide the occasional pieces of evidence of at least some of the missing types. Thus, we do not exclude categorically that types like Type A7 or Type A10 are admissible in human languages. In the foregoing sections, we have demonstrated that Types A6, A8, A11, A12, A14, and A15 are attested although they involve marked patterns with either one or both of the sentence-types. What distinguishes these attested cases from the bulk of the unattested cases is a) the parallel organization of interrogative and declarative paradigms with identical patterns of syncretism (as in Types A6 and A11), and b) the neutralization of all distinctions in one sentence-type (as in Types A8, A12, A14, and A15). We have hard evidence of types which combine a paradigm of spatial interrogatives with two or three formally distinct categories and a neutralized paradigm of spatial categories in declarative clauses in the case of B4, A8, and A12. The || 93 Note also that under an alternative analysis of the above Kanuri data, it is possible to declare Type B3 attested empirically.

Gaps | 633

missing Type A4 (which would complement this set of types) is perhaps also explicable in terms of statistics. It is therefore not the case that languages do not tolerate spatial interrogatives which are more informative than their counterparts on the declarative side in terms of spatial categories. It is clear, however, that there must be significant differences as to the cross-linguistic frequency of the types. Since we have not quantified the attestations of the types, determining the statistical prominence of the types remains a task for future research. What our above presentation is indicative of is the following. There is a strong tendency of the paradigms of spatial categories to be organized according to identical principles across sentence-types independent of the degree of markedness of the syncretic patterns involved. Wherever identically marked patterns of syncretism are attested with interrogatives and declaratives, we assume that the marked pattern itself is well established in a given language so that it cannot be discredited as spurious or instable. The tendency to employing identical syncretic patterns across sentence-types seems to dominate without being uncontested. There is also evidence of the co-existence of paradigms which do not match. This means that what happens in declaratives and what happens in interrogatives is not necessarily the same. The shape of the system of spatial categories can differ across sentence-types. This difference in turn suggests that the grammar of space of a given language is not automatically identical with the grammar of space of the declaratives of the same language (nor is it automatically structured like the grammar of space of the interrogatives of a given language). We do not claim that this is sufficient proof of the complete independence of the grammars of space of the different sentencetypes. However, we conclude on the above evidence that the description and theory-borne interpretation of the grammar of space of the languages of the world are not as simple as that. To adequately treat of the grammar of space, it is necessary to take account also of what phenomena there are outside the area of declaratives. Admittedly, our conclusion still rests on shaky ground since we have reviewed only a small selection of languages, some of which are represented by data which can only be characterized as doubtful. It is therefore necessary that the issue raised in this chapter is taken up in follow-up studies which – among other things – check the tenability of our hypotheses, put our data and their analysis to the test, and enlarge the data-base so that water-proof generalizations can be formulated. What we have said in the above paragraph must be considered preliminary and provisional.

6 Conclusions This study has addressed a variety of issues which belong to different areas of interest. In this section, we try to untangle the various topics in order to specify briefly what insights we have gained and/or which (new) questions arise from the discussion of the cross-linguistics of spatial interrogatives. This selfevaluation is not meant as a summary of what has already been said above. In a manner of speaking, the subsequent subsections are intended to identify the net gain of our endeavor. To this end we proceed in a loose kind of top-down order starting from the central question of whether or not the grammar of space needs to be revised. We also discuss problems of methodology, empirical reliability, sample size, etc. The final paragraphs are reserved for the presentation of a short list of topics that should be on the agenda of follow-up studies. Throughout this section there is ample opportunity for being self-critical, too.

6.1 One or two grammars of space? In the introduction, we have argued that linguistic research into the nature of spatial relations has been biased in the sense that the bulk of the data are taken from declarative clauses. This one-sidedness raises the question whether or not our ideas of the grammar of space require a thorough revision if the evidence from other sentence-types (e.g. interrogative clauses) is taken account of. The discussion of the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of more than 400 languages world-wide reveals that there are no fundamental differences which would make it necessary to assume two different sentence type-dependent grammars of space in general. The principles which lend shape to a paradigm of spatial categories are the same for declaratives and interrogatives languageindependently. This common conceptual reservoir notwithstanding, the paradigms of spatial categories are not automatically structured identically across the sentence-types in individual languages. The disagreement of the paradigm of spatial interrogatives and the paradigm of spatial categories in declaratives is by no means barred from the attested phenomenology. We do not know yet how common it is cross-linguistically that the paradigms of spatial categories of the two sentence-types fail to match. In the absence of precise statistics, we can only guess that we are not dealing with an absolutely marginal phenomenon.

DOI: 10.1515/9783110539516-006

636 | Conclusions In Section 5 we have seen that the paradigms of spatial categories may or may not look the same in the two sentence-types. The differences manifest themselves in the co-presence in one and the same language of two distinct patterns of syncretism, namely one which is responsible for the organization of the paradigm in declaratives and the other which is characteristic of the spatial interrogatives. To some extent combinations of different syncretic patterns are a challenge to models which presuppose the existence of a homogeneous grammar of space. Since none of the attested combinations of this kind is such that the differences could only be explained by reference to two distinct sets of fundamental principles, the challenge is not serious enough to jeopardize the existence of a unitary grammar of space as such. What the co-existence of differently organized paradigms of spatial categories calls for nevertheless is a grammar of space which allows and accounts for internal variation. It is tempting to assume that the failure of the paradigms to map onto each other is evidence of a system in transition. This means that ongoing language change is invoked. The grammar of space is undergoing changes which ultimately will contribute to the homogenization of the system. However, since we have not systematically studied the diachrony of spatial interrogatives and have not said anything substantial about the dynamics of paradigms of spatial categories in declarative clauses, the above ideas must remain mere speculation until a historical grammar of space is available. The fact that the paradigms of the spatial categories do not always match across the sentence-types does not seriously impair the extant global picture we have of the system of spatial relations because the spatial interrogatives favor the same syncretic patterns as their declarative counterparts. Moreover, in both sentence-types, the same syncretic patterns are statistically underrepresented. Scheme 26 is an idealized unification of the statistics of the syncretic patterns across sentence-types. We do not specify any absolute numbers or shares since the sizes of the samples are too uneven. For the situation in the area of the declaratives we let us be guided by the calculations given in Table 3 above. However, the graph in Scheme 26 is only an approximation which does not lay claim to mathematical exactness, meaning: it is meant to represent impressionistically what we have learned about the statistical discrepancies among the syncretic patterns in the foregoing chapters. The syncretic Patterns I–V are presented from left to right at the top of the scheme to indicate the syncretisms which are attested in declaratives whereas the Patterns I–V at the bottom of the same scheme represent the syncretisms which occur in paradigms of spatial interrogatives. The bold zigzag line between the top and bottom parts of the scheme is suggestive of the increasing and decreasing cross-linguistic frequency of the

One or two grammars of space? | 637

syncretic patterns. Independent of the sentence-type, frequency is highest at the top end of the scheme and lowest at the bottom end of the scheme. declaratives Pattern I – Pattern II – Pattern III – Pattern IV – Pattern V high frequency

Pattern I – Pattern II – Pattern III – Pattern IV – Pattern V

low frequency

interrogatives Scheme 26: Idealized frequency of syncretic patterns across sentence-types.

The likes and dislikes of the two sentence-types are practically the same. This means that syncretic patterns which either reflect a conflation of the dynamic spatial relations or lump Place and Source together are widely avoided in crosslinguistic perspective. This unquestionable disfavor of binary Goal=Source syncretism and binary Place=Source syncretism confirms the hypotheses formulated by Lestrade (2010) and Pantcheva (2011) according to which these patterns are highly marked in the sense that they are at odds with the general assumptions about the conceptual relationship of spatial categories. At the same time, our evidence does not support Pantcheva’s (2011: 236–244) strong claim that Patterns III–IV can be considered inexistent because, on account of her model of the grammar of space, they should not be there in the first place. It cannot be denied that cases of Goal=Source syncretism as well as those of Place=Source syncretism are statistically marginal also in paradigms of spatial interrogatives. However, the small turnout of cases of this kind should not be overestimated as an argument against taking these patterns into account for the theory of spatial relations. The relevance of the incriminated patterns for the theory of spatial relations is evident from those languages in which the marked syncretic pat-

638 | Conclusions terns are well-established across sentence-types and can thus be considered stable and robust – and this robustness does not seem to be restricted to Saami (North), the only exception that Pantcheva (2011: 240–241) readily acknowledges as worth discussing earnestly. Therefore Lestrade’s (2010: 97–105) more moderate point of view is probably the better choice because it does not categorically deny the existence of languages which realize the marked patterns of syncretism. However, Lestrade’s (2010: 104) somewhat casual categorization of cases of Goal=Source syncretism as perhaps only phonologically induced chance phenomena of the caliber of diachronic accidents does not strike us as particularly convincing. Superficially, our reluctance to follow Lestrade’s lead blindly does not appear to be justified. The empirical facts seem to support his hypothesis. First of all, Lestrade (2010: 104) refers to Kutscher’s (2010) work on the Goal=Source syncretism in the Ardeşen variety of the Kartvelian language Laz to defend the idea that the exceptional syncretic pattern is the product of a phonologicallymotivated merger. It is interesting to read what Kutscher (2010: 266) has to say about this issue: [T]he variety of Ardeşen differs from all other dialects of Laz, since it does not differentiate a goal and a source reading. The exceptional case of Ardeşen-Laz might be a result of a phonetically motivated syncretism of the two forms into one. But since there are no data available on the earlier stages of the language, this assumption can only be based on the phonological near-similarity and on the unusual semantics of the motative case in combination with semantic asymmetries […] and the non-spatial uses of the motative […].

The other varieties of Laz distinguish morphologically between an allative in -şa and an ablative in -şen whereas in Ardeşen-Laz there is only the motative case which is encoded by the case affix -şa. As far as we can tell, there is no general sound change pattern for the latter variety of Laz according to which the wordfinal sequence of segments /en/ develops regularly to /a/. Word-final /en/sequences occur in several of Kutscher’s (2010: 255–257) examples. The absence of a fully-fledged diachronic sound-change pattern explains why, in the above quote, Kutscher is cautious as to the validity of an exclusively phonological explanation of the syncretism. Accordingly, Pantcheva (2011: 210–214) refrains from invoking sound-change when she discusses the evidence from ArdeşenLaz. To her mind, this case is an example of spurious syncretism, i.e. on the basis of her model of lexicalization she assumes “that the Motative case in Laz unambiguously marks Goals” and that the Source readings of constructions involving the motative case are dependent on the presence of an additional prefix on the verb (Pantcheva 2011: 212). In other words, there is no Goal=Source syncretism at all because the constructions expressing Goal and Source are

One or two grammars of space? | 639

different although they overlap to some extent. We do not probe further into the Laz issue specifically. However, we emphasize that the case of Ardeşen-Laz does not prove beyond doubt that the syncretistic pattern which runs counter to the predictions is solely to be attributed to the vicissitudes of the ever changeful phonology of a given language. Moreover, blaming phonology for making a mess of the system of spatial relations is largely insufficient as explanans.93 This insufficiency becomes clear on closer scrutiny of the Saami (North) case. Pantcheva (2011: 240) argues that the merger of the old inessive and elative cases of Saami (North) was initially triggered by a sound-change but then diffused all over the Saami grammar of space although there are no phonological conditions which could justify the diffusion. In connection to this issue, we deem it necessary at this point to quote Sammallahti (1998: 66–67) in full: The locative singular […] represents and has taken over the functions of the former inessive and elative, preserved as separate cases in the idioms south-west of North Saami […] F[inno-]S[aamic Proto-Language] inessive *-sna/snä and elative *-sta/stä […]. In North Saami their merger into locative is due to a general denasalization of *n […] after *s (*-sn- > *-st-) and in the eastern Saami languages to final vowel loss and denasalization of final -n in the inessive endings (P[roto-]S[aamic] *-snē > *-sn > *-st). The merger then spread from this central case to more peripheral parts of grammar and vocabulary where the phonetical prerequisites did not prevail. Thus the merger also took place in the plural (vári-i-n ‘on/from the hills’), in possessive declension (dálu-sta-n ‘in/from my house’, dálu-i-na-n ‘in/from my houses’), and in adverbs (e.g. olgun ‘[being] outside; from outside’ […]), although there were no phonological reasons for it.

Pantcheva (2010: 240) is right when she states that on account of the above sketch of the process of analogical extension of the merger Saami (North) “presents a real challenge to the account […] which bans such a syncretism.” The challenge can be formulated as a question. Why is it that a pattern which, for cognitive reasons, is defined as impossible in human languages not only arises via sound-change but also proves strong enough to pervade an entire system of spatial relations although the phonological conditions as such do not justify the diffusion? For analogy to open the path for an unwonted development like this,

|| 93 Too little is known about the pre-history and the early stages of Albanian so that we dare not speculate about the diachronic processes which have brought about the present state of affairs as discussed in Section 5 above. According to Mann (1977: 204–205), nga ‘whither = whence’ goes back etymologically to Proto-Indo-European *en-qṷo whereas the “simplex” ka and ku ‘where = whither’ can be connected to Latin quō (Mann 1977: 199). The etymological parallels, however, do not tell us anything about how the syncretism has emerged.

640 | Conclusions the semantic map of the spatial categories must be organized such that the relations participating in the merger are easily associated with each other. This means that there cannot be an impermeable curtain which separates Place and Source. Furthermore, if we try to save the hypothesis which assumes that some syncretisms are strictly impossible by way of holding exclusively sound-change responsible for the violation of the postulated law, then cases like that of Saami (North) would ultimately damage the entire cognitively-based approach. The crash of the approach results from the fact that, in a manner of speaking, phonology outwits the cognitive systems of speakers insofar as phonology is strong enough to introduce patterns into a system which, on principle, does not tolerate the emergence of exactly these patterns in the first place. What is more, phonology does not only open the door for cognitively unwelcome intruders but also paves the way for analogy to enlarge the domain of the intruders so that they become dominant and oust all their cognitively licensed competitors.94 The weight of this argument should not be underestimated since, in the case under scrutiny, analogy operates on the basis of semantics, i.e., those categories which have identical or similar functions are associatively connected to each other and, in the end, their expressions are reorganized to conform to a common pattern.95 In the case of Saami (North), the pattern which has come to win the competition reflects a syncretic pattern which has been declared not to be admissible in human languages on account of general principles. Neither do we want to overvalue the Saami (North) evidence nor do we intend to gloss over it tacitly. On the one hand, apart from the above Saami (North) case, there is not much tangible evidence on the basis of which other || 94 As to the spatial interrogatives of Saami (North), the initial phonologically induced merger suffices because there have never been any plural forms of the spatial interrogatives. We assume that the early establishment of the WHERE=WHENCE-syncretism in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives also has supported the further diffusion of this pattern throughout the grammar of space of Saami (North). 95 In the noun declension of Saami (North), there is a precedent, namely the renovation of the comitative plural via the grammaticalization of a former construction [Ngenitive.plural + guoibmi]NP > [N-guin]comitative.plural. The complement noun guoibmi ‘companion’ has developed into a fullblown case-affix -guin which serves as the exponent of the comitative (Sammallahti 1998: 69– 70). One might pose the question of why grammaticalization has not remedied the problematic situation in the area of the spatial categories too, if the latter is cognitively as disadvantageous as the extant literature seems to suggest. On the other hand, some of the developments that can be reconstructed for the paradigms of spatial interrogatives of some of the Romance varieties are indicative of a process which marks the return from a marked pattern to an unmarked pattern along the lines of what Mackenzie (1978) terms ablative-locative transfer (Pantcheva 2010: 1075), cf. Section 3.1.2 above.

One or two grammars of space? | 641

cases of cross-linguistically exceptional syncretic patterns can be argued convincingly. Therefore, one should not misunderstand the above paragraphs as proving the extant theories of spatial relations wrong. At the same time, one should also avoid making the mistake of discarding the occasional counterevidence as non-entities which do not deserve being investigated thoroughly. If the exceptional patterns are what they are supposed to be, namely the chance effects of diachronic processes on levels other than that of the grammar of space, then we would expect to find clear evidence of readjustments in the sense that the supposedly intolerable patterns are subject to further changes which reintroduces patterns which are in accordance with the general theory. We assume that the Saami (North) demonstrates that there is no universal ban on the exceptional syncretic patterns. They might not arise easily without an additional external trigger (e.g. phonology). However, once they are there in one part of the grammar of space they can spread further to eventually oust all other patterns. This possibility of exceptional patterns to establish themselves in a language system does by no means invalidate the observed skewed distribution of syncretic patterns across languages. The statistical discrepancies are there and need to be explained. To this end, the extant theories have already made substantial contributions. Before we leave the topic of changes behind, it needs to be mentioned that the dynamics of a language system is not only responsible for the creation of exceptions. We do not know how many of the licit attested syncretic patterns are the product of say, sound changes. It could be argued that only the maximally distinct paradigm (= Pattern I) is fully legitimate because it conforms to the requirements of the canonical paradigm. All other forms of organization of the paradigm could thus be denounced as deviations – including Pattern II with its Place=Goal syncretism and Pattern V with its neutralized paradigm. Since our study has been intended as a synchronic account of the cross-linguistics of spatial interrogatives, the small number of diachronic excursuses cannot replace a dedicated inquiry into the diachrony of spatial interrogatives, not to mention of entire systems of spatial categories independent of the sentence-types. This is why one of the topics of future projects that may continue our line of research should focus on the diachronic aspects of spatial interrogatives in depth. The above open questions and controversies notwithstanding, it is clear that our study of spatial interrogatives provides ample evidence of the unity of the grammar of space. At the same time, the evidence is such that the assumed unity of the grammar of space must accommodate a considerable degree of internal variation at least some of which is connected to sentence modality. There is thus just one grammar of space albeit it being a colorful grammar of space.

642 | Conclusions

6.2 A hierarchically organized paradigm In the introduction to this study, we have stipulated that WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE together form the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. In retrospect, this stipulation has been corroborated by the empirical facts in the sense that the data from several hundreds of languages show that the constructions of the three categories interact regularly so that they yield a relatively tight network of functionally related constructions. The interaction comes in various shapes, several of which are mismatches that prove that those constructions which are affected by them belong to the same paradigm. This holds especially for all kinds of syncretic patterns. To put it in a nutshell, the fact that the set of categories WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE is subject to mismatches which are typical of “morphological” paradigms is indicative of the categories constituting a paradigm. What is special about this paradigm of spatial interrogatives is that it does not need to be strictly morphological but tolerates syntagms as members of the paradigm as well (and may even consist entirely of multi-word constructions). This ternary paradigm has an internal architecture according to which the members of the paradigm are interrelated asymmetrically. The asymmetry can be understood in terms of a hierarchical order in which one of the three categories is central and another is peripheral whereas the third category is neither the one nor the other. The opposition central vs. peripheral can be translated into a scalar hierarchy of different degrees of markedness. The evidence we have adduced in order to prove that WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE do not have identical status in the paradigm is absolutely unequivocal. On the basis of the different degrees of constructional complexity of the three categories, we postulate the cross-linguistically robust markedness hierarchy according to which WHERE is the unmarked member of the ternary set of categories as opposed to WHENCE which is clearly the marked member of the same set. Between the two extremes of the hierarchy, WHITHER occupies a position which defines it as more marked than WHERE but less marked than WHENCE. This hierarchy perfectly fits the model of Dixon’s (1980: 295) according to which Place is the most basic category followed by Goal and the “derived” category Source. Stolz (1992: 77, 83, and 103), Lestrade (2010: 107–108), Pantcheva (2009, 2010, 2011) – to name only a few students of spatial relations – assume a very similar hierarchy. Note that neither Pantcheva nor Lestrade rely on the degree of complexity of the constructions when they describe the asymmetries in the relationship of Place, Goal, and Source. Nevertheless, it is possible to unify their hierarchies which take account of the evidence from declarative clauses and our hierarchy which is based exclusively on the evidence from in-

A hierarchically organized paradigm | 643

terrogative clauses. Scheme 27 reflects the correlation of these hierarchies in an idealized form. The conventions are similar to those which we have employed for Scheme 26 above. declaratives

Place

Goal

markedness

Source

high

medium

WHERE

WHITHER

WHENCE

low

interrogatives Scheme 27: Idealized hierarchy of spatial categories across sentence-types.

The occasional data from declarative clauses which we have looked at in Section 5 seems to suggest that determining the differences on the various parameters of constructional complexity is not as easy with declaratives as it is with interrogatives. At least superficially, in many languages, all three categories – Place, Goal, and Source – are expressed overtly by morphological or morphosyntactic means which reflect relatively similar degrees of constructional complexity.96 Stolz et al. (2014: 20–32) discuss several different constellations which involve asymmetrical complexity of the constructions of Place, Goal, and Source in selected languages. The evidence – if taken in isolation – allows for two markedness hierarchies, namely vs. . If zero-marking applies in the paradigm of spatial relations, only Place and Goal participate in the competition since both relations can be expressed by || 96 As in the case of the Finnish spatial cases: talo ‘house’ → inessive talo-ssa, elative talo-sta, illative talo-on, adessive talo-lla, ablative talo-lta, allative talo-lle. Most of the affixes would yield the segmental length of 3 (because of allomorphy [= -Vn ~ -hVn ~ -seen], the illative oscillates between the values 2 and 4).

644 | Conclusions zero in many languages cross-linguistically as the same authors argue (Stolz et al. 2014: 280–286). Note that Goal is zero-marked much more frequently than Place so that it is possible to speak of a Goal bias (Stolz et al. 2014: 312–313). Moreover the spatial categories in declarative clauses are often sensitive to categories which do not have an impact on the spatial interrogatives. For the distinctions in the realm of the declaratives, it can be decisive, for instance, which verb is used in the predicate and/or which noun functions as Ground-NP. Typical motion verbs or typical place-names may trigger zero-marking whereas in combinations with other verbs or nouns it is compulsory that the spatial relation is marked overtly (Stolz et al. 2014: 287–296). These factors render it difficult to hierarchize the spatial relations exclusively on the basis of constructional complexity whereas this does not seem to be problematic in the case of the spatial interrogatives. In any case, the evidence from the realm of spatial interrogatives is clearly supportive of the markedness hierarchy as shown in Scheme 25 above. Pace Stefanowitsch & Rohde (2004) and Lakusta & Landau (2005), there is no compelling evidence of a general Goal bias with spatial interrogatives. Looking back at the empirical chapters of this study, what can be said to be confirmed without doubt is the status of Source as the most marked member of the paradigm of spatial relations. WHENCE has been shown overwhelmingly to provide the most complex construction of the three categories under inspection. In this sense our data lend considerable support to those hypotheses of the grammar of space which, on the basis of completely different approaches (such as psycholinguistically inspired corpus studies), classify Source as the most marked of the spatial relations. The paradigms of spatial interrogatives are organized in a way that is suggestive of a relatively strict division in two major units. The dividing line separates WHENCE from the rest of the paradigm. There is a second division which seems to be less pronounced, however, namely that which separates WHERE from WHITHER. The latter division is not entirely impermeable whereas that between WHENCE and the other categories of the paradigm puts obstacles in the way of processes which would blur the paradigm-internal boundary.

6.3 Interrogativity The cross-linguistic study of spatial interrogatives reveals that questions as such provide fertile ground for linguistically insightful investigations. Several important aspects come to the fore, namely that a) spatial interrogatives can be researched in-depth as a linguistic object in its own right,

Mismatches | 645

b) it is likely that other classes of interrogatives lend themselves as easily to being studied closely and yield similarly interesting results, and c) the knowledge gained from inquiring into the systems of interrogatives can be compared to and employed as a counterpoise for hypotheses which have been put forward on the basis of evidence from declaratives. Accordingly, our project should be understood as a plea for functionalistminded linguistics to integrate evidence from all kinds of sentence-types into the models of grammar to come. We are certain that these models can only gain from widening the scope to also embrace the other sentence-types beyond the usual declarative sentence. Of course, the often only tacitly assumed unmarked status of the declaratives justifies that this sentence-type marks the point of departure of linguistic research projects. However, language is not coextensive with only one of the speech-act types. A proper theory of grammar cannot make do without paying attention also to questions and sundry speech-act types. In terms of interrogativity as such, the cross-linguistics of the spatial interrogatives clearly show that there is a large dose of systematicity which, in turn, characterizes this sub-class of interrogatives as a promising research object that can be studied according to the usual principles. If a sub-class of the interrogatives invites being analyzed functionally and formally, it is only logical to assume that the other classes of interrogatives and interrogatives in general are accessible to linguistic analysis. Thus, our study of spatial interrogatives corroborates the ideas of Cysouw (2007: 153–60) who advocates that content interrogatives should be part of the canon of research objects of linguistic typology. To our mind, spatial interrogatives illustrate that the investigation of interrogatives in cross-linguistic perspective is not only feasible but also linguistically meaningful.

6.4 Mismatches Another area to which the cross-linguistic study of the spatial interrogatives contributes indirectly is the theory of (morphological) mismatches as developed in the framework of the Surrey Morphology Group. First of all, the concepts as exposed in the work by Corbett (2007, 2009) and that of his associates have helped us to prove that the spatial interrogatives constitute a functionally and formally defined paradigm in the first place. As mentioned in the first paragraph of Section 6.2, the very fact that the set of spatial interrogatives can be subject to mismatches which usually are associated with the members of a morphological paradigm is a strong argument for classifying the spatial interrogatives as mem-

646 | Conclusions bers of one and the same paradigm too. At the same time, the empirical evidence from the realm of spatial interrogatives strongly suggests that the notion of paradigm must not be reduced to the classic type of paradigm, i.e. to properly inflexional paradigms. In lieu of paradigms which exclusively involve monoword constructions, the paradigms of spatial interrogatives are by no means restricted to this kind of construction because multi-word constructions are frequently attested as members of the paradigm – sometimes in combination with mono-word constructions, sometimes without competition of mono-word constructions. This means that a form-based definition of the paradigm is incompatible with the nature of spatial interrogatives which require a functionbased definition of the paradigm instead. Accordingly, many of the paradigms we have reviewed in the empirical parts of our study give evidence of the mismatches of periphrasis and antiperiphrasis which, as far as we can judge, have not been featured prominently in the extant literature on mismatches yet. It is clear, however, that periphrasis and anti-periphrasis are typically European properties (cf. Diagram 165) and therefore of special interest to students of areal typology. More generally, spatial interrogatives show that it might be of interest for scholars of mismatches to pay more attention to periphrasis and anti-periphrasis (also typologically). However, the paradigms of spatial interrogatives do not behave absolutely differently from the paradigms of other categories. The prominent role of syncretism, for instance, is evident from the data discussed in Sections 3–4 above. Defectivity is unattested in the area of spatial interrogatives. Similarly, the paradigms of spatial interrogatives give ample evidence of overabundance. This phenomenon is attested frequently enough to call for a dedicated investigation of overabundance especially in connection to the problem of discriminating overabundance from overdifferentiation. It is necessary to determine how many of our supposed cases of overabundance can be explained better in terms of overdifferentiation or other. Moreover, the spatial interrogatives show that their paradigms are susceptible to the different kinds of mismatches to different degrees. The theory of mismatches should accept this differential susceptibility as a promising topic in the sense that one may attempt to determine which of the mismatches dominates statistically across the languages of the world. The quantitatively based hierarchy of the mismatches might then be checked for genetic, typological, and areal effects and ultimately explained with reference to general concepts of the theory of grammar and language.

Cross-linguistics – genus vs. type vs. area | 647

6.5 Cross-linguistics – genus vs. type vs. area This study is of a cross-linguistic nature and not properly typological. We have not ticked off the various major language types. There has been no discussion of possible or impossible correlations of the systems of spatial interrogatives and types which are based on word-order, alignment, morphological properties, etc. Far from claiming that no typologically meaningful correlations can be established at all, we admit to our ignorance in this area of knowledge. Since we have not systematically taken account of the typological properties of the sample languages to put them into relation to the properties of the systems of spatial interrogatives, the best we could do is speculating – which, however, we refrain from in this section. Superficially, whether a language displays say basic SVOorder or VSO or is classified as accusative or ergative are questions which do not strike us as particularly relevant for the cross-linguistics of spatial interrogatives because impressionistically we have not noticed any regular differences in the behavior of the systems of spatial interrogatives in connection to the above typological parameters. However, we lack hard proof of the absence of any correlation. In the case of the morphological type, agglutinative case languages seem to have a leaning towards Pattern I with three distinct categories WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. Yet we have not controlled our sample for this parameter either so that all of the potential typologically relevant correlations remain to be checked more thoroughly in follow-up studies. What has come to the fore nevertheless is that the syncretic patterns which could be constitutive of language types are distributed in interesting ways over the languages of the sample. Patterns III–IV are exceptional everywhere in the world whereas Patterns I–II are attested on each of the continents (cf. Diagram 166 above). This means that for four of the five syncretic patterns the distribution is not sensitive to areal or genetic factors. This is different in the case of Pattern V which neutralizes completely the distinctions of the three spatial categories. Superficially, Pattern V is practically inexistent in Europe (but cf. below) whereas it is widely common across the four other macro-areas. It is especially typical of the languages of Sub-Saharan Africa. The distribution of Pattern V is thus areally skewed – and additionally displays a certain genetic bias since it dominates throughout the Niger-Kordofanian macro-phylum. A much more finely grained analysis of the data might reveal further genetic, typological, and areal preferences. That much can already be gathered on the basis of our findings in Section 3 which illustrate that the different sub-phyla of the Indo-European language family in Europe behave differently from each other as to the preferred form of organization of their paradigms of spatial inter-

648 | Conclusions rogatives. The differences never amount to turning the established markedness hierarchy upside down. If there are differences in the area of constructional complexity within a paradigm, these differences largely corroborate this markedness hierarchy no matter where the language under inspection is spoken, to which phylum it belongs, or how it is classified typologically. We have to be cautious nevertheless because there are various factors which put into question the unreflected generalizability of some of our findings. These problems are addressed in the subsequent Section 6.6.

6.6 Loose ends, open questions, paradoxes, and sundry reasons to complain As the saying goes, nothing is perfect. We are fully aware that this judgment also applies to our own study of spatial interrogatives. In the paragraphs below we identify a variety of problems which arise in connection with our project and the way we have conducted it. The questions we raise on the final pages of our monograph are meant to highlight some of those aspects of spatial interrogatives which could become the object of study of future typological research.

6.6.1 Methodological issues A number of axioms had to be assumed and stipulations had to be made before starting with the data-analysis. Methodologically, the decision to adopt the model of canonical typology of Corbett’s (2005) has proved largely to be a wise one. The notion of canonicity has made it possible for us to work with a common independent yard-stick against which the evidence from a wide variety of languages could be measured reliably. The results show that the canonical paradigm can be depended on cross-linguistically. As to the empirical basis of our study, the advantages connected to working with Le Petit Prince are superior to the disadvantages which characterize the evaluation of parallel literary corpora in general (Stolz 2007). The many translations that exist of this sample text make it possible to compare a huge number of languages. There are dozens of versions of the text in nonstandard varieties so that it is possible to check whether or not the members of a diatopic system behave the same. As cases like that of Landkölsch and standard German (cf. Section 3.2.2) show, the behavior of nonstandard and standard varieties of the same diasystem may be relatively diverse. This diversity within a given dia-

Loose ends, open questions, paradoxes, and sundry reasons to complain | 649

system has methodological implications for cross-linguistic research in general as it clearly shows that one would run the risk of glossing over aspects of structural heterogeneity if only standard varieties are taken account of in typological research. One might object to the use of anachronistic translations of the sample text such as the Latin version for the purpose of diachronic explanations. Since many of the translations into modern languages go to the credit of translators who are not native speakers of the language of the translation, we do not deem the problem of anachronism to be serious enough to invalidate the results of our study. The parallel literary corpus facilitates the statistical evaluation of the varieties under inspection. On the other hand, the small number of sentences which constitutes the empirical input of the quantitative part of the investigation renders it unavoidable to complement the data-base with additional sources to ensure that no important property of the spatial interrogatives of a given language goes missing. The DGB-varieties have to be included also because otherwise the European bias of the sample would be intolerable because the vast majority of the versions of Le Petit Prince are translations into standard and nonstandard varieties of European languages. To overcome the remaining problems of the approach which combines corpus-data with data from the descriptive-linguistic literature a third kind of source could be created by way of collecting relative information on the basis of a questionnaire. Likewise, the stipulation of the countable structural units on the basis of which the constructional complexity of the spatial interrogatives has been determined and statistically evaluated has been proved fortunate in the sense that the results achieved on its basis yield a relatively homogeneous picture. We do not deny that especially the parameter of the number of words could be questioned because of the dependence upon factors which are not proper linguistic factors (such as culture-based traditions of writing systems, etc.). The questionable status of this parameter notwithstanding, the patterns identified on its basis are remarkably consistent across the sample languages. The problems which have arisen in the course of our study are not rooted in the canonical approach. They must be blamed on other decisions of ours. The most serious problems can be connected to a multitude of practical choices. One of the problematic decisions is connected to the parameter of the number of morphemes which are involved in a spatial interrogative construction. In contrast to the European sample languages, many of the non-European languages have been extremely demanding as to the morphological analysis especially in those cases in which the sources are vague or ambiguous about this issue. Therefore we have excluded this parameter from the evaluation of the nonEuropean part of the study. This decision introduces a degree of heterogeneity

650 | Conclusions into the project. Alternatively, we could have abolished the morpheme-count completely so that neither the European LPP-varieties nor the non-European languages were checked for this parameter. In this way, the homogeneity of the project design could have been safeguarded. We have refrained from sacrificing the wealth of information to the benefit of homogeneity though. This is only a minor aspect of inconsistency since it does not affect the general results of our investigation. To further illustrate the relevance of the methodological problems we start from the above mentioned striking frequency of the mismatch which goes by the name of overabundance. There is a plethora of cases of overabundance in the European section of the sample – but predominantly only in the DGB-varieties of the European languages. The DGB-varieties are meant to be qualitatively correct and complement the insights gained from the analysis of the LPP-varieties. Only the latter allow the quantification of the results. Thus, we have created different varieties (of a supposedly unitary language) on purpose. The wisdom of creating different varieties on the basis of different sources alone might be questioned. We are confident that it makes sense to proceed along these lines if the criterion is applied consistently. At this point, the difficulties of interpreting the DGB-sources adequately make themselves felt. Some of the sources summarily mention several alloforms of a given spatial interrogative without specifying whether or not the use of these alloforms is subject to any kind of restrictions. Thus, we cannot be sure that two or more putative alloforms in a given cell of a paradigm are fullblown competitors of each other in exactly the same variety of a language. On the one hand, chances are that the alloforms are sensitive to the parameters of time, space, and social stratum, i.e. they are perhaps representative of different epochs, regions, registers, and styles and thus should not occupy the same cell of a paradigm of one and the same DGB-variety. If this is the case, we have made the mistake of lumping together varieties which should better be kept apart. On the other hand, the information given in the DGB-sources sometimes happens to be insufficient to distinguish overabundance and overdifferentiation – two mismatches which are not to be confused with each other. If in a cell of a paradigm of spatial interrogatives additional categories are formally distinguished which are absent from the other cells, the surplus of constructions is not a case of synonymy. In a number of non-European languages, for instance, we have seen that there are two different WHENCE-constructions, namely one which inquires about the point of departure of a motion event and the other which inquires about the place of origin (= native city or the like) of the addressee. The co-existence of these constructions rests on functional grounds. They are distinct functionally and their domains do not overlap (sufficiently) to justify their being treated as one. In the cells of WHERE

Loose ends, open questions, paradoxes, and sundry reasons to complain | 651

and WHITHER, however, no comparable distinction exists. Thus, there is overdifferentiation of WHENCE. It cannot be ruled out that we have failed to recognize several cases of this or similar kinds so that the statistical weight of overabundance might have been increased beyond the empirically justified degree. The above problem is self-inflicted. It could have been avoided had we applied Stassen’s (1985) criterion of primary-options-only.97 According to this criterion, secondary options are largely irrelevant for the typological classification of languages. Even if one does not subscribe to this point of view, it is clear that taking account of more than one option per category is bound to create noise. If applied consistently, the criterion erases many alloforms from the paradigms and thus automatically reduces the importance of overabundance as a major element of the organization of paradigms. Therefore we daresay that the primary-options-only approach is to be avoided if one wants to study overabundance. What renders the application of the criterion difficult anyway is the frequent impossibility of determining which of several options is primary and which is not. Moreover the strict exclusion of secondary options limits the heuristic value of the identified patterns if the ultimate goal of the investigation is to find out about the concepts and cognitive principles which underlie the system of spatial relations. If there is a cognitively-rooted conceptual basis of the grammar of space, the effects of this basis cannot be restricted to the primary options only but must be manifest throughout the entire system. (This is exactly the reason why evaluating declarative sentences alone does not necessarily exhaust the phenomenology of the grammar of space. To complement the insights gained from the study of declarative sentences, marked (i.e. secondary) sentence-types need to be scrutinized as well and to the same extent.) To put it succinctly: we are stuck in a dilemma. We have tried to minimize the above negative effects by way of separating the LPP-varieties from the DGBvarieties. The artificial nature of this distinction notwithstanding, we are convinced that it methodologically makes sense if one wants to investigate spatial interrogatives quantitatively and qualitatively. For the European part of our study, the division of the sample languages into LPP-varieties and DGB-varieties can be considered a success. Without this division it would not have been possible to quantify the constructional complexity of the spatial interrogatives. The impossibility is caused by the general uncertainty as to the correct interpretation of supposed cases of overabundance. If different varieties hide behind some of the putative examples of overabundance, the statistics would look dif-

|| 97 The pros and cons of this criterion are discussed in some detail in Stolz (2013: 24–30).

652 | Conclusions ferent from those which are calculated on the assumption that we are dealing with a genuine case of overabundance, i.e. with a phenomenon within the system of one and the same variety. However, the account of the spatial interrogatives would be incomplete, if the data are taken exclusively from the LPPvarieties since the number of sample sentences is far too small to allow for formulating conclusive hypotheses. As mentioned repeatedly above, overabundance is a phenomenon which can easily be overlooked if one relies exclusively on the LPP-data. In many cases, other mismatches such as suppletion enter a given paradigm piggyback with overabundance because the alloforms make use of a different Q-stem. For technical reasons, it has not been feasible to apply the opposition of LPP vs. DGB also to the non-European part of our study. In lieu of neatly separating the quantifiable corpus-based data from the purely qualitative information which has been drawn from the descriptive-linguistic literature, we have lumped together LPP-varieties and DGB-varieties. The latter varieties constitute the bulk of the non-European members of our sample. Since the European DGBvarieties have not been analyzed statistically, it would be only logical to exclude also the non-Indo-European DGB-varieties from the quantitative evaluation. This exclusion of the vast majority of the non-European languages would have impaired the comparative statistics because the statistics would have been biased heavily towards the European LPP-varieties. To avoid Europeanizing the global picture of the spatial interrogatives, we have deliberately relaxed the methodological criteria for the non-European part of the study. We admit that this methodological flexibility is a doubtful practice. However, the comparison of the European LPP-statistics and the non-European statistics (based on a mix of LPP-data and DGB-data) yields strikingly consistent results so that general cross-linguistic patterns emerge. It cannot be completely ruled out that this cross-linguistic consistency is caused to some extent by the above methodological inconsistency. We are confident nevertheless that the overall similarity of the European and non-European results can be explained independently from the methodological problem. This does not mean that the results are immutable. To the contrary, we assume that several of the non-European LPP-varieties are potentially responsible for some of the problems connected to the classification of the evidence in Section 4.1 above. It is likely, for instance, that some of the instances of Pattern IV (WHERE = WHENCE) ≠ WHITHER in Table 324 must be revised. This necessity might arise too in the case of those Mesoamerican languages whose system of spatial interrogatives is established exclusively on the basis of the Archivo de las lenguas indígenas de México. We do not reckon that these revisions will jeopard-

Loose ends, open questions, paradoxes, and sundry reasons to complain | 653

ize the general picture of the cross-linguistics of spatial interrogatives. What they will bring about is the reclassification of a limited number of individual languages whereas the relative statistical weight of the major types will remain as is of now.

6.6.2 Gaps and similar issues In the foregoing section we have acknowledged that the way in which we have tackled the issue of the cross-linguistics of the spatial interrogatives could be optimized on the methodological level although it is unlikely that the revisions will overturn the established picture. We assume that on the higher levels most things will be unaffected by the modifications which might prove necessary on the lower levels. This assumption also holds good for the size and the composition of the sample. There is evidence that many varieties which, for some reason or other, have not been included in the sample of languages reviewed in this study corroborate the results insofar as they behave predictably. Two examples are sufficient to demonstrate that there is further empirical confirmation of the patterns we have established in Section 3 above. These examples stem from the Romance variety Romanesco and the Slavic variety Lemko. The translations of Le Petit Prince in these varieties have been available to us only after the statistical part of the study was already terminated. The sample sentences from Romanesco are given in (264). (264) (264.1)

(264.2)

(264.3)

Romanesco [LPP Romanesco, 12] Source [Da ‘ndo’] vienghi, a regazzì? [from in:Q]S? come:2SG oh boy ‘Where do you come from, oh boy?’ Place [Indo’] sta casa tua? [in:Q]P?/G? be.3SG house your:F ‘Where is your home?’ Goal [Indo’] la vòi portà la pecora mia? [in:Q]P?/G? OBJ.3SG.F want:2SG carry:INF DEF.F sheep my:F ‘Where do you want to take my sheep?’

654 | Conclusions What we see is that Romanesco behaves as expected. There is WHERE=WHITHERsyncretism and the spatial interrogative of Source is represented by a multiword construction which involves an ablative preposition. This is a case of periphrasis. Thus Romanesco perfectly fits the group of Italo-Romance varieties and, at the same time, conforms to the majority of the Romance languages (cf. Section 3.1). Moreover, at least etymologically, all of the constructions of Romanesco are morphologically complex since indo’ ‘where = whither’ itself can be segmented further into in- ‘in’ and the proper Q-stem do’ (< Latin de ‘from’ + ubi ‘where’/unde ‘whence’). The WHENCE-construction is the most complex since it involves a third morphological component, namely the preposition da ‘from’ (whose final vowel triggers the apheresis of the initial vowel of indo’ according to the regular sandhi-rules of Romanesco). Romanesco displays the typical properties of Romance varieties. Thus, its inclusion in the sample of languages does not alter the general picture but strengthens it further. The same judgement applies to Lemko. The data from the LPP-version of the Slavic variety are given in (265). (265) (265.1)

(265.2)

(265.3)

Lemko Source [Odkal'] jes pryšol, mij [from:P]S? be:2SG come:PAST.M my.M ‘Where do you come from, my little boy?’ Place [De] tvij dim? [Q]P?/G? your.M house.M ‘Where is your home?’ Goal [De] chceš zabraty svoju [Q]P?/G? want:2SG take_away:INF your:ACC ‘Where do you want to take your sheep?’

[LPP Lemko, 14] malenkij? little.M

ovečku? sheep:DIM:ACC

Like Romanesco, Lemko gives evidence of WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. Lemko shares this property with six other Slavic languages (cf. Tables 167–168 above) among which we find Polish (albeit with overabundance in the cell of WHITHER) and Sorbian (Lower), i.e. languages which are spoken in the neighborhood of Lemko. The constructions are of the mono-word kind. The WHENCE-construction results from the univerbation of an erstwhile PP which involves the ablative preposition od ‘from’ and the suppletive stem kal’. This pattern is familiar from various other members of the Slavic phylum as discussed in Section 3.3.2 above. Adding Lemko to the sample would not alter the phenomenology of spatial

Loose ends, open questions, paradoxes, and sundry reasons to complain | 655

interrogatives much. What is affected by the additional evidence is the share that Pattern II has in the context of the Slavic languages. Romanesco increases the dominance of the majority option in the Romance phylum whereas Lemko statistically renders the minority option moderately stronger than it is without Lemko. One does not always strike as lucky as with the two European languages mentioned in the previous paragraph. Especially (though not exclusively) in the case of non-European languages the choice of source for and/or variety of a language can make a difference. A case in point is Comanche. If one follows the line of argumentation of Robinson & Armagost (1990), Comanche is a language with WHITHER=WHENCE-syncretism, i.e. a representative of the crosslinguistically infrequent Pattern III (cf. Table 323). According to the description of the spatial interrogatives and their uses in Charney (1993: 215), however, there is no such syncretism at all, cf. (266). (266) (266.1)

(266.2)

(266.3)

Comanche Place [hakah]-se ɨ=-tuʔa? [Q]P?-CNTR POSS.2SG-son ‘Where is your son?’ Goal [hakah-H/pu=] ɨnnɨ miʔa-yu=? [Q-to]G? you go-PROG:ASP ‘Where are you going?’ Source [hakah-H/nai] ɨnnɨ kima-yu=? [Q-DIRECTION]S? you come-PROG:ASP ‘Where are you coming from?’

[Charney 1993: 215]

There are three distinct constructions all of which involve the Q-stem hakah ‘where’ which is also identical with the spatial interrogative of Place, i.e. zeromarking applies. The two dynamic spatial relations are expressed overtly by cliticized postpositions (or bound case markers). The grammarian of Comanche claims that “-H/nai is used for motion toward the speaker and -H/pu= for motion away, but that pattern has not been systematically explored” (Charney 1993: 215). If it is true that the morphology on the spatial interrogatives presupposes a deictic center which is identical to the coordinates of the speaker, chances are that the system does not fully map unto the distinction of Goal and Source. If we

656 | Conclusions discount this possibility, the above data in (266) can be understood as pieces of evidence of the existence of Pattern I.98 Which of the two interpretations is correct? Do the two grammars of Comanche refer to the same variety of the language? According to Charney (1993: 3), her predecessors Robinson & Armagost (1990) have taken their data from a collection of Comanche texts of the 1950s whereas her own data were collected in the field during the 1980s (Charney 1993: 4). The time gap of about thirty years between the two data collections may be responsible for the observable differences. It is fortuitous that we have relied exclusively on the Comanche grammar by Robinson & Armagost (1990). It was available when we put together the non-European part of the sample. Charney’s grammar came to our notice only after the completion of the statistics of Section 4. If Charney (1993) had replaced Robinson & Armagost (1990), the cross-linguistic importance of the minor Pattern III WHERE ≠ (WHITHER = WHENCE) would have diminished further. Taken in isolation cases like that of Romanesco, Lemko, and Comanche appear to be largely negligible because they do not alter the general picture substantially. One would need many similar cases to cast doubt upon the general reliability of the results. However, there are also cases which in spite of their low frequency seriously challenge some of the supposedly robust results. The analysis of the European LPP-varieties is at the basis of our claim that Europe is the only macro-area from which the neutralized paradigm in the shape of Pattern V WHERE = WHITHER = WHENCE is absent. This claim is important because it supposes that there is a strong areally-founded restriction on the geolinguistic distribution of at least one of the logically possible patterns of syncretism. The picture changes slightly if we take account of the DGB-varieties as well. There is evidence of Pattern V in at least a variety of Italo-Albanian as the data in (104) and Table 246 above show. The Italo-Albanian variety of Falconara seems to be absolutely exceptional in European perspective. One might thus be inclined to discard the evidence sweepingly. This would not be possible if it can be shown that similar patterns are also attested elsewhere in Europe – especially outside the context of the Albanian diasystem. Much to our surprise there is evidence of the complete neutralization of the spatial relations with spatial interrogatives in Europe albeit in a variety which we have not admitted in the original sample. The evidence stems from colloquial Ukrainian. The Ukrainian system of spatial interrogatives has been discussed in Section 3.3.2.2 above. Table 205 || 98 One of Charney’s (1993: 215) examples might be seen to illustrate WHERE=WHITHER-syncretism. We do not include this example here because its analysis poses too many problems, the solution of which is unimportant for the point we are trying to make in the main body of the text.

Loose ends, open questions, paradoxes, and sundry reasons to complain | 657

summarizes the evidence with reference to the Ukrainian LPP-variety and the Ukrainian DGB-variety both of which attest to Pattern I WHERE ≠ WHITHER ≠ WHENCE. The data-base from which we have drawn the evidence is heavily biased towards literary Ukrainian to the detriment of the colloquial spoken register. If the latter is given full attention, however, a qualitative change takes place. The spatial interrogative of Place de ‘where’ can be generalized so that WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE are expressed identically. The identical expression of the spatial relations is illustrated in (267). The examples of the dynamic spatial relations are construed on the basis of the Ukrainian native-speaker competence of Nataliya Levkovych. The constructions as they should be according to the written standard are added in square brackets. (267) (267.1)

(267.2)

(267.3)

Ukrainian (colloquial) Place [Amir-Babenko 1999: 6] [De] maty? [Q]P?/G?S? mother ‘Where is the mother?’ Goal [De] ty jdeš? (standard = Kudy ty jdeš?) [Q]P?/G?/S? you go:2SG ‘Where do you go?’ Source Ty [de] vzjavsja? (standard = Ty zvidky vzjavsja?) you [Q]P?/G?/S? appear_suddenly:REFL ‘Where do you come from (all of a sudden)?’

An informal Google-search (as of 1st of December 2014) for the use of spatial interrogatives encoding dynamic spatial relations in Ukrainian reveals that de ousts the standard spatial interrogative of Goal, kudy ‘whither’, by a narrow margin (cf. Table 349). Table 349: Google hits for dynamic spatial interrogatives in Ukrainian. Spatial interrogative

WHITHER

WHENCE

Sum

de

26,300

4,860

31,160

kudy

23,400

–

23,400

zvidky

–

18,500

18,500

Total

49,700

23,360

73,060

658 | Conclusions Some 53% of all the spatial interrogatives of Goal are represented by de whereas 47% are represented by kudy. In the case of WHENCE, however, the share of de is down to 21%. With a share of 79% of all cases of WHENCE, the standard spatial interrogative of Source zvidky ‘whence’ is statistically clearly the majority option. The generalizability of de is relative, in a manner of speaking. It is unproblematic in the case of WHITHER. As to WHENCE, however, the employment of de is only a minority option. According to a web-publication of the Ukrainian Academy of Science, the use of de in the function of dynamic spatial interrogative is subject to severe restrictions. Not only is the phenomenon said to be typical of the colloquial style99 but there is also a tendency to use de in the function of WHITHER and WHENCE predominantly in combination with certain verbs like dity/podity ‘to put somewhere’, ditysja/poditysja ‘to wind up somewhere’, vzjatysja ‘to appear unexpectedly’. The same internet-source emphasizes that de is especially used if the speakers want to express surprise (Zabjelina at http://kulturamovy.univ. kiev.ua/KM/pdfs/Magazine6-17.pdf). The Ukrainian case is difficult to judge. On the one hand, it clearly shows that Pattern V is not banned for good from European soil. Together with the evidence from Italo-Albanian, the Ukrainian example of WHERE=WHITHER= WHENCE-syncretism suggests that if we scrutinize the nonstandard varieties of European languages closely enough we might come across further evidence of complete neutralization of spatial categories in the paradigm of spatial interrogatives. The Ukrainian case is not identical to the Italo-Albanian case because the latter does not seem to involve overabundance whereas in Ukrainian it is a matter of style only, i.e. speakers have always direct access to alternative constructions which disambiguate the neutralized distinctions. Furthermore, Pattern V in colloquial Ukrainian cannot be used freely. Its use depends on the presence of a small number of verbs – and importantly also on the desire of the speaker to express surprise. This functional aspect needs to be investigated further. On the basis of our present knowledge of the phenomenon, it seems plausible to argue that the generalized de and the distinct spatial interrogatives of Goal and Source are not fully identical because their use correlates with the opposition of surprise vs. neutral attitude. A pragmatic distinction of this kind

|| 99 Note that the dictionary of the Ukrainian Academy of Science (Bilodid et al. 1971: 227) mentions that de can be used indiscriminately for all three of the spatial categories. In Zabjelina’s internet-publication, examples of the generalized use of de from literary texts of the 19th century are presented. It is possible that these examples mimic the colloquial style of speakers of Ukrainian of that era. Thus, they reflect the spoken register and not the written standard.

Loose ends, open questions, paradoxes, and sundry reasons to complain | 659

cannot be defended for Italo-Albanian since there seems to be no choice of construction for the speakers. The evidence from colloquial Ukrainian and Italo-Albanian is indicative of the limits of the parallel-corpus approach. There are varieties which do not boast a translation of the sample text and thus are excluded from the LPPsample. Accordingly, the very same languages prove that it is a must to complement the study of the parallel literary corpus with a study which is based on different sources. At the same time, colloquial Ukrainian and Italo-Albanian form a statistically insignificant minority within the ensemble of the European sample languages. The two exceptional languages account for 1.4% of the European sub-sample at the utmost. This means that Pattern V is not categorically excluded from Europe but it cannot aspire to a status higher than that of an areal rarissimum.

6.6.3 Looking beyond The many pages we have dedicated to the discussion of phenomena which are connected to the cross-linguistics of spatial interrogatives do by no means exhaust the topic of spatial interrogatives in general. What our investigation suggests nevertheless is that spatial interrogatives are indeed worthwhile studying in-depth. In point of fact, we have touched upon a variety of issues which call for being scrutinized more thoroughly. Furthermore, we have tacitly passed over many other linguistically interesting aspects of the grammar of spatial interrogatives which are equally good candidates for being inquired into. In the remainder of this final section of our study, we briefly enumerate some of the issues which should be taken up in future research. For the purposes of this study, it has been necessary to take a reductionist stance. Without the imposition of strict limitations on the research object, the methodology, and the empirical basis, it would have been difficult to achieve relatively robust results. Taking holistically account of the entire phenomenology of spatial interrogatives is impractical. However, the omitted phenomena can be addressed separately in the future. On the to-do-list, there are the following items (the order in which they come is largely random):  further spatial categories: So far we have looked only at three of the categories which fall under the rubric of general location. The catalogue of spatial relations, however, is not restricted to Place, Goal, and Source. Of the four categories of general location, we have excluded Path from our study because the evidence of this category in interrogative clauses was too scarce to

660 | Conclusions justify its inclusion in the project. Beyond general location, there is a plethora of special spatial relations such as lateral location for which German, for instance, provides a distinct (albeit infrequently used) spatial interrogative woneben ‘at the side of what’ (= wo ‘where’ + neben ‘at the side of’) (cf. Cysouw 2007: 156). It remains to be determined what role the constructions of WHERE, WHITHER, and WHENCE play within the framework of the extended system of categories. To this end, one has to take stock of the entire set of spatial interrogatives including those which inquire about special location.  non-prototypical grounds: In this study, we have tacitly presupposed a prototypical spatial situation in which the Ground is inanimate and indefinite. It needs to be checked whether or not the semantic properties of the Ground require the employment of different spatial interrogatives. In some languages, it makes a difference whether the Ground is animate/human or inanimate/non-human. This is the case in Itelmen which has a set of general spatial interrogatives maʔ ’where’, manke ‘whither’, and manxʔal ‘whence’ which contrasts with a parallel set of spatial interrogatives which presuppose a human Ground, namely k’enk ‘wherehuman’, k’anke ‘whitherhuman’, and k’anxʔal ‘whencehuman’ (Georg & Volodin 1999: 134–136). Is this a distinction which is generally made in the languages of the world? As to the category of definiteness, there is in Kobon, for instance, the spatial interrogative of Place gai ‘where’ which is used “if the questioner has no knowledge as to the location”, if, however, the Place is known the speaker “will use the question word auai or mai” (Jo. Davies 1989: 9). There is an urgent need for determining which categories contribute to the internal differentiation within the paradigm of spatial interrogatives.  comparison with declaratives: In Krongo (cf. Section 4.2.3 above) the opposition [+human] vs. [–human] is decisive for the choice of the spatial construction in declaratives whereas this animacy-based distinction is neutralized with interrogatives. The question arises whether it is always on the side of the spatial interrogatives where neutralization of categories takes place. To answer this question it is paramount to determine which categories are relevant for the systems of spatial relations in declaratives and in interrogatives. In addition, it is further necessary to check to what extent the parameters of constructional complexity can be applied also to the spatial constructions in declarative sentences and whether or not the results resemble those of our analysis of the spatial interrogatives. Section 5 above is but a first step in this direction.  system of interrogatives: We have treated the spatial interrogatives as a kind of self-sufficient micro-paradigm in its own right. However, spatial interrog-

Loose ends, open questions, paradoxes, and sundry reasons to complain | 661

atives are interrogatives, in the first place, and thus we need to know how far the spatial interrogatives are integrated into the larger system of interrogatives. It can be assumed that there are at least two possibilities, namely that in some languages there is no formal property that links the spatial interrogatives to non-spatial interrogatives whereas in other languages the spatial interrogatives form part of a larger paradigm of interrogatives. In connection to the issue of the potential subsumption of the spatial interrogatives under the more general heading of interrogatives, it also makes sense to identify those patterns of syncretism which combine a spatial interrogative with an interrogative with non-spatial functions such as Danish hvor ‘where’ which, in pre-adjectival position, can also function as translation equivalent of English how. Danish is also one of those languages which employ the Q-stem of spatial interrogatives as the basis of derived non-spatial interrogatives like Danish hvorfor ‘why’, hvordan ‘how’, hvornår ‘when’ – all of which involve the basis hvor ‘where’ (Cysouw 2007: 157).  diachrony: As mentioned above, the occasional flash-back into the history of the spatial interrogatives in this study can hardly clarify all of the interesting diachronic issues. The origins of the spatial-interrogative constructions – their grammaticalization channel100 – have not been inspected systematically in this study. Occasionally, we have mentioned that some of the synchronic mono-word constructions can be traced back to erstwhile syntagms with the internal structure [Qwhat Nplace]spatial interrogative. Subsequently these syntagms underwent univerbation and lexicalization. Furthermore, we need to know what exactly can happen to spatial interrogatives when they are fully grammaticalized (cf. the previous paragraph). Since diachrony and grammaticalization are two notions which overlap without being coextensive, it is also necessary to check the dynamics of spatial interrogatives for other kinds of processes such as analogical leveling.  structural phenomena: The constructions which are exploited for the purpose of asking questions about spatial situations vary morpho-syntactically across the languages of the world. The different construction types we have encountered during our investigation have not been systematically accounted for. This is an urgent task for future typologically-minded research. In languages like Malagasy, for instance, the spatial interrogatives are inflected || 100 In the World lexicon of grammaticalization (Heine & Kuteva 2002), there is no entry for any of the spatial interrogatives. They figure neither as sources nor as targets of grammaticalization processes. It therefore makes sense to complement the lexicon by way of taking account of the dynamics of spatial interrogatives in cross-linguistic perspective.

662 | Conclusions for tense because they have been grammaticalized from erstwhile motion verbs.101 There are many such phenomena which, from a Eurocentric point of view, have an “exotic” flair about them. Their supposed exoticism calls for closer scrutiny. It is to be expected that the morpho-syntax of spatial interrogatives is much more diverse than the preconceived ideas (modeled after the European data) want us to believe. It might be the case that what superficially looks exotic turns out to be a wide-spread commonality. The above list of future topics is incomplete. New questions will inevitably arise as soon as one tries to answer those which we have asked in this section. It is hoped that, through this study, the spatial interrogatives will attract the attention of other scholars who are ready to invest their time and energy in exploring this area further. Perhaps the cross-linguistic exploration of the spatial interrogatives marks the starting-point of like-minded explorations of the spatial relations in yet other sentence-types. Independent of the particulars of the analysis of the individual phenomena, the results of our project are indicative of the necessity for the study of the grammar of space to look beyond the limits imposed by the declarative sentence.

|| 101 According to Rasoloson (1997: 34–35), the spatial interrogative of Place is àiza ‘where’ in the present tense but tàiza ‘where’ in the past tense, similarly WHITHER is expressed by mankàiza ‘whitherpresent’ or nankàiza ‘whitherpast’.

References Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. 2001. Gramática de la Llingua Asturiana. Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. Adler, Elna & Merle Leppik (eds.). 1994. Vadja keele sõnaraamat 2 = K. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Eesti Keele Instituut. Alavi, Bozorg & Manfred Lorenz. 1988. Lehrbuch der persischen Sprache. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Alekseev, Michael E. & Ramazan N. Radžabov. 2004. Tsez. In Michael Job (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Volume 3: The North-East Caucasian languages, Part 1, 115– 167. Ann Arbor: Caravan. Alexander, Ronelle. 2006. Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. A grammar with sociolinguistic commentary. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Alhoniemi, Alho. 1993. Grammatik des Tscheremissischen (Mari). Hamburg: Buske. Alpher, Barry. 2011. Yir-Yoront lexicon. Sketch and dictionary of an Australian language. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Amha, Azeb. 2001. The Maale language. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. Amir-Babenko, Svetlana. 1999. Lehrbuch der ukrainischen Sprache. Hamburg: Buske. Anderson, Gregory David & K. David Harrison. 1999. Tyvan. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. Andrews, J. Richard. 2003. Introduction to Classical Nahuatl. Norman: The University of Oklahoma Press. Andvik, Erik E. 2010. A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden: Brill. Anyanwu, Rose-Juliet. 2013. Reference grammar of Yukuben (Jukunoid, Nigeria). Köln: Köppe. Aquilina, Joseph. 1990. Maltese-English dictionary. Volume 2: M–Z and addenda. Malta: Midsea. Ariste, Paul. 1968. A grammar of the Votic language. The Hague: Mouton. Arys-Djanaïéva, Lora. 2004. Parlons ossète. Paris: L’Harmattan. Ashiwaju, Michael. 1969. Lehrbuch der Yoruba-Sprache. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Avril, Yves. 2006. Parlons komi. Une langue finno-ougrienne de Russie. Paris: L’Harmattan. Badia Margarit, Antonio M. 1975. Gramática catalana. 2 vols. Madrid: Gredos. Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The syntax-morphology interface. A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baerman, Matthew. 2007. Morphological typology and deponency. In Matthew Baerman, Greville C. Corbett, Dunstan Brown & Andrew Hippisley (eds.), Deponency and morphological mismatches, 1–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bammesberger, Alfred. 1983. A handbook of Irish. Vol. 2: An outline of Modern Irish grammar. Heidelberg: Winter. Barbour, Julie. 2012. A grammar of Neverver. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Bartens, Hans-Hermann. 1989. Lehrbuch der saamischen (lappischen) Sprache. Hamburg: Buske. Bateman, John A. 2010. Language and space: A two-level semantic approach based on principles of ontological engineering. Journal of Speech Technology 13. 29–48. Bauer, Winifred. 1993. Maori. London/New York: Routledge. Bedir Khan, Djeladet Emir & Roger Lescot. 1986. Kurdische Grammatik. Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft. Bělič, Jaromír. 1972. Nástin české dialektologie. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakl.

664 | References Bell, Christopher R. V. 1968. The Somali language. Farnborough: Gregg. Bendel, Christiane. 2006. Baskische Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske. Bender, Byron W. 1969. Spoken Marshallese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Bender, Ernest. 1961. Hindi grammar and reader. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. Bendiks, Hermanis. 1980. Latviešu literārās valodas vārdnīca. 4. Sējums: J–L. Rīgā: Zinātne. Benzing, Johannes. 1943. Kleine Einführung in die tschuwaschische Sprache. Berlin: Otto Stollberg. Benzing, Johannes. 1955. Lamutische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Benzing, Johannes. 1959a. Das Kumückische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grobech & Helmuth Scheel (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 391–406. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Benzing, Johannes. 1959b. Das Baschkirische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grobech & Helmuth Scheel (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 421–432. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Benzing, Johannes. 1959c. Das Tschuwaschische. In In Jean Deny, Kaare Grobech & Helmuth Scheel (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 695–721. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Benzing, Johannes. 1985. Kalmückische Grammatik zum Nachschlagen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Berg, René van den. 1989. A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Berger, Hermann. 1974. Das Yasin-Burushaski (Werchikwar). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bergsland, Knut. 1997. Aleut grammar. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. Bernabé, Jean. 1983. Fondal-natal. Grammaire basilectale approchée des créoles gouadeloupéen et martiniquais. 3 vols. Paris: L’Harmattan. Beyrer, Arthur, Klaus Bochmann & Siegfried Bronser. 1987. Grammatik der rumänischen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara. 2000. The indefinite-interrogative puzzle. Linguistic Typology 4(3). 365–400. Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Geoffrey Leech. 2011. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education. Bilodid, Ivan K. et al. 1971. Slovnyk ukrajins’koji movy. Tol II G–Ž. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Birk, David B. W. 1976. The Malakmalak language, Daly River (Western Arnhem Land). Canberra: Australian National University. Bittigau, Karl Rudolf. 2003. Mongolische Grammatik. Entwurf einer Funktionalen Grammatik (FG) des modernen, literarischen Chalchamongolischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Blake, Barry J. 1977. Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo. 1984. Storia linguistica della Sardegna. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo. 1986. La lingua sarda contemporanea. Grammatica del logudorese e del campidanese. Cagliari: Della Torre. Blevins, Juliette. 2001. Nhanda: An aboriginal language of Western Australia. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Blinkena, Aina. 1962. Jautājuma teikumi. In A. Bergmane et al. (eds.), Mūsdienu latviešu literārās vaoldas gramatika. II: Sintakse, 133–155. Rīgā: LPSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas Izdevniecība. Böðvarsson, Árni. 1985. Íslensk orðabók handa skólum og almenningi. Reykjavík: Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóðs. Bollée, Annegret. 1977. Le créole français des Seychelles. Esquisse d’une grammaire – textes – vocabulaire. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

References | 665

Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bopst, Hajo. 1995. Wohin gehst du? Wo gehst du hin? – Zu Gebrauch und Verteilung der direktionalen Fragemorpheme. In Michael Schecker (ed.), Fragen und Fragesätze im Deutschen, 199–220. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Borchers, Dörte. 2008. A grammar of Sunwar: Descriptive grammar, paradigms, texts and glossary. Leiden: Brill. Boretzky, Nobert. 1993. Bugurdži. Deskriptiver und historischer Abriß eines Romani-Dialekts. Berlin/Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Boretzky, Norbert & Birgit Igla. 1994. Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch mit einer Grammatik der Dialektvarianten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Boretzky, Norbert. 1994. Romani. Grammatik des Kalderaš-Dialekts mit Texten und Glossar. Berlin/Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Borg, Albert & Marie Azzopardi-Alexander. 1997. Maltese. London/New York: Routledge. Borg, Alexander. 1985. Cypriot Arabic. Stuttgart: Steiner. Bornemann, Eduard & Ernst Risch. 1978. Griechische Grammatik. Frankfurt a.M.: Diesterweg. Bosque, Ignacio et al. 2009. Real Academia Española. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Morfología, sintaxis I. Madrid: Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. Bowe, Heather J. & Stephen Morey. 1999. The Yorta Yorta (Bangerang) language of the Murray Goulburn: Including Yabula Yabula. Canberra: Australian National University. Bowern, Claire. 2012. A grammar of Bardi. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Boyd, Raymond & Isa Sa’ad. 2010. A Chamba-English dictionary. Lagos: Malthouse Press. Braune, Wilhelm & Ernst A. Ebbinghaus. 1973. Gotische Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Braune, Wilhelm & Ernst A. Ebbinghaus. 1994. Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Brauner, Siegmund. 1993. Einführung ins Schona. Köln: Köppe. Breen, Gavan & Barry J. Blake. 2007. The grammar of Yalarnnga: A language of Western Queensland. Canberra: Australian National University. Breen, Gavan. 2004. Innamincka talk: A grammar of the Innamincka dialect of Yandruwandha with notes on other dialects. Canberra: Australian National University. Breu, Ealter & Giovanni Piccoli. 2011. Südslavisch unter romanischem Dach. Teil 1: Texte aus Acquaviva Colleroce. München/Berlin: Sagner. Breu, Walter & Giovanni Piccoli. 2000. Dizionario croato molisano di Acquaviva Collecroce. Campobasso: s.l. Broadwell, George A. 2006. A Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Broderick, George. 1984a. A handbook of late spoken Manx. Vol. 1: Grammar. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Broderick, George. 1984b. A Handbook of late spoken Manx. Vol. 2: Dictionary. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Buchholz, Oda & Wilfried Fiedler. 1987. Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Buchholz, Oda, Wilfried Fiedler & Gerda Uhlisch. 1977. Wörterbuch Albanisch-Deutsch. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Buenrostro, Cristina. 2009. Chuj de San Mateo, Ixtatán. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Bukšs, Mikelis & Juris Placinskis. 1973. Latgaļu volūdas gramatika un pareizraksteibas vōrdneica. München: Latgaļ izdevnīceiba. Byrne, Francis. 1987. Grammatical relations in a radical Creole. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

666 | References Cablitz, Gabriele H. 2006. Marquesan. A grammar of space. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Calder, George. 1980. A Gaelic grammar including a chapter on personal and place names. Glasgow: Gairm Publications. Camaj, Martin. 1971. La parlata albanese di Greci in Provincia di Avellino. Firenze: Olschki. Camaj, Martin. 1977. Die albanische Mundart von Falconara Albanese in der Provinz Cosenza. München: Troefnik. Canger, Una. 2001. Mexicanero de la Sierra Madre Occidental. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Capell, Arthur. 1984. Futuna-Aniwa dictionary, with grammatical introduction. Canberra: Australian National University. Cárdenas Martínez, Celestino & Yolanda Lastra. 2011. Mazahua de San Pedro El Alto, Temascalcingo, Estado de México. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Carlin, Eithne. 1993. The So language. Köln: Institut für Afrikanistik. Carlin, Eithne. 2004. A grammar of Trio: A Cariban language of Suriname. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Catta Quelen, Javier. 1987. Gramática del quichua ecuatoriano. Quito: Abya Yala. Çetta, Anton. 1963. Tregime popullore I: Drenicë. Bleni i parë. Prishtinë: Rilindja. Chamoreau, Claudine. 2003. Purépecha de Jarácuaro, Michoacán. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Charachidze, Georges. 1989. Ubykh. In The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The North West Caucasian languages, 357–459. Delmar/NY: Caravan. Charney, Jean Ormsbee. 1993. A grammar of Comanche. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press. Chelliah, Shobhana L. 1997. A grammar of Meithei. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1997. On the typology of wh-questions. New York: Garland. Chisholm, William, Louis T. Milic & John A. C. Greppin (eds.). 1984. Interrogativity: A colloquium on the grammar, typology and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Christensen, Robert Zola & Lisa Christensen. 2009. Dansk grammatik. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag. Christiansen-Bolli, Regula. 2010. A grammar of Tadaksahak: A Berberized Songhay language (Mali). Köln: Köppe Verlag. Christophory, Jul. 1982. English-Luxembourgish dictionary. Luxembourg: Lycée Michel-Rodange. Coly, Jules Jacques. 2012. Morphosyntaxe du Kuwaataay: Langue atlantique du Senegal. München/ Newcastle: LINCOM. Comrie, Bernard & Norval Smith. 1977. The Lingua descriptive studies questionnaire. Lingua 42(1). 1–72. Comrie, Bernard. 1993. Language universals and linguistic typology: Data-bases and explanations. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 46(1). 3–14. Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The canonical approach to typology. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David S. Rood (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories, 25–50. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Deponency, syncretism, and what lies between. In Matthew Baerman, Greville C. Corbett, Dunstan Brown & Andrew Hippisley (eds.), Deponency and morphological mismatches, 21–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References | 667

Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Suppletion: Typology, markedness, complexity. In Patrick O. Steinkrüger & Manfred Krifka (eds.), On inflection, 25–40. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Corne, Chris. 1977. Seychelles creole grammar. Tübingen: Narr. Costa, Joaquim Almeida & Antonio Sampaio e Melo. 1979. Dicionário da língua portuguesa. Porto: Porto Editora. Cowell, Andrew & Alonzo Moss. 2008. The Arapaho language. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Crane, Thera M., Larry M. Hyman & Simon Nsielanga Tukumu. 2011. A grammar of Nzadi [b.865]: A Bantu language of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Creissels, Denis & Pierre-Marie Sambou. 2013. Le Mandinka: Phonologie, grammaire, textes. Paris: Karthala. Creissels, Denis. 2006. Encoding the distinction between location, source and direction: A typological study. In Maya Hickman & Stephane Robert (eds.), Space in languages, 19–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Creissels, Denis. 2009. Spatial cases. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 609–625. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crowley, Terry. 1981. The Mpakwithi dialect of Anguthimri. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 2, 147–196. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crowley, Terry. 1998. An Erromangan (Sye) grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Crowley, Terry. 2004. Bislama reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. Cyffer, Norbert. 1991. We learn Kanuri. Köln: Köppe. Cysouw, Michael & Jan Wohlgemuth. 2010. The other end of universals: Theory and typology of rara. In Jan Wohlgemuth & Michael Cysouw (eds.), Rethinking universals. How rarities affect linguistic theory, 1–10. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Cysouw, Michael. 2007. Content interrogatives in Pichis Ashéninca: Corpus study and typological comparison. International Journal of American Linguistics 73(2). 133–163. Daly, John & Margarita Holland de Daly. 1977. Mixteco de Santa María Peñoles. México/DF: CIESAS. Davies, Jennifer. 1989. Umbugarla, a sketch grammar. Thesis (B.A.(Hons.))--Northern Territory University, Darwin. Davies, John. 1989. Kobon. London/New York: Routledge. Davies, William D. 2010. A grammar of Madurese. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. De Reuse, Willem J. 2006. A practical grammar of the San Carlos Apache language. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. De Sivers, Fanny. 2001. Parlons live. Une langue de la Baltique. Paris: L’Harmattan. Debenjak, Doris. 1996. Wörterbuch Deutsch-Slowenisch/Slowenisch-Deutsch. Klagenfurt: Drava. Décsy, Gyula. 1966. Yurak chrestomathy. Bloomington: University of Indiana. Demiraj, Shaban. 2002. Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe. Tiranë: Akademia e shkencave e shqipërisë. Dench, Alan C. 1998. Yingkarta. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. Deny, Jean, Kaare Gronbech & Helmuth Scheel (eds.). 1959. Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

668 | References DEX. 1975. Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române. Bucureşti: Academia Republicii Socialiste România. Dhrimo, Ali. 1976. Fonetika dhe gramatika e gjuhës së sotme letrare shqipe. II: Morfologjia. Tiranë: Akademia e shkencave e RP të Shqipërisë. Diatta, Christian Sina. 2010. Grammaire Jola: Diola. Paris: L’Harmattan. Dimitrescu, Florica. 1978. Istoria limbii române. Bucureşti: Editura didactică şi pedagogică. Dixon, Robert M. W. & Barry J. Blake (eds.) 1981. Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dixon, Robert M. W. & Barry J. Blake (eds.) 1983. Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 3. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1981. Wargamay. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 2, 1–146. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1983. Nyawaygi. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 3, 431–529. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1988. A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Dixon, Robert M. W. 2012. Basic linguistic theory. Vol. 3: Further grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Djordjević, Ksenija & Jean-Léo Léonard. 2006. Parlons mordve. Une langue finno-ougrienne de Russie. Paris: L’Harmattan. Dol, Philomena H. 2007. A grammar of Maybrat: A language of the Bird’s Head Peninsula, Papua Province, Indonesia. Canberra: Australian National University. Doniyorova, Soadat & Toshtemirov Qahramonil. 2004. Parlons koumyk (Daghestan). Paris: L’Harmattan. Donohue, Mark. 1999. A grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Doornenbal, Marius Albert. 2009. A grammar of Bantawa: Grammar, paradigm tables, glossary and texts of a Rai language of Eastern Nepal. Leiden: LOT. Dor, Rémy. 2004. Parlons kirghiz. Manuel de langue, orature et littérature kirghizes. Paris: L’Harmattan. Douglas, Wilfried H. 1981. Watjarri. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 2, 197–274. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolgang Ulrich Wurzel. 1987. Leitmotifs in natural morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Drosdowski, Günther. 1995. Der Duden. Band 4: Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Dryer, Matthew. 2005. Order of subject, object, and verb. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 330–333. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Du Feu, Veronica. 1996. Rapanui. London/New York: Routledge. Dubnov, Helena. 2003. A grammatical sketch of Somali. Köln: Köppe. Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian. Amsterdam/Philadeplphia: John Benjamins. Eather, Bronwyn. 2011. A grammar of Nakkara (central Arnhem Land Coast). München/ Newcastle: LINCOM. Ebert, Karen. 1996. Koḍava. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. Ebert, Karen. 1997. Camling (chamling). München/Newcastle: LINCOM.

References | 669

Egli, Hans. 2002. Paiwan Wörterbuch. Paiwan-Deutsch/Deutsch-Paiwan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Eisenberg, Peter. 1999. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler. Elbert, Samuel H. & Mary Kawena Pukui. 1979. Hawaiian grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Elders, Stefan. 2000. Grammaire Mundang. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. Epps, Patience. 2008. A grammar of Hup. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I. 2009a. Tatarisch. Lehrbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I. 2009b. Baschkirisch. Lehrbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I. 2012. Türkische Grammatik. Ausführlich und verständlich. Lernstufen A1 bis C2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Escalante H., Roberto & Marciano Hernández. 1999. Matlatzinca de San Francisco Oxtotilpan, Estado de México. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Estrada Fernández, Zarina. 1998. Pima Bajo de Yepachi, Chihuahua. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Evans, D. Simon. 1977. Gramadeg Cymraeg Canol. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. Evans, Nicholas D. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein Lie & Kjell Ivar Vannebo. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universiteitsforlaget. Fähnrich, Heinz. 1986. Kurze Grammatik der georgischen Sprache. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Fähnrich, Heinz. 1994. Grammatik der altgeorgischen Sprache. Hamburg: Buske. Faßke, Helmut. 1981. Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart. Morphologie. Bautzen: Domowina. Fava, Elisabetta. 2001. Il tipo interrogativo. In Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi & Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. III. Tipi di frase, deissi, formazione delle parole, 70–126. Bologna: Il Mulino. Favereau, Francis. 1997. Grammaire du breton contemporain. Morlaix: Skol Vreizh. Feldman, Harry. 1986. A grammar of Awtuw. Canberra: Australian National University. Fierro, Aurelio. 1989. Grammatica della lingua napoletana. Milano: Rusconi. Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Fischer, Kerstin & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2006. Konstruktionsgrammatik: Ein Überblick. In Kerstin Fischer & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie, 3–18. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Fischer, Rudolf. 1970. Tschechische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Fleischer, Jürg. 2002. Die Syntax von Pronominaladverbien in den Dialekten des Deutschen. Eine Untersuchung zu Preposition Stranding und verwandten Phänomenen. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Flierl, Wilhelm & Hermann Strauss. 1977. Kâte dictionary. Canberra: Australian National University. Foclóir Scoile. English-Irish/Irish-English dictionary. 1998. Baile Atha Cliath: An Gúm. Forker, Diana. 2013. A grammar of Hinuq. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.

670 | References Foulon-Hristova, Jordanka. 1998. Grammaire pratique du macédonien. Paris: Langues & Mondes – L’Asiathèque. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Erin Shay. 2002. A grammar of Hdi. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1993. A grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 2001. A grammar of Lele. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Freeze, Ray A. 1989. Mayo de Los Capomos, Sinaloa. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Friederich, Michael. 2002. Uyghurisch Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Friedländer, Marianne. 1974. Lehrbuch des Susu. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Gabain, Annemarie von. 1950. Alttürkische Grammatik. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Gabain, Annemarie von. 1959. Das Alttürkische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Gronbech & Helmuth Scheel (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 21–44. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Galloway, Brent D. 2009. Dictionary of Upriver Halkomelem. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gardiner, Sunray C. 1984. Old Church Slavonic. An elementary grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gauto Bejerano, Miguel Ángel. 1990. Einführung in die Guaraní-Elementargrammatik. Asunción: El Foro. Georg, Stefan & Alexander P. Volodin. 1999. Die itelmenische Sprache. Grammatik und Texte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Goldap, Christel. 1991. Lokale Relationen im Yukatekischen. Tübingen: Frankfurt amMain: Peter Lang. Gómez, Paula. 1999. Huichol de San Andrés Cohamiata, Jalisco. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Graczyk, Randolph. 2007. A grammar of Crow = Apsáalooke Aliláau. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Gravelle, Gilles. 2010. Meyah: A language of West Papua, Indonesia. Canberra: Australian National University. Greco, Antonio. 1998. Vocabolario griko-italiano/italiano-griko. Castrignano dei Greci: Comune di Castrigano dei Greci. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1976. Language universals with particular reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Grenand, Françoise. 1980. La langue wayãpi (Guyane française). Phonologie et grammaire. Paris: SELAF. Greva, Ranka & Peter Rau. 2006. Golem makedonsko-germanski, germankso-makedonski rečnik. Skopje: Magor. Griefenow-Mewis, Catherine & Tamene Bitima. 1994. Lehrbuch des Oromo. Köln: Köppe. Guasch, Antonio. 1996. El idioma guaraní. Gramática y antología de prosa y verso. Asunción: CEPAG. Gulya, János. 1966. Eastern Ostyak chrestomathy. Den Haag: Mouton. Günther, Wilfried. 1973. Das portugiesische Kreolisch der Ilha do Príncipe. Marburg: Selbstverlag. Hagège, Claude. 1975. Le problème linguistique des prépositions et la solution chinoise (avec un essai de typologie à travers plusieurs groupes de langue). Paris: Éditions Peeters. Hagège, Claude. 2008. Towards a typology of interrogative verbs. Linguistic Typology 12(1). 1–44. Hamel, Patricia J. 1994. A grammar and lexicon of Loniu, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Australian National University.

References | 671

Hardman, Martha J. 2000. Jaqaru. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. Hardman, Martha J., Juana Vásquez & Juan de Dios Yapita. 1988. Aymara. Compendio de estructura fonológica y gramatical. La Paz: Gramma. Harrison, Sheldon P. 1976. Mokilese reference grammar. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. Hartmann, Roswith (ed.). 1985. Rimaykullayki. Unterrichtsmaterialien zum Quechua Ayacuchano. Berlin: Reimer. Haruna, Andrew. 2003. A grammatical outline of Gùrdùn̳/Gùrùntùm (southern Bauchi, Nigeria). Köln: Köppe. Haspelmath, Martin & Andrea D. Sims. 2010. Understanding morphology. London: Hodder Education. Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. World atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard average European. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals. An international handbook. Vol. 2, 1492–1510. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1). 25–70. Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33. Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1). 31–80. Haviland, John. 1979. Guugu Yimidhirr. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Barry Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 1, 27–182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hayward, Dick. 1984. The Arbore language: A first investigation; including a vocabulary. Hamburg: Buske. He, De-hua & Ma-nu Dong. 2006. Da Wu Yu: Yu Liao , Can Kao Yu Fa , Ji Ci Hui = Yami texts with reference grammar and dictionary. tai bei shi: zhong yang yan jiu yuan yu yan xue yan jiu suo. Heath, Jeffrey. 1999a. A grammar of Koyra Chiini: The Songhay of Timbuktu. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Heath, Jeffrey. 1999b. A grammar of Koyraboro (Koroboro) Senni: The Songhay of Gao, Mali. Köln: Köppe. Heath, Jeffrey. 2005. A grammar of Tamashek (Tuareg of Mali). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization. A conceptual framework. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Heine, Bernd. 1973. Pidgin-Sprachen im Bantu-Bereich. Berlin: Reimer. Henson, Bonnie J. 2007. The phonology and morphosyntax of Kol. Berkeley: University of California. Hercus, Luise Anna. 1982. The Bāgandji language. Canberra: Australian National University. Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and spatial congition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hettich, Bela. 2010. Ossetian. München/Newcastle: LINCOM.

672 | References Hetzer, Armin. 1978. Lehrbuch der vereinheitlichten albanischen Schriftsprache mit einem deutsch-albanischen Wörterbuch. Hamburg: Buske. Hewitt, B. George (ed.). 1989b. The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The North West Caucasian languages. Delmar/NY: Caravan. Hewitt, B. George. 1989a. Abkhaz. In B. George Hewitt (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The North West Caucasian languages, 38–88. Delmar/NY: Caravan. Hewitt, B. George. 1996. Georgian. A learner’s grammar. London/New York: Routledge. Hill, Deborah. 2011. Longgu grammar. München: LINCOM. Hinds, John. 1986. Japanese. London: Croom Helm. Hoddinott, William G. & Frances D. Kofod. 1988. The Ngankikurungkurr language (Daly River Area, Northern Territory). Canberra: Australian National University. Hoff, Bernd J. 1968. The Carib language. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Hollenbach, Fernando & Elena E. de Hollenbach. 1975. Trique de San Juan Copala. México/DF: Instituto de Investigación e Integración. Hull, Geoffrey. 1999. Standard Tetum-English dictionary. St. Leonards/NSW: Allen & Unwin. Hundertmark-Santos Martins, María Teresa. 1982. Portugiesische Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Hutchinson, John P. & A. Neil Skinner. 1981. A reference grammar of the Kanuri language. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Huttar, George L. & Mary L. Huttar. 1994. Ndyuka. London/New York: Routledge. Imnaishvili, Ivane. 1986. Kartuli otkhtavis simponia-leksikoni. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University Press. Isaković, Alija. 1995. Rječnik bosanskoga jezika. Sarajevo: Bosanska knjiga. Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2005. A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobs, Neil G. 2005. Yiddish. A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobson, Steven A. 1984. Yup’ik Eskimo dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. Jaimoukha, Amjad & Michel Malherbe. 2009. Parlons tcherkesse: Dialecte kabarde. Paris: L’Harmattan. Jannasch, Klaus-Peter. 1990. Wörterbuch Deutsch-Niedersorbisch. Bautzen: Domowina. Jenko, Elizabeta M. 2000. Grammatik der slowenischen Sprache. Eine Einführung. Klagenfurt: Drava. Johnson, Heidi A. 2000. A grammar of San Miguel Chimalapa Zoque. PhD Thesis. University of Texas at Austin. Joseph, Umbavu V. 2007. Rabha. Leiden: Brill. Josephs, Lewis S. 1975. Palauan reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Jungraithmayr, Herrmann & Al-Amin Abu-Manga. 1989. Einführung in die Ful-Sprache. Berlin: Reimer. Kálmán, Béla. 1965. Vogul chrestomathy. Den Haag: Mouton. Karanfil, Güllü. 2010. Parlons gagaouze. Paris: L‘Harmattan. Karlsson, Fred. 1984. Finnische Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske. Keen, Sandra. 1983. Yukulta. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.) 1983. Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 3, 191–306. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Keesing, Roger M. 1985. Kwaio grammar. Canberra: Australian National University. Kervella, Frañsez. 1995. Yezhadur bras ar brezhoneg. Brest: Al-Liamm.

References | 673

Kharwanlang, Francis. 2010. Modern English-Khasi dictionary. Shillong: Cecilia Kharwanlang & Ki Khun ki Ksiew. Kilian-Hatz, Christa. 1995. Das Baka. Grundzüge einer Grammatik aus der Grammatikalisierungsperspektive. Köln: Institut für Afrikanistik. Kilian-Hatz, Christa. 2008. A grammar of Modern Khwe (Central Khoisan). Köln: Köppe. King, John T. 2009. A grammar of Dhimal. Leiden: Brill. Klamer, Margaretha A. F. 1998. A grammar of Kambera. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Klamer, Marian. 2010. A grammar of Teiwa. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Knudson, Lyle. 1980. Zoque de Chimalapa. México/DF: CIESAS. Koji, Ando. 2007. Gramática Náhuatl de Pajapan. Xalapa/Veracruz: Universidad Veracruzana. Kollmann, Cristian. 2012. Grammatik der Mundart von Laurein. Eine Laut- und Formenlehre aus synchroner, diachroner und kontrastiver Sicht. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. König, Ekkehard & Martin Haspelmath. 1999. Der europäische Sprachbund. In Norbert Reiter (ed.), Eurolinguistik. Ein Schritt in die Zukunft, 111–128. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2007. Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1: Clause structure, 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kortmann, Bernd (ed.) 2004. Dialectology meets typology. Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kostallari, Androkli, Jani Thomaj, Xhevat Lloshi & Miço Samara (eds.). 1980. Fjalor i gjuhës së sotme shqipe. Triranë: Akademia e Shkencave e RPS të Shqipërisë. Kouwenberg, Silvia. 1994. A grammar of Berbice Dutch Creole. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kramer, Raija. 2014. Die Sprache der Fali in Nordkamerun: Eine funktionale Beschreibung. Köln: Köppe. Kratochvíl, František. 2007. A grammar of Abui: A Papuan language of Alor. Utrecht: LOT. Kratzschmann, Michael. 2008. Chrestomathia Nganasanica. Norderstedt: Books on Demand. Kress, Bruno. 1982. Isländische Grammatik. München: Hueber. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju & P. Sivanda Sarma. 1968. A basic course in Modern Telugu. Hyderabad: s.l. Kruspe, Nicole. 2004. A grammar of Semelai. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kujola, Juho (ed.). 1944. Lyydiläismurteiden sanakirja/Ainekset keräneet Kai Donner, Jalo Kalima, Lauri Kettunen, Juho Kujola, Heikki Ojansuu, Elvi Pakarinen, Y. H. Toivonen ja E. A. Tunkelo. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura. Kutsch Lojenga, Constance. 1994. Ngiti. A Central-Sudanic language of Zaire. Köln: Köppe. Kutscher, Silvia. 2010. When ‘towards’ means ‘away from’: The case of directional-ablative syncretism in the Ardesen-variety of Laz (South Caucasian). Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 63(2). 252–271. Laanest, Arvo. 1982. Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske. Labatut, Roger, Djibi M’Bodj & Aliou Mohamadou. 1987. Peul. Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou. Lafitte, Pierre. 1995. Grammaire basque (navarro-labourdin littéraire). Donostia: Elkarlanean. Lakusta, Laura & Barbara Landau. 2005. Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition 96. 1–33. Landmann, Angelika. 2010. Usbekisch – Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Landmann, Angelika. 2011. Kirgisisch – Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Landmann, Angelika. 2012. Kasachisch – Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

674 | References Larsson, Lars-Gunnar. 2001. Baltic influence on Finnic languages. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic language. Vol. 1: Past and present, 237–253. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lastra, Yolanda. 1980. Náhuatl de Acaxochitlan. México/DF: CIESAS. Lastra, Yolanda. 1989. Otomí de San Andrés Cuexcontitlán, Estado de México. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Launey, Michel. 2011. An introduction to Classical Nahuatl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lazard, Gilbert & Louise Peltzer. 2000. Structure de la langue tahitienne. Paris, Louvain/ Sterling: Editions Peeters. Leger, Rudolf. 1994. Eine Grammatik der Kwami-Sprache (Nordostnigeria). Köln: Köppe. Lehmann, Christian. 1992. Yukatekische lokale Relatoren in typologischer Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 45(6). 626–641. Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. Leluda-Voss, Christina. 2006. Die südgriechische Mundart von Kastelli (Peloponnes). München: Biblion. Lestrade, Sander. 2010. The space of case. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit. Leuy, To. 1996. Khmer. Eine Einführung in die Sprache Kambodschas. Heidelberg: Groos. Levinson, Stephen C. & David Wilkins (eds.) 2006. Grammars of space. Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in language and cognition. Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levy, Paulette. 1990. Totonaco de Papantla, Veracruz. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Lewis, Henry & Holger Pedersen. 1961. A concise comparative Celtic grammar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lewis, Henry & J.R.F. Piette. 1990. Handbuch des Mittelbretonischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Lewis, Henry. 1990. Handbuch des Mittelkornischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1983. A grammar of Manam. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2008. A grammar of Toqabaqita. Vol. 2. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Lincoln, Peter C. 1976. Describing Banoni, an Austronesian language of Southwest Bougainville. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. Lindow, Wolfgang, Dieter Möhn, Hermann Niebaum, Dieter Stellmacher, Hans Taubken & Jan Wirrer. 1998. Niederdeutsche Grammatik. Leer: Schuster. Lissarrague, Amanda. 2007. Dhanggati grammar and dictionary with Dhanggati stories. Nambucca Heads, N.S.W: Muurrbay Aboriginal Language and Culture Co-operative. Lockwood, William B. 1977. An introduction to Modern Faroese. Tórshavn: Føroya Skúlabókagrunnur. Lomatidze, Ketevan & Rauf Klychev. 1989. Abaza. In B. George Hewitt (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The North West Caucasian languages, 89–154. Delmar/NY: Caravan. Lončarić, Milo & Ivan Seedoch. 1991. Gradišćanskohrvatsko-hratsko-nimški rjećnik. Zagreb, Eisenstadt. MacDonald, Lorna. 1990. A grammar of Tauya. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

References | 675

Mackay, Carolyn J. & Frank R. Trechsel. 2005. Totonaco de Misantla, Veracruz. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Mackay, Carolyn J. & Frank R. Trechsel. 2010. Tepehua de Pisaflores, Veracruz. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 1978. Ablative-locative transfers and their relevance for the theory of case-grammar. Journal of Linguistics 14. 129–375. Mahootian, Shahrzad. 1997. Persian. London/New York: Routledge. Malchukov, Andrej & Peter de Swart. 2009. Differential case marking and actancy variations. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 339–355. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Malherbe, Michel & Cheikh Sall. 1989. Parlons wolof. Langue et culture. Paris. L’Harmattan. Malotki, Ekkehart. 1979. Hopi-Raum. Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Analyse der Raumvorstellungen in der Hopi-Sprache. Tübingen: Narr. Man, Edward H. 1975. A dictionary of the Central Nicobarese Language: English-Nicobarese and Nicobarese-English, with appendices containing a comparison of synonymous words in the remaining Nicobarese forms and other Matters, preceded by notes on the grammar of the central form. Delhi: Sanskaran Prakashak. Mann, Stuart E. 1977. An Albanian historical grammar. Hamburg: Buske. Mānušs, Leksa, Jānis Neilands & Kārlis Rudevičs. 1997. Čigānu-latviešu-angļu un latviešučigānu vārdnīca. Rīgā: Zvaigzne ABC. Marcato, Gianna & Flavia Ursini. 1998. Dialetti veneti. Grammatica e storia. Padova: Unipress. Mark, Colin. 2004. The Gaelic-English dictionary. London/New York: Routledge. Maslova, Elena. 2003. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Matras, Yaron. 2002. Romani. A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mattos e Silva, Rosa Virgínia. 1984. Estruturas trecentistas. Elementos para uma gramática do português arcaico. Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda. Maurer, Philippe. 1995. L’angolar – un créole afro-portugais parlé à São Tomé. Hamburg: Buske. Mayerthaler, Willi. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion. Mažulis, Vytautas. 1993. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žoddynas. 2: I–K. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. McCallum Jones, Ross. 1998. The Boko/Busa language cluster. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. McGregor, William. 2011. The Nyulnyul language of Dampier Land, Western Australia. Canberra: The Australian National University. Meakins, Felicity & Rachel Nordlinger. 2013. A grammar of Bilinarra: An Australian aboriginal language of the Northern Territory. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Mel’čuk, Igor. 2002. Towards a formal concept ‘zero linguistic sign’: Application in typology. In Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & Maria D. Voeikova (eds.), Morphology 2000. Selected papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000, 241–258. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mel’nyčuk, O. S. et al. 1982. Etymologičnyj slovnyk ukrajins’koji movy. Tom 1. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Mel’nyčuk, O. S. et al. 1985. Etymologičnyj slovnyk ukrajins’koji movy. Tom 2. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Meléndez Lozano, Miguel Ángel. 1998. La lengua achagua. Estudio gramatical. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes.

676 | References Mellow, Greg. 2013. A dictionary of Owa. A language of the Solomon Islands. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Mensching, Guido. 1994. Einführung in die sardische Sprache. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. Merkle, Ludwig. 2005. Bairische Grammatik. München: Allitera. Merlan, Francesca C. 1989. Mangarayi. London/New York: Routledge. Merlan, Francesca C. 1994. A grammar of Wardaman. A language of the Northern Territory of Australia. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Meunmany, Nirath. 1998. Laotisch für Anfänger. Heidelberg: Julius Groos. Meyer, Ronny. 2005. Das Zay: Deskriptive Grammatik einer Ostguragesprache (Äthiosemitisch). Köln: Köppe. Meyer, Ronny. 2006. Wolane: Descriptive grammar of an East Gurage language (Ethiosemitic). Köln: Köppe. Mfoutou, Jean-Alexis. 2009. Grammaire et lexique munukutuba: Congo-Brazzaville, République Démocratique Du Congo, Angola. Paris: L’Harmattan. Miller, Amy. 2001. A grammar of Jamul Tiipay. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Miller, Wick R. 1993. Guarijío de Arechuyvo, Chihuahua. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Minassian, Martirios. 1976. Manuel pratique d’arménien ancien. Paris: Klincksieck. Minde, Don. 1997. Malayu Ambong: Phonology, morphology, syntax. Leiden: Research School CNWS. Miroux, Daniel. 2011. Parlons iaaï. Paris: L’Harmattan. Mitchell, Bruce & Fred C. Robinson. 2001. A guide to Old English. Oxford: Blackwell. Mixco, Mauricio J. 1996. Kiliwa del arroyo León, Baja California. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Mock, Carol. 1977. Chocho de Santa Catarina Ocotlán. México/DF: CIESAS. Mondesir, Jones E. & Lawrence D. Carrington. 1992. Dictionary of St. Lucian Creole. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Montler, Timothy. 2012. Klallam dictionary. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Morelli, Steve. 2008. Gumbaynggirr dictionary and learner's grammar =: Gumbaynggirr Bijaarr Jandaygam, Ngaawa Gugaarrigam. Nambucca Heads, N.S.W: Muurrbay Aboriginal Language & Culture Co-operative. Morphy, Frances. 1983. Djapu, a Yolngu dialect. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 3, 1–190. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mosel, Ulrike & Even Hovdhaugen. 1992. Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Moser, Mary Beck. 1996. Seri de Sonora. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Moser, Rosmarie & Jean-Pierre Dingatoloum. 2007. Kabba-English-French dictionary. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. Mossé, Fernand. 1969. Handbuch des Mittelenglischen. München: Hueber. Mous, Maarten. 1993. A grammar of Iraqw. Hamburg: Buske. Moyle, Richard M. 2011. Takuu grammar and dictionary: A Polynesian language of the South Pacific. Canberra: Australian National University. Moyse-Faurie, Claire. 1983. Le drehu. Langue de Lifou (Iles Loyauté). Paris: SELAF. Mugdan, Joachim. 1986. Was ist eigentlich ein Morphem? Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39(1). 29–43. Nagaraja, Keralapura S. 1999. Korku language: Grammar, texts, and vocabulary. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.

References | 677

Nance, R. Morton. 1979. An English-Cornish and Cornish-English dictionary. Penzance: The Cornish Language Board. Nau, Nicole. 2011. A short grammar of Latgalian. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. Ndongo Esono, Salvador. 1956. Gramática pamue. Madrid: Editorial del Corrazón de María. Negele, Michaela. 2012. Varianten der Pronominaladverbien im Neuhochdeutschen. Grammatische und soziolinguistische Untersuchungen. Berlin: De Gruyter. Neukom, Lukas. 2010. Description grammaticale du kenga (langue nilo-saharienne du Tchad). Köln: Köppe. Newell, Leonard E. & Emilia Tabardilla. 2006. Romblomanon dictionary. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Nichols, Johanna. 1994a. Chechen. In Rieks Smeets (ed.), The Indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages Part 2 presenting the three Nakh languages and six minor Lezgian languages, 1–78. Delmar/NY: Caravan Books. Nichols, Johanna. 1994b. Ingush. In Rieks Smeets (ed.), The Indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages Part 2 presenting the three Nakh languages and six minor Lezgian languages, 79–146. Delmar/NY: Caravan Books. Nickel, Klaus Peter. 1990. Samisk grammatikk. Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Noonan, Michael. 2008. Patterns of development, patterns of syncretism of relational morphology in the Bodic languages. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana Cheliah (eds.), The role of semantics and pragmatics in the development of case, 261–281. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. A grammar of Wambaya, Northern Australia. Canberra: Australian National University. Nsondé, Jean de Dieu. 1999. Parlons kikôngo. Le lâri de Brazzaville et sa culture. Paris: L’Harmattan. Oates, Lynette F. 1988. The Muriwari language. Canberra: Australian National University. Olawsky, Knut J. 2011. A grammar of Urarina. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Onishi, Masayuki. 1994. A grammar of Motuna (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). Canberra: Australian National University. Osada, Toshiki. 1992. A reference grammar of Mundari. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. Osumi, Midori. 1995. Tinrin grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Palmer, Bill. 1999. A grammar of the Kokota language, Santa Isabel, Solomon Islands. PhD Thesis. University of Sydney. Pantcheva, Marina. 2009. Directional expressions cross-linguistically: Nanosyntax and lexicalization. Nordlyd 36(1). 7–39. Pantcheva, Marina. 2010. The syntactic structure of locations, goals, and sources. Linguistics 48(5). 1043–1081. Pantcheva, Marina. 2011. Decomposing path. The nanosyntax of directional expressions. PhDThesis University of Tromsø: Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education (CASTL). Paris, Catherine. 1989. West Circassian (Adyghe: Abzakh dialect). In B. George Hewitt (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The North West Caucasian languages, 155– 260. Delmar/NY: Caravan. Partchieva, Para & Françoise Guérin. 1997. Parlons tchétchène-ingouche. Langue et culture. Paris: L’Harmattan.

678 | References Paul, Hermann, Peter Wiehl & Siegfried Grosse. 1989. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Paul, Ludwig. 1998. Zazaki. Grammatik und Versuch einer Dialektologie. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Peace Corps. 1990. Ilonggo language packet. Manila: Peace Corps. Peace Corps. 1993. Ivatan language packet. Manila: Peace Corps. Pensalfini, Robert. 1997. Jingulu grammar, dictionary and texts. Perth: University of Western Australia. Pensalfini, Robert. 2011. Jingulu texts and dictionary: An aboriginal language of the Northern Territory. Canberra: Australian National University. Perrone, Luca. 1967. Novellistica Italo-Albanese. Firenze: Olschki. Pickett, Velma & Virginia Embrey. 1974. Zapoteco del Istmo, Juchitán, Oaxaca. México/DF: CIESAS. Pinheiro-Weber, Ursula. 2010. Bärndütsch. Ein Lehr- und Lernbuch. Bern: HEP-Verlag. Plaisier, Heleen. 2007. A grammar of Lepcha. Leiden: Brill. Pool, Peter A. S. 1979. Cornish for beginners. Penzance: The Cornish Language Board. Popjes, Jack & Jo Popjes. 1986. Canela-Krahô. In Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages. Vol. 1, 128–199. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Poulsen, Jóhan Hendrik W. et al. 1998. Føroya orðabók. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskapafelag. Press, Ian. 1986. A grammar of Modern Breton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Preuss, Konrad Theodor. 1926. Forschungsreise zu den Kágaba. St. Gabriel-Mödling bei Wien: Anthropos. Preuss, Konrad Theodor. 1927. Forschungsreise zu den Kágaba. Nachtrag: Lexikon. St. GabrielMödling bei Wien: Anthropos. Pride, Leslie & Kitty Pride. 1997. Chatino de la Zona Alta, Oaxaca. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Prince, John D. & Frank G. Speck. 1999. A vocabulary of Mohegan-Pequot. Southampton/Pa: Evolution. Pritsak, Omeljan. 1959a. Das Karaimische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Gronbech & Helmuth Scheel (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 318–339. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Pritsak, Omeljan. 1959b. Das Karatschaische und Balkarische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Gronbech & Helmuth Scheel (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 340–368. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Procházka, Stephan. 2002. Die arabischen Dialekte der Çukorova (Südtürkei). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Prokosch, Erich. 2006. Handbuch des Krimtatarischen unter Einschluss des Dobrudschatatarischen. Diachronische Grammatik mit kultur- und realkundlichem Hintergrund. Graz: Universität Graz. Pugh, Stefan M. & Ian Press. 1999. Ukrainian. A comprehensive grammar. London/New York: Routledge. Pukui, Mary Kawena & Samuel H. Elbert. 1986. Hawaiian dictionary. Hawaiian-English/EnglishHawaiian. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Quick, Phil. 2007. A grammar of the Pendau language of Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Canberra: Australian National University. Quintero, Carolyn. 2010. Osage dictionary. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1978. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman. Rabel, Lili. 1961. Khasi, a language of Assam. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

References | 679

Radeva, Vassilka (ed.). 2003. Bulgarische Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske. Rahmati, Nehmat & Korkut Buğday. 1998. Aserbaidschanisch Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rasoloson, Janie Noëlle. 1997. Lehrbuch der madagassischen Sprache. Hamburg: Buske. Rau, Der-Hwa V. 1992. A grammar of Atayal. PhD Thesis. Cornell University. Ray, Sidney H. & E. Baxter Riley. 1933. A grammar of the Kiwai language, Fly Delta, Papua. Port Moresby, Papua: E.G. Baker. Reesink, Ger P. 1987. Structures and their functions in Usan. A Papuan language of Papua New Guinea. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Refsing, Kirsten. 1986. The Ainu language. The morphology and syntax of the Shizunai dialect. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Regmi, Dan R. 2012. A grammar of Bhujel. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. Reh, Mechthild. 1985. Die Krongo-Sprache (nìino mó-dì). Berlin: Reimer. Reichard, Gladys A. 1951. Navaho grammar. New York: Augustin. Reintges, Chris H. 2004. Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic dialect). A learner’s grammar. Köln: Köppe. Rice, Keren. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11(2/3). 451–514. Richter, Eberhardt. 1983. Lehrbuch des modernen Burmesisch (Umgangssprache). Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Rivierre, Jean-Claude. 1980. La langue de Touho. Phonologie et grammaire du cè̅mu̅hî̅ (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Paris: SELAF. Robinson, Lila Wilstrand & James Armagost. 1990. Comanche dictionary and grammar. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968. Vom Vulgärlateinischen zum Altfranzösischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1977. Grammatica storica die dialetti italogreci (Calabria, Salento). München: Beck. Romero-Mendez, Rodrigo. 2009. A reference grammar of Ayutla Mixe. PhD Thesis. State University of New York at Buffalo. Rongier, Jacques. 1988. Apprenons l’ewe. Paris: L’Harmattan. Rowley, Anthony R. 2003. Liacht as de sproch. Grammatica della lingua mòchena/Grammatik des Deutsch-Fersentalerischen. Lusern: Kulturinstitut Bernstol. Rubino, Carl R. G. 2000. Ilocano dictionary and grammar: Ilocano-English, English-Ilocano. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Rudzīte, Marta. 1964. Latviešu dialektoloģija. Rīgā: Latvijas Valsts Izdevniecība. Ruge, Hans. 2002. Grammatik des Neugriechischen. Köln: Romiosini. Rupp, John. 1980. Chinanteco de San Juan Lealao. México/DF: CIESAS. Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saar, Eva (ed.). 2011. Uurali keelte sõnastik. Teine, paradndatud ja täiendatud trükk. Tallinn: Fenno-Ugria Asutus. Sakayan, Dora. 2000. Modern Western Armenian for the English-speaking world. A contrastive approach. Montreal: Arod. Sakel, Jeanette. 2011. A grammar of Mosetén. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Sammallahti, Pekka. 1998. The Saami languages. An introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji. Sara, Solomon I. 2001. A tri-lingual dictionary of Embera-Spanish-English. München: LINCOM. Savà, Graziano. 2005. A grammar of Ts'amakko. Köln: Köppe.

680 | References Scantamburlo, Luigi. 1981. Gramática e dicionário da língua criol da Guinée-Bissau (GCr). Bologna: Editrice Missionaria Italiana. Schadeberg, Thilo C. & Francisco U. Mucanheia. 2000. Ekoti: The Maka or Swahili language of Angoche. Köln: Köppe. Schanen, François & Jacqui Zimmer. 2012. Lëtzebuergesch grammaire luxembourgeoise. Esch-sur-Alzette: Éditions Schortgen. Schanen, François. 2004. Parlons luxembourgeois. Langue et culture linguistique d‘un petit pays au cœur de l’Europe. Paris: L’Harmattan. Schanidse, Akaki. 1982. Grammatik der altgeorgischen Sprache. Tbilissi: Universitätsverlag. Schmitt, Rüdiger. 2007. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Schuh, Russell G. 1972. Aspects of Ngizim syntax. PhD thesis. University of California, Los Angeles. Schuh, Russell G. 1981. A dictionary of Ngizim. Berkeley: University of California Press. Schütz, Albert J. & Rusiate T. Komaitai. 1971. Spoken Fijian. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Schweizer, Bruno. 2008. Zimbrische Gesamtgrammatik. Vergleichende Darstellung der zimbrischen Dialekte. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Seki, Lucy. 2000. Gramática do kamaiurá, língua tupi-guaraní do Alto Xingu. Campinas: Imprensa Oficial. Selcan, Zülfü. 1998. Grammatik der Zaza-Sprache. Nord-Dialekt (Dersim-Dialekt). Berlin: Wissenschaft und Technik. Senft, Gunter. 1986. Kilivila. The language of the Trobriand islanders. Berlin/New York/ Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Senn, Alfred. 1966. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. Band 1: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Shay, Erin & Uwe Seibert (eds.) 2003. Motion, direction and location in languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Siemund, Peter. 2001. Interrogative constructions. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals. An international handbook. Vol. 2, 1010–1028. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Silver, Shirley. 1966. The Shasta language. University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D. thesis. Sinha, Jasmin. 2000. Der neuostaramäische Dialekt von Bēṣpən (Provinz Mardin, Südosttürkei). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A grammar of Mapuche. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Smeets, Rieks (ed.). 1994. The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages Part 2 presenting the three Nakh languages and six minor Lezgian languages. Delmar/NY: Caravan Books. Sohn, Ho-min. 1994. Korean. London/New York: Routledge. Spellenberg, Friedrich. 1922. Die Sprache der Bo oder Bankon in Kamerun. Berlin/Hamburg: Reimer (Vohsen) & Boysen. Stairs, Glenn A. & Emily F. de Stairs. 1983. Huave de San Mateo del Mar. México/DF: CIESAS. Stanislav, Ján. 1977. Slowakische Grammatik. Bratislava: Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladateľstvo. Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Steenwijk, Han. 1992. The Slovene dialect of Resia San Giorgio. Amsterdam, Atlanta/GA: Rodopi.

References | 681

Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rohde. 2004. The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Motivation in grammar, 249–68. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Stevenson, Roland C. 2009. Tira and Otoro. Two Kordofanian grammars. Köln: Köppe. Stich, Dominique. 2001. Parlons schwytzertütsch. Le suisse-alémanique. Paris: L’Harmattan. Stoebke, Renate. 1968. Die Verhältniswörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications. Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2007. WITH(OUT): On the markedness relation between comitatives/instrumentals and abessives. Word 58(1/3). 63–158. Stolz, Thomas, Sander Lestrade & Christel Stolz. 2014. The crosslinguistics of zero-marking of spatial relations. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Stolz, Thomas. 1992. Lokalkasussysteme. Aspekte einer strukturellen Dynamik. Weinberg: Egert. Stolz, Thomas. 2007. Harry Potter meets Le Petit Prince – On the usefulness of parallel corpora in crosslinguistic investigation. Language Typology and Universals (STUF) 60(2). 100–117. Stolz, Thomas. 2013. Competing comparative constructions in Europe. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Suárez, Jorge A. 1988. Tlapaneco de Malinaltepec. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Sudlow, David. 2009. Dictionary of the Tamasheq of North-East Burkina Faso. Köln: Köppe. Sugareva, Tekla & Vera Atanasova. 1997. Nemsko-bălgarsko rečnik. Sofija: Atlantis. Suttles, Wayne P. 2004. Musqueam reference grammar. Vancouver, B.C: University of BritishColumbia Press. Svane, Gunar Olaf. 1958. Grammatik der slowenischen Sprache. Kopenhagen: Rosenkilde & Bagger. Svorou, Soteria. 1993. The grammar of space. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Taibbi, Giuseppe Rossi. 1994. Parte I: Introduzione, prelelomeni e testi di Roccaforte. In Giuseppe Rossi Taibbi & Girolamo Caracausi (eds.), Testi neogreci di Calabria, 1–286. Palermo: Istituto Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici Bruno Lavagnini. Tauli, Valter. 1983. Standard Estonian grammar. Part 2: Syntax. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Tecle, Zemicael. 2012. Deutsch-tigrinisches Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg & Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik. 2 Ord. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok. Terrill, Angela. 2011. A grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Thieberger, Nick. 2006. A grammar of South Efate: An Oceanic language of Vanuatu. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Thorne, David A. 1996. Gramadeg Cymraeg. Llandysul: Gomer. Thornton, Anna. 2011. Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds.), Morphological autonomy. Perspectives from Romance inflectional morphology, 358–381. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thráinsson, Höskuldur et al. 2004. Faroese. An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag. Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1975. A grammar of Old Irish. Dublin: The Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies. Tiling-Herrwegen, Alice. 2002. De kölsche Sproch. Kurzgrammatik Kölsch-Deutsch. Köln: J.P. Bachem.

682 | References Tjia, Johnny. 2007. A grammar of Mualang: An Ibanic language of Western Kalimantan, Indonesia. Utrecht: LOT. Tolsma, Gerard J. 2006. A grammar of Kulung. Leiden: Brill. Tompa, József. 1972. Kleine ungarische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Topping, Donald. 1973. Chamorro reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Tosco, Fiorenzo. 1997. Grammatica del genovese. Recco: Le mani. Touratier, Christian. 2013. Lateinische Grammatik. Linguistische Einführung in die lateinische Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Trillos, Amaya María. 1997. Categorías gramaticales del ette taara – lengua de los chimilas. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes. Trillos, Amaya María. 1999. Damana. München: LINCOM. Tschenkéli, Kita. 1958. Einführung in die georgische Sprache. Band 1: Theoretischer Teil. Zürich: Amirani. Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2011. A grammar of Warrongo. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Turin, Mark. 2012. A grammar of the Thangmi language: With an ethnolinguistic introduction to the speakers and their culture. Leiden: Brill. Turpin, Myfany. 2000. A learner’s guide to Kaytetye. Alice Springs, NT: IAD Press. Ultan, Russell. 1978. Some general characteristics of interrogative systems. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 4: Syntax, 211–248. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Ulvydas, K. 1971. Prieveiksmis. In K. Ulvydas et al. (eds.), Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 425–542. Vilnius: Mintis. Valeckienė, A. 1965. Įvardis. In K. Ulvydas et al. (eds.), Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 637–731. Vilnius: Mintis. Valfells, Sigrid & James E. Cathey. 1981. Old Icelandic. An introductory course. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vamarasi, Marit K. 2002. Rotuman. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. Van den Berg, Helma. 1995. A grammar of Hunzib (with texts and lexicon). München/Newcastle: LINCOM. Van Driem, George. 1993. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Vaverková, Irena et al. 1978. Nemecko-slovenský a slovensko-nemecký slovník. Bratislava: Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladateľstvo. Vincent, Alex. 1973. Notes on Tairora morphology. In Howard McKaughan (ed.), The languages of the Eastern family of the East New Guinea Highland Stock. Vol. 1, 535–547. Seattle/ London: University of Washington Press. Virtaranta, Pertti (ed.). 1974. Karjalan kielen sanakirja: Toinen osa K. Helsinki: Suomalaisugrilainen Seura. Voigtlander, Katherine & Artemisa Echegoyen. 1985. Luces contemporáneas del otomí. Gramática del otomí de la Sierra. México/DF: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Vorbichler, Anton. 1965. Die Phonologie und Morphologie des Balese (Ituri-Urwald, Kongo). Glückstadt: Augustin. Vries, Lourens. 2004. A short grammar of Inanwatan, an endangered language of the Bird’s Head of Papua, Indonesia. Canberra: Australian National University. Vujani, Milica. 2007. Rečnik srpskoga jezika. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska. Wälchli, Bernhard & Fernando Zuñiga. 2006. Source-goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59(3). 284–303.

References | 683

Wąsik, Zdzisław. 1982. Zur strukturellen Typologie der Fragen (anhand ausgewählter indoeuropäischer Sprachen der Gegenwart). Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 35(1). 466–475. Watahomigie, Lucille J. 2001. Hualapai reference grammar. Osaka: Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim. Webster’s. 1994. Webster’s encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the English language. Avenel/New Jersey: Random House. Wedekind, Klaus, Charlotte Wedekind & Abuzeinab Musa. 2007. A learner’s grammar of Beja (east Sudan): Grammar, texts and vocabulary (Beja-English and English-Beja). Köln: Köppe. Wentzel, Tatjana W. 1980. Die Zigeunersprache (Nordrussischer Dialekt). Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Werner, Heinrich. 1997. Die ketische Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz. Werner, Heinrich. 2002. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Jenissej-Sprachen. Band 1: A–K, Band 2: L–Š, Band 3: Onomastik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Werner, Roland. 1987. Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch). Hamburg: Buske. Westermann, Diedrich & Hans J. Melzian. 1930. The Kpelle language in Liberia. Grammatical outline, colloquial sentences, and vocabulary. Berlin: Reimer & Vohsen. Wetter, Andreas. 2010. Das Argobba: Eine deskriptive Grammatik der Varietät von Shonke und T'ollaha (Zentraläthiopien). Köln: Köppe. Wichmann, Søren. 2007. Popoluca de Texistepec. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Wiliam, Uriel. 1960. A short Welsh grammar. Landybie: Llyfrau’r Dryw. Williams, Corinne J. 1980. A grammar of Yuwaalaraay. Canberra: Australian National University. Williams, Stephen J. 1980. A Welsh grammar. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Williamson, Kai. 2006. Dictionary of Òṇìc̣hà Igbo. Cambridge: Roger Blench. Williams-van Klinken, Catharina, John Hajek & Rachel Nordlinger. 2002. A short grammar of Tetun Dili. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. Willkommen, Dirk. 2007. Esperanto-Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske. Winkler, Eberhard. 2011. Udmurtische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Woidich, Manfred. 2006. Das Kairenisch-Arabische. Eine Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Wolff, H. Ekkehard. 1993. Referenzgrammatik des Hausa. Münster/Hamburg: LIT. Woollams, Geoff. 1996. A grammar of Karo Batak, Sumatra. Canberra: Australian National University. Wordick, Frank J. F. 1982. The Yindjibarndi language. Canberra: Australian National University. Wurzel, Petra. 1997. Rojbaş. Einführung in die kurdische Sprache. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Zabjelina, V. P. Spolučne slovo de. http://kulturamovy.univ.kiev.ua/KM/pdfs/Magazine617.pdf (accessed last on 01 August 2016). Zajceva, Marija I. & Marija I. Mullonen. 1972. Slovar’ vepsskogo jazyka. Leningrad: Nauka. Zandvoort, Franklin D. 1999. A grammar of Matngele. BA honors sub-thesis. University of New England, Armidale, Australia. Zavala Maldonado, Roberto. 1992. Acateco de la frontera sur. México/DF: El Colegio de México. Zeshan, Ulrike. 2004. Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language 80(4). 7–39. Zinkevičius, Zygmas. 1966. Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis. Zof, Fausto. 2008. Gramatiche de lenghe furlane. Udine: Leonardo. Zoller, Claus P. 2005. A grammar and dictionary of Indus Kohistani: Vol. 1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

684 | Sources

Sources (a) Versions of the sample text LPP LPP Abkhaz LPP Afrikaans LPP Albanian (Gheg) LPP Albanian (Tosk) LPP Alemannic LPP Alsatian LPP Alur LPP Arabic (Algiers) LPP Aragonese LPP Aramaic LPP Aranese LPP Armenian (Eastern) LPP Aromunian LPP Asturian LPP Azerbaijani LPP Badiota LPP Bambara LPP Basque LPP Basque (Souletin) LPP Bavarian

Апринц хәыҷы (Aprints khutshy) [translated by Tarba, Neli]. Ak'wa: Alashara. 2006. Die klein prinsie [translated by Brink, André P.]. Kaapstad: Tafelberg. 1994. Princi i vogël [translated by Shehu, Gjyltekin]. Prishtinë: Rilindja. 1965. Princi i vogël [translated by Zheji, Petro]. Tirana: Shtëpia Botuese ‘Naim Frashëri’. 1986. Dr chlei Prinz [translated by Olbert, Adelheid]. Nidderau: Naumann. 2000. D’r klein Prinz [translated by Zipfel, Antoine]. Steinbrunn-leHaut: Éditions du Rhin. 1995. Nyathin wo rwoth manok [translated by Urwothun, Lepani-Henri]. Aachen: Lepani-Henri Urwothun. 1995. ήϴѧѧѧѧѧϣϷ΍ ήϴϐѧѧѧѧѧѧѧѧѧμϟ΍ (Al Amîr al-saghîr) [translated by Brousse, Lucienne &. Talbi Zahia]. Alger: Editions Barzakh. 2008. O prenzipet [translated by Aragüés, Chusé]. Zaragoza: Gara. 1994. Malkuno zcuro [translated by Adiyaman et al]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2005. Eth petit prince [translated by Barès, Verònica]. Barcelona: Entuarea Publicaciones. 2005. Փոքրիկ իշխանը (P'ok'rig ishkhanë) [translated by Harut’ yunyan, Saghat’el]. Yerevan: Luys Hrataraktsh'utyun. 1966. Njiclu amirārush [translated by Bara, Maria]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2007. El Principín [translated by García Arias, Xosé Lluis; Suárez Mella, Marta]. Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. 1984. Балаҹа Шаһзадә (Baladzha Shahzadä). [translated by Bağır, Cəfər]. Bakı: Gänclik. 1987. Le Pice Prinz [translated by Mischì, Giovanni]. San Martin de Tor: Istitut Cultural Ladin “Micurá de Rü”. 1993. Masadennin [translated by Jara, Bukari]. Bamako: Ed. Jamana. 2003. Printze Txikia [translated by Sipiri, Iñaki]. Donostia: Txertoa Argitaldaria. 2001. Printze ttipia [translated by Panpeia Etxebarne]. Maulèon: Sü Azia. 2013. Da kloa Prinz [translated by Spinner, Meinrad]. Nidderau: Naumann. 1999.

Sources | 685

LPP Belarusian LPP Bergamasco LPP Berlin German LPP Bologna Emiliano LPP Bosnian LPP Breton LPP Bulgarian LPP Carinthian LPP Catalan LPP Chechen LPP 1 Chinese LPP 2 Chinese LPP Cornish

LPP Corsican LPP Croatian LPP Croatian (Burgenland) LPP Czech LPP Danish LPP Drents LPP Dutch LPP Elfdalian LPP English (contemporary) LPP English (Middle)

Маленькі прынц (Malen’ki prync) [translated by Macjaš, Nina]. Minsk: Junactva. 1996. ‘L Prìncep Picinì [translated by Recanati, Margherita]. Treviglio: Leo Facco Editore. 2000. Der kleene Prinz [translated by Fröhlich, Christian]. Nidderau: Naumann. 2002 Al pränzip fangén [translated by Serra, Roberto]. Gressan: Wesak. 2003. Mali princ [translated by Becirbasic, Mirsad]. Sarajevo: Izdavacko Preduzecé Sejtarija. 1997. Ar Piñs Bihan [translated by Kermoal, Pierrette]. Plomelin: Preder. 1975. Малкият принц (Malkijat princ) [translated by Konstantinov, Konstantin]. 1963. Sofia: Narodna Mladež. Da klaane Prinz [translated by Krischnig, Alexander]. Nidderau: Naumann. 2002. El Petit Príncep [translated by Xancó, Juan]. Barcelona: Emecé Editores. 1991. Жима эла (Žima ela) [translated by Abdulaev, L]. Sölzha-Qala: Stela'adan Biblioteka. 2003. Xiao wang zi [translated by Ku, Pituan]. Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council. 1994. http://www.szdrlj.com/library/cpth/xwz/index.html (last accessed 8th December 2016). An pennsevik byhan [translated by Stephen, Davydh; Snell, Tony; Bock, Albert; Bruch, Benjamin; Prohaska, Daniel]. Neckarsteinach, Germany: Edition Tintenfaß. 2010. U principellu [translated by Casta, Santu]. Ajaccio: Akenaton; Squadra di u Finusellu. 1990. Mali kraljević [translated by Kušan, Ivan]. Zagreb: Znanje. 1995. Mali princ [translated by Rotter, Ivan]. Eisenstadt/Zeljezno: Hrvatsko Stamparsko Drustvo. 1998. Malý princ [translated by Stavinohová, Zdeňka]. Praha: Albatros. 1996. Den lille prins [translated by Hoff-Jørgensen, Asta]. København: Lindhardt o Ringhof. 1991. De kleine prins [translated by Darwinkel, Abel]. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfaß. 2009. De Kleine Prins [translated by Beaufort-van Hamel, Laetitia de]. Rotterdam: Ad. Donker n. v. 1989. Lisslprinsn [translated by Westling, Bo]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2007. The Little Prince [translated by Woods, Katherine]. London: Mammoth. 1994. The litel prynce [translated by Sauer, Walter]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2008.

686 | Sources LPP English (Old) LPP Eonavian LPP Esperanto LPP Estonian LPP Extremaduran LPP Faroese LPP Finnish LPP Franconian LPP French LPP Frisian (Eastern) LPP Frisian (Fering) LPP Frisian (Frasch) LPP Frisian (Sölring) LPP Frisian (Western) LPP Friulian LPP Galician LPP Gallurese Sardinian LPP Gardenese LPP Gascon LPP Genoese LPP Georgian LPP German LPP German (Middle High) LPP German (Old High)

Be þam lytlan æþelinge [translated by Kemmler, Fritz]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2010. El Principín [translated by Frías-Conde, Xavier]. Spain: self edited. 2008. La Eta Princo [translated by Delaire, Pierre]. Canadà: Kanada Esperanto-Asocio. 1989. Väike prints [translated by Ojamaa, Ott]. Tallinn: Tiritamm. 1993. El prencipinu [translated by Garríu Correas, Antòniu]. Badajoz: Carisma Libros. 1999. Tann lítli prinsurin [translated by Kristiansen, Alexandur]. Fuglafjørður: Egið Forlag. 1980. Pikku prinssi [translated by Packalén, Irma]. Porvoo, Helsinki, Juva: WSOY. 1951. Der klaa Prinz [translated by Press, Hartmut]. Nidderau: Naumann. 1998. Le petit prince. Paris: Éditions Gallimard. 1946. Die litje Prins [translated by Gretchen Grosser]. Neckersteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2009. De letj prens [translated by Arfsten, Antje Kristine]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2010. Di latje prins [translated by Laabs, Ingo]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2010. Di litj Prins [translated by Schrahé, Erk-Uwe]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2011. De lytse prins [translated by Smink, Jacobus Q.]. Boalsert: Koperative Utjowerij. 1998. Il pičul princip [translated by Seravalli, Bruno]. Gemona: Casa per l’Europa. 1992. O principiño [translated by Casares, Carlos]. Vigo: Galaxia. 1994. Lu principeddhu [translated by Corda, Alessandra]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2014. L Pitl Prinz [translated by Prinoth, Beatrix]. San Martin de Tor: Istitut Cultural Ladin “Micurá de Rü”. 1993. Lo prinçòt [translated by Morá, Pèir]. Gradignan: Princi negre. 1995. O prinçipìn [translated by Garibbo, Alessandro]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2011. პატარა უფლისწული (Patara uplistsuli) [translated by Č'imakadze, Giorgi]. Tbilisi: Nakaduli. 1962. Der kleine Prinz [translated by Leitgeb, Josef; Leitgeb Grete]. Düsseldorf: K. Rauch. 1995. Daz prinzelîn [translated by Birkhan, Helmut]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2008. Dher luzzilfuristo [translated by Froschauer, Regine]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2009.

Sources | 687

Ο μικρός πρίγκηπαςO (mikros prinkipas). [translated by Theodorakis, Thanasis K.]. Athens: Ekdosis Pella. 1993. LPP Guadeloupean Creole French Tiprens-la [translated by Chilin, Robert]. Lamentin: Caraïbéditions. 2010. LPP Guaraní Mitãmi [translated by Las Nieves, Domínguez de; Chamorro, Enrique]. Asunción: Espectrograf. 2005. LPP Guianese Creole French Tiprens-A. [translated by Désiré, Aude]. Lamentin: Caraïbéditions. 2010. LPP Hawaiian Ke keiki ali'i li'ili'i [translated by Nesmith, Keao]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2013. LPP Hessian De klaane Prinz [translated by Naumann, Bernhard]. Nidderau: Naumann. 1998. LPP Hungarian A kis herceg [translated by György, Rónay]. Budapest: Móra Ferenc Könyvkiadó. 1971. LPP Icelandic Litli prinsinn [translated by Þórarinn Björnssonn]. Reykjavik: Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóds. 1988. LPP Indonesian Pangeran Kecil [translated by Kardjo, Wing]. Jakarta: Putaka Jaya. 1979. LPP Irish An prionsa beag [translated by Doibhlin, Breandán]. Dublin: Read Ireland. 2007. LPP Italian Il piccolo principe [translated by Bompiani Bregoli, Nini]. Milano: Tascabili Bompiani. 1994. LPP Japanese 星の王子さま (Hoshi no ōjisama) [translated by Naitō, Arō]. Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten. 1962. LPP Kabuverdianu Prispinhu [translated by Quint, Nicolas, Semedo, Aires]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2013. LPP Kabyle Ageldun amectuh [translated by Mansuri, Habib-Allah]. Algeria: Haut Commissariat à l'Amazighité, Direction de la Promotion Culturelle. 2004. LPP Kaqchikel Ri ch'uti'ajpop [translatted by Matzar, Lolmay Pedro Oscar García]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2011. LPP Kashubian Môłi Ksyżëc [translated by Walkùsz, W]. 2001. LPP Kazakh Кішкентай Шахзада (Kishkentay Shahzada) [translated by Konaeva, Zhanar]. Almaty: Printhaus. 2004. LPP Kirghiz Кичинекей Ханзада (Kičinekej Chanzada) [translated by Saližan Žigitov]. Bishkek: CACSA. 2001. LPP Kölsch Dä kleine Prinz [translated by Tiling-Herrwegen, Alice; Gröbe, Volker]. Nidderau: Naumann. 1999. LPP Korean Ŏrin wangja [translated by Kim, Hwa-yŏng]. 2007. Kyŏnggi-do P'aju-si: Munhak Tongne. LPP Kurmanji Mûrzayê piçûk [translated by Husên, Fawaz]. İstanbul: Acesta Basın Yayın. 2011. LPP Languedocien Lo princilhon [translated by Blanc, Jòrdi]. Andouque: Vent terral. 1994. LPP Latin Regulus. Vel pueri soli sapiunt [translated by Haury, Auguste]. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1985. LPP Greek (Modern)

688 | Sources Mazais Princis [translated by Lase, Ieva]. Rīga: Izdevniecība ‘Liesma’. 1995. LPP Laz Ḉiťa Mapaskiri [translated by Albayrakoğlu, Sinan]. Istanbul: Lazika. 2011. LPP Lemko Малий прінц (Malij Prìnc) [translated by Krynicki, Piotr]. Strzelce Krajeńskie: Lemko Tower. 2013. LPP Lìegeois Li p’tit prince [translated by Fontaine, Guy]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2012. LPP Limburgish (North) ‘t Prinske [translated by Hendrikx, Leo]. Heerlen: Stichting voor Dialect- en Cultuuronderwijs. 1996. LPP Limburgish (South) D’r klinge prins [translated by Robroek, Leonie]. Heële/Heerlen: Stichting voor Dialect- en Cultuuronderwijs Limburg. 1996. LPP Limousin Lo Prinçonet [translated by Rainal, Paul]. 2011. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass. LPP Lithuanian Mažasis princas [translated by Kauneckas, Vytautas]. Vilnius: Džiugas. 1995. LPP Lorrain Franconian De klääne prinz [translated by Haas-Heckel, Marianne]. Sarreguemines: Éd. Faïencité. 2002. LPP Lovari O cino krajoro [translated by Rostás-Farkas, György]. Budapest: self edited. 1994. LPP Low German (East Frisia) De lüttke Prinz [translated by Book, Heinrich]. Werlte: Goldschmidt-Druck (self edited). 2004. LPP Low German (Holstein) De lütte Prinz [translated by Richter, Arnd Immo]. Nidderau: Naumann. 2000. LPP Luxembourgish De Klenge Prënz [translated by Braun, Josy]. Differdange: Editions Phi. 2009. LPP Macedonian Малиот Принц (Maliot Princ) [translated by Čepinčić, Mira]. Skopje: Detska Radost. 1998. LPP Malagasy Ilay Andriandahy Kely [translated by Rabenilaina, Roger Bruno]. Antananarivo: Foi et Justice. 1997. LPP Maltese Iċ-Ċkejken Prinċep [translated by Aquilina, Toni]. L-Imsida: Mireva Publications. 2000. LPP Mari (Western) Изи принц (Izi Prints) [translated by Opleva, Irina]. Tsikmä: Sarta knigä lykmaš. 2008. LPP Marquesan Te tama hakāìki iti [translated by Tetahiotupa, Tehaumate; Tetahiotupa, Edgar]. Papeete: Haere Pō. 2010. LPP Martiniquan Creole French Ti-prens lan [translated by Saint-Louis, Marie-José]. Lamentin: Caraïbéditions. 2010. LPP Megrelian პატარა უფლისწული (Ç’iç’e Mapaskiri) [translated by Karchava, Givi G.]. Istanbul: Laz Kültür Derneği Yayınları. 2013. LPP Milanese El Princip Piscinin [translated by Banfi, Lorenzo]. Gressan: Wesak Editions. 2002. LPP Moldavian Micul Prinţ [translated by Creţu, Igor]. Chişinău: Editura Fat Frumos. 1994. LPP Latvian

Sources | 689

LPP Morisyen LPP Neapolitan LPP Niçard LPP Norwegian (Bokmål) LPP Occitan (Piemonte) LPP Otomí LPP Palatinate LPP Papiamentu LPP Parmigiano LPP Pennsylvania German LPP Picard LPP Picard (Borain) LPP Piemontese LPP Plautdietsch LPP Polish LPP Portuguese LPP Provençal I LPP Provençal II LPP Quechua (Cuzqueño) LPP Quechua (Kichwa) LPP Romanesco LPP Romanian LPP Ruhr German

Zistwar Ti-Prens [translated by Virahsawmy, Dev]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2006. ‘O princepe piccerillo [translated by D'Ajello, Roberto]. Sorrento: F. Di Mauro. 2003. Lou pichin prince [translated by Rosso, Albert]. Pau: Princi negre. 2002. Den lille prinsen [translated by Hagerup, Inger]. Oslo: Aschehoug. 1994. Ël Pchi Prinsë [translated by Jayme, Giovanna]. Gressan: Éditions Wesak. 2001. Ra zi ts'unt'u dängandä [translated by Alavez, Raymundo Isidro]. Ixmiquilpan: CEMCA & Hmunts'a Hem'i. 2012. De kläne Prinz [translated by Sauer, Walter]. Nidderau: Naumann. 1998. E Prens Chikí [translated by Jongh, Edward de; Cras, Stanley]. Curaçao: Editoryal Antiyano. 1982. Al principén [translated by Porcari, Paolo]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2011. Der glee Prins [translated by Louden, Mark Laurence]. Neckarsteinach: Edition Tintenfass. 2006. El’ pétit prince [translated by Delmotte, Bruno]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2010. Ël pëtit prēce [translated by Capron, André]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2010. Ël Cit Prinsi [translated by Perrini, Gianluca]. Turin: Gioventura Piemontèisa. 2000. Dee tjliena Prinz [translated by Thiessen, Jack]. Nidderau: Naumann. 2002. Mały książę [translated by Szwykowski, Jan]. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax. 1996. O Principezinho [translated by Morais Varela, Joana]. Lisboa: Editora Caravela. Year of publication unknown. Lou pichot prince [translated by Ariès, Andriéu]. Aix-en-Provence: Édisud. 1995. Lou princihoun [translated by Berengier, Peireto]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2011. Quyllur llaqtayuq wawamanta [translated by Cornejo Endara, Lydia; Itier, César]. Cuzco: Asociación Pukllasunchis. 2002. Auquicu [translated by Gallegos, Teodoro; Coloma, León]. Quito: CEDIME (EBI). 1989. Er Principetto [translated by Marcelli, Maurizio]. Bologna: Massimiliano Piretti Editore. 2011. Micul Prinț [translated by Corlaciu, Benedict]. Bucarest: Editura Ion Creangă. 1996. De kleene Prinz [translated by Henselowsky, Rainer]. Nidderau: Naumann. 2008.

690 | Sources LPP Rumantsch Grischun LPP Russian LPP Saami (Inari) LPP Saami (North) LPP Saami (Skolt) LPP Saarlandish LPP Sardinian LPP Scots-Gaelic LPP Sephardic LPP Serbian (new) LPP Serbian (old) LPP Seselwa LPP Sicilian LPP Slavomolisano LPP Slovak LPP Slovenian LPP Somali LPP Sorbian (Lower) LPP Sorbian (Upper) LPP Spanish LPP Surmiran-Albula LPP Swabian LPP Swahili

Il pitschen prinzi [translated by Monn, Ursulina]. Cuira: Lia rumantscha. 2005. Маленький принц (Malen'kiy princ) [translated by Gal’, Nora]. Moskva: Molodaja Gvardija. 1992. Uccâ priinsâš [translated by Mattus, Iisakki]. Ánâr: Sämitigge. 2000. Bás prinssaš [translated by Vuolab, Kerttu]. Porvoo: WSOY. 1981. U'cc priinsâž [translated by Fofonoff, Kati-Claudia]. Ánâr: Sää'mte'ǧǧ. 2000. De glään Brins [translated by Braun, Edith]. Nidderau: Naumann. 2001. Su Prinzipeddu [translated by Deplano, Andria]. Cagliari: Artigianarte. 1997. Am prionnsa beag [translated by Jones, George]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2008. El princhipiko [translated by Perets, Avner; Pimienta, Gladys]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2010. Мали принц (Mali princ) [translated by Grozdanic, Oksana]. Beograd: Akia Mali Princ. 2005. Мали принц (Mali princ) [translated by Jelić, Strahinja]. Beograd: Advik. 1992. Pti Prens [translated by Sabadin, James J.] Victoria: Lenstititi Pedagozi Nasyonal. 1985. U principinu [translated by Gallo, Mario]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2010. Mali kraljič [translated by Breu, Walter, Gliosca, Nicola]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2009. Maly princ [translated by Šmatláková, Elena]. Bratislava: Mlade leta. 1997. Mali princ [translated by Minatti, Ivan]. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. 1991. Wül yar oo amür ah [translated by Gouré Farah, Abdulghani]. Lausanne: Favre. 2010. Ten mały princ [translated by Jannasch, Peter]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2010. Mały princ [translated by Knoblochec, Claudia]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2006. El principito [translated by del Carril, Bonifacio]. Madrid: El Libro de Bolsillo. 1995. Igl Pitschen Prenci [translated by Cadotsch, Peder]. Cuir: Ediziun Leia Rumantscha. 1997. Dr kleine Prinz [translated by Mergel, Manfred]. Nidderau: Naumann. 1999. Mwana Mdogo Wa Mfalme [translated by Kruse, Philipp; Bgoya, Walter]. Dar es Salaam: Mkuki Na Nyoka Pub. 2009.

Sources | 691

LPP Swedish LPP Swiss German (Bern) LPP Tagalog LPP Tahitian LPP Tatar LPP Tetun

LPP Toba

LPP Turkish LPP Tyrolean (Burggräfel) LPP Tyrolean (Northern) LPP Udmurt LPP Ukrainian LPP Upper Austrian German LPP Uzbek

LPP Valdotain LPP Valenciano LPP Vallader LPP Venetian LPP Viennese German LPP Vietnamese LPP Walloon LPP Walloon (Central)

Lille prinsen [translated by Bang, Gunvor]. Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren. 1993. Der chly Prinz [translated by Pauli, Lorenz]. Bern: Buchverlag Lokwort. 2005. Ang munting prinsipe [translated by Ching, Desiderio]. Quezon City: Claretian. 1991. Te tamaiti ari'i iti [translated by Martin, John Faatae]. Papeete: Haere Pō. 2006. Нәни Принц (Näni Prins) [translated by Väliev, Rasil]. Kazan: Tatarstan kitap näshrijaty. 2000. Liurai-Oan Ki'ik [translated by Esperança, João Paulo; Corte-Real de Oliveira, Triana; Almeida de Araújo, Emília]. Dili: Timor Aid & SUL. 2010. So shiỹaxauolec nta'a [translated by Moreno, Valentín et al.] Asnières sur Seine: Association pour l'échange artistique et culturel. 2005. Küçük Prens [translated by Avunç, Yasar]. Istanbul: Mavibulut. 2006. Dr Kluane Prinz [translated by Innerhofer, Maridl]. Gressan: Éditions Wesak. 2002. Der kluene Prinz [translated by Regensburger, Annemarie]. Nidderau: Naumann. 2003. Пичи Принц (Piči Princ) [translated by Bajterjakov, Nikolaj]. 1989. Маленький принц (Malen’kyj prync) [translated by Žalovs’kyj, Anatolij]. Kyiv: Molod’. 1976. Da kloane Prinz [translated by Mairinger, Hans Dieter]. Nidderau: Naumann. 2002. Кичкина Шаҳзода (Kichkina Shahzoda) [translated by Sultonov, Xayriddin]. Toshkent: Yosh Gvardiya – Durdona seriyasi. 2003. Lo petsou prince [translated by Vautherin, Raymond]. Gressan Vallée d'Aoste: Wesakeditions. 2000. El príncep xiquet [translated by Arabí, Jaume]. Barcelona: Entuarea Publicaciones. 2007. Il Pitschen Prinzi [translated by Vital, Not; Arquint, Jachen Curdin]. Cuoira: Lia rumantscha. 1979. El Principe Picinin [translated by Penello, Nicoletta]. Gressan: Éditions Wesak. 2003. Der klane Prinz [translated by Sokop, Hans Weana]. Nidderau: Naumann. 2001. Hoàng Tử Bé [translated by Giáng, Bùi]. Ho Chi Minh City: Nhà xuât bản văn nghệ. 1994. Li p’tit prince [translated by Fauconnier, Jean-Luc]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2008. Li p’tit prince [translated by Louis, Bernard]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2013.

692 | Sources LPP Welsh LPP Yiddish LPP Yucatec LPP Zazaki LPP Zulu

Y tywysog bach [translated by Dafis, Llinos]. Neckarsteinach: Edition Tintenfaß. 2007. Der kleyner prints [translated by Lerman, Shloyme]. Niderau: Mikhaela Nauman farlag. 2000. Chan Ajau [translated by Colli Colli, Amedée]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfass. 2010. Şazadeo Qickek [translated by Keskin, Mesut]. Neckarsteinach: Ed. Tintenfaß. 2009. Inkosana encane [translated by Madondo, Sibusiso Hyacinth]. Johannesburg: STE Publishers. 2006.

(b) Versions of the sample text HP HP Albanian (Tosk) HP Bosnian HP Breton HP Bulgarian

HP Greek (Ancient) HP Greek (Modern) HP Irish HP Latvian HP Lithuanian HP Low German (Holstein) HP Luxembourgish HP Macedonian

HP Norwegian (Bokmål) HP Serbian

HP Slovak

Harry Potter dhe guri filozofal [translated by Amik Kasoruho]. Tirana: Dituria. 2001. Harry Potter i kamen mudrosti [translated by Mirjana Evtov]. Sarajevo: Buybook. 2011. Harry Potter ha Maen ar Furien [translated by Mark Kerrain]. Pornic: An Amzer. 2012. Хари Потър и Философският камък (Hari Poter i Filosofskijat kamek) [translated by Teodora Dzhebarova]. Sofii︠a︡: Egmont. 2001. Hareios Potēr kaì hē philosóphou líthos [translated by Andrew Wilson]. London: Bloomsbury. 2004. O Hári Póter kai ē Philosophikḗ Líthos [translated by Máia Poútsou]. Athḗna: Smartis. 2001. Harry Potter agus an Órchloch [translated by Máire Nic Mhaoláin]. London: Bloomsbury. 2004. Harijs Poters un Filozofu akmens [translated by Ingus Josts]. Rīgā: Jumava. 2001. Haris Poteris ir Išminties akmuo [translated by Zita Marienė]. Vilnius: Alma Littera. 2000. Harry Potter un de Wunnersteen [translated by Hartmut Cyriacks & Peter Nissen]. Kiel: Michael Jung. 2002. Den Harry Potter an den Alchimistensteen [translated by Florence Berg]. Luxembourg: Kairos Edition. 2009. Хари Потер и Каменот на мудроста (Hari Poter i Kamenot na mudrosta) [translated by Blagorodna Bogoeska-Anćevska]. Skopje: Kultura. 2002. Harry Potter og de vises stein [translated by Torstein Bugge Høverstad]. Oslo: N. W. Damm & Søn. 2001. Hari Poter i Kamen mudrosti [translated by Draško Roganović & Vesna Stamenković Roganović]. Beograd: Alfa – Narodna Knjiga. 2000. Harry Potter a Kameň mudrcov [translated by Jana Petrikovičová]. Bratislava: Ikar. 2000.

Sources | 693

HP Slovenian HP Welsh

Harry Potter in Kamen modrosti [translated by Jakob J. Kenda]. Ljubljana: Epta. 1999. Harri Potter a Maen yr Athronydd [translated by Emily Huws]. London: Bloomsbury. 2003.

(c) Sundry literary sources [Amok] [Pantagruel]

[Plattbarft] [Postroov] [Vaubang]

Forgiarini, Tullio. 2011. Amok. Eng Lëtzebuerger Liebeschronik. Luxemburg: Guy Binsfeld. Rabelais, François. [1532] 1998. Pantagruel. Texte intégral + Les clés de l’œuvre. Édition bilingue. Traduction en français moderne, préface et commentaires de Marie-Madeleine Fragonard. Paris: Pocket. Foster, Hans-Jürgen. 2002. Plattbarft. Hamburg: QuickbornVerlag. Groth, Karl Heinz & Groth, Carl. 1997. De Postroov un anner Kriminolgeschichten. Neumünster: Wachholtz. Weis, Adel. [1977] 2003. Um Vaubang. Alstaadter Geschichten. Luxembourg: Actioun Lëtzebuergesch.

Affiliation

Abkhaz-Adyge Abkhaz-Adyge Timor-Alor-Pantar Mayan Arawakan Indo-European, Germanic Ainu Indo-European, Albanian Indo-European, Albanian Indo-European, Albanian Indo-European, Albanian Indo-European, Albanian Indo-European, Albanian Indo-European, Germanic Eskimo-Aleut, Aleut Indo-European, Germanic Nilotic Austronesian, Malayo-Sumbawan Indo-European, Lower Guinea Portuguese Athapaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, Athapaskan Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Afro-Asiatic, Semitic

Glossonym

Abaza Abkhaz Abui Acatec (de la Frontera) Achagua Afrikaans Ainu Albanian (Eianina/Cosenza) Albanian (Falconara/Cosenza) Albanian (Gheg) Albanian (Gheg - Drenica) Albanian (Greci/Avellino) Albanian (Tosk) Alemannic Aleut Alsatian Alur Ambonese Malay Angolar Apache Arabic (Algiers) Arabic (Cukorova) Arabic (Cypriot)

Appendix: Language sample Europe Europe Oceania Americas Americas Africa Asia Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Americas Europe Africa Asia Africa Americas Africa Europe Europe

Continent

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

LPP

X X

X X X

X

X X X

X X X

DGB & other X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X X

instatistics

X X

X X

X X

additionally discussed X

Appendix: Language sample

Affiliation

Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Indo-European, Romance Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Indo-European, Romance Algic Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Indo-European, Armenian Indo-European, Armenian Indo-European, Armenian Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Austronesian, Atayalic Sepik Aymara Turkic, Oghuz Indo-European, Romance Pama-Nyungan, Yarli-Baagandji Atlantic-Congo, Ubangi Central Sudanic Turkic, Kipchak Mande Atlantic-Congo, Bantu Austronesian, Oceanic

Glossonym

Arabic (Kairean) Arabic (Modern Standard) Aragonese Aramaic Aramaic (Bēṣpən) Aranese Arapaho Arbore Argobba Armenian (Eastern) Armenian (Western) Armenian (Old) Aromunian Asturian Atayal Awtuw Aymara Azerbaijani Badiota Bāgandji Baka Balese Balkar Bambara Bankon Bannoni

696 | Appendix: Language sample

Africa Asia Europe Europe Europe Europe Americas Africa Africa Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Oceania Oceania Americas Europe Europe Oceania Africa Africa Europe Africa Africa Oceania

Continent

X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

LPP

X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X

DGB & other X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

instatistics X X X X

X

X X

X

additionally discussed

696 Appendix: Language sample

Sino-Tibetan, Kiranti Nyulnyulan Turkic, Kipchak Basque Basque Austronesian, Northwest Sumatra-Barrier Islands Indo-European, Germanic Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic Indo-European, Slavic Indo-European, Dutch Caribbean Creole Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Germanic Sino-Tibetan, Kham Pama-Nyungan, Desert Nyungic Indo-European, Guinea Coast Creole English Mande Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Slavic Indo-European, Celtic Indo-European, Celtic Indo-European, Celtic Indo-European, Celtic Indo-European, Slavic Sino-Tibetan, Burmish Burushaski

Bantawa Bardi Bashkir Basque Basque (Souletin) Batak Karo

Bavarian Beja Belarusian Berbice Dutch Bergamasco Berlin German Bhujel Bilinara Bislama Boko/Busa Bologna Emiliano Bosnian Breton Breton (Gwened) Breton (Middle) Breton (Pélem) Bulgarian Burmese (Colloquial) Burushaski

Affiliation

Glossonym

Europe Africa Europe Americas Europe Europe Asia Oceania Oceania Africa Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Asia Asia

Asia Oceania Europe Europe Europe Asia

Continent

X

X X X

X X

X

X

X X

LPP

X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X

X

X

DGB & other X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

instatistics X X

X X X

X

additionally discussed

Appendix: Language sample | 697

Appendix: Language sample

697

Continent Asia Americas Europe Europe Oceania Asia Oceania Americas Europe Asia Americas Americas Americas Europe Americas Americas Americas Africa/Asia Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Americas

Affiliation

Sino-Tibetan, Kiranti Nuclear-Macro-Je Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Romance Austronesian, Oceanic Sino-Tibetan, Pattani Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Otomanguean, Zapotecan Nakh-Daghestanian, Nakh Sino-Tibetan, Sinitic Otomanguean, Popoloca-Mazatecan Muskogean Mayan Turkic, Bolgar Chibchan, Magdalenic Uto-Aztecan, Numic Salishan Afro-Asiatic, Egyptian Indo-European, Celtic Indo-European, Celtic Indo-European, Romance Turkic, Kipchak Turkic, Kipchak Indo-European, Slavic Indo-European, Slavic Siouan

Glossonym

Camling Canela-Krahô Carinthian Catalan Cèmuhî Chamba-Lahuli Chamorro Chatino (Zona Alta) Chechen Chinese Chocho Choctaw Chuj Chuvash Cogui Comanche Comox Coptic (Sahidic) Cornish Cornish (Middle) Corsican Crimean Tatar Crimean Tatar (Dobrudja) Croatian Croatian (Burgenland) Crow

698 | Appendix: Language sample

X X

X

X

X XX

X X

LPP

X X

X X

X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

DGB & other X X

X X X

X X

X X

instatistics X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X

X

additionally discussed

698 Appendix: Language sample

Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Americas Europe Oceania Asia Oceania Oceania Europe Asia Europe Africa Africa Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Oceania

Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Slavic Indo-European, Slavic Indo-European, Slavic Chibchan, Magdalenic Indo-European, Germanic Pama-Nyungan, Maxleay-New England Sino-Tibetan, Dhimalish Pama-Nyungan, Yuulngu Austronesian, Oceanic Indo-European, Germanic Sino-Tibetan, Kiranti Indo-European, Germanic Mande Atlantic-Congo, Bantu Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Romance Austronesian, Oceanic Artificial Language Uralic, Finnic Chibchan

Cymbrian (Giazza) Cymbrian (Roana) Czech Czech (central Moravian) Czech (eastern Moravian) Damana Danish Dhanggati Dhimal Djapu Drehu Drents Dumi Dutch Dyula Ekoti Elfdalian English (contemporary) English (Early Modern) English (Middle) English (Old) Eonavian Erromanga (Sie) Esperanto Estonian Ette Taara Europe Americas

Continent

Affiliation

Glossonym

X X

X X X

X X

X

X

X

X

LPP

X X X X

X X X

X X

X

X X X X X X X X

DGB & other X X

X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

instatistics

X

X X X

X X

additionally discussed X X

Appendix: Language sample | 699

Appendix: Language sample

699

Affiliation

Atlantic-Congo, Gbe Indo-European, Romance Afro-Asiatic, Chadic Indo-European, Germanic Austronesian, Oceanic Austronesian, Oceanic Uralic, Finnic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Romance Atlantic-Congo, North Atlantic Austronesian, Oceanic Turkic, Oghuz Cariban Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance

Glossonym

Ewe Extremaduran Fali Faroese Fijian Fijian (Boumaa) Finnish Franconian French French (Middle) French (Old) Frisian (Eastern) Frisian (Fering) Frisian (Frasch) Frisian (Sölring) Frisian (Western) Friulian Fula Futuna-Aniwa Gagauz Galibi Carib Galician Gallurese Sardinian Gardenese Gascon Genoese

700 | Appendix: Language sample

Africa Europe Africa Europe Oceania Oceania Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Africa Oceania Europe Americas Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe

Continent

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X

X

X

LPP

X

X X X X X

X X

X X X X X

DGB & other X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

instatistics X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X

additionally discussed

700 Appendix: Language sample

Affiliation

Kartvelian Kartvelian, Oghuz Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Graeco-Phrygian Indo-European, Graeco-Phrygian Indo-European, Graeco-Phrygian Indo-European, Graeco-Phrygian Indo-European, Graeco-Phrygian Eskimo-Aleut Indo-European, Circum-Caribbean French Tupian, Tupi-Guarani Uto-Aztecan, Tarahumaran Indo-European, Circum-Caribbean French Pama-Nyungan, Gumbaynggiric Afro-Asiatic, Chadic Pama-Nyungan, Yimidhirr-Yalanji-Yidinic Salishan Afro-Asiatic, Chadic Austronesian, Polynesian Afro-Asiatic, Chadic Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Indo-European, Germanic Austronesian, Greater Central Philippine

Glossonym

Georgian Georgian (Old) German German (Middle High) German (Old High) Gothic Greek (Modern) Greek (Ancient) Greek (Calabrian) Greek (Kastelli) Greek (Salento) Greenlandic (West) Guadeloupean Creole French Guaraní Guarijío Guianese Creole French Gumbaynggirr Gùrdùn Guugu Yimidhirr Halkomelem (Upriver) Hausa Hawaiian Hdi Hebrew Hessian Hiligaynon

Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Oceania Africa Oceania Americas Africa Oceania Africa Asia Europe Asia

Continent

X

X

X

X X

X

X X X

X

LPP

X

X X X X X X X X

X X

DGB & other X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X

instatistics X

X X X X

X X X

X

additionally discussed

Appendix: Language sample | 701

Appendix: Language sample

701

Affiliation

Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Nakh-Daghestanian, Dhagestanian Uto-Aztecan Cochimi-Yuman, Yuman Huavean Uto-Aztecan Uralic Nakh-Daghestanian, Dhagestanian Nadahup Austronesian, Oceanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Austronesian, Northern Luzon Inanwatan Austronesian, Malayo-Sumbawan Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Uralic, Finnic Nakh-Daghestanian, Nakh Pama-Nyungan, Karnic Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic Indo-European, Celtic Indo-European, Celtic Indo-European, Romance Chukotko-Kamchatkan Austronesian, Batanic Japonic

Glossonym

Hindi Hinuq Hopi Hualapai Huave (San Mateo del Mar) Huichol Hungarian Hunzib Hup Iaaï Icelandic Icelandic (Old) Iloko Inanwatan Indonesian Indus Kohistani Ingrian Ingush Innamincka Iraqw Irish Irish (Old) Italian Itelmen Ivatan Japanese

702 | Appendix: Language sample

Asia Europe Americas Americas Americas Americas Europe Europe Americas Oceania Europe Europe Asia Oceania Asia Asia Europe Europe Oceania Africa Europe Europe Europe Asia Oceania Asia

Continent

X

X

X

X

X

X

LPP

X X X

X X X X X X X

DGB & other X X X X X X X X X X (X) X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

instatistics X

X

X X

X

X

X

additionally discussed

702 Appendix: Language sample

Affiliation

Aymara Mirndi Central Sudanic, Saraic Abkhaz-Adyge Indo-European, Upper Guinea Portuguese Afro-Asiatic, Berber Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Mongolic Tupian, Tupi-Guarani Austronesian, Central Malayo-Polynesian Saharan Mayan Turkic, Kipchak Turkic, Kipchak Uralic, Finnic Indo-European, Slavic Nuclear Trans New Guinea, Huon Tangkic Pama-Nyungan, Arandic Turkic, Kipchak Central Sudanic, Saraic Yeniseian Austroasiatic, Khasi-Palaung Austroasiatic, Khasi-Palaung Austroasiatic, Khmeric Khoe-Kwadi

Glossonym

Jaqaru Jingulu Kaba Kabardian Kabuverdianu Kabyle Kalderash Kalmyk Kamaiura Kambera Kanuri Kaqchikel Karaim (Halič) Karaim (Troki) Karelian Kashubian Kâte Kayardild Kaytetye Kazakh Kenga Ket Khasi (A) Khasi (B) Khmer Khwe

Americas Oceania Africa Europe Africa Africa Europe Europe Americas Asia Africa Americas Europe Europe Europe Europe Oceania Oceania Oceania Europe Africa Asia Asia Asia Asia Africa

Continent

X

X

X

X X

LPP

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X

DGB & other X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X

instatistics X X X

X X X

X X

X

additionally discussed

Appendix: Language sample | 703

Appendix: Language sample

703

Affiliation

Atlantic-Congo, Bantu Austronesian, Oceanic Cochimi-Yuman, Yuman Turkic, Kipchak Kiwaian Nuclear Trans New Guinea, Madang Dravidian Austronesian, Oceanic Atlantic-Congo, Bantu Indo-European, Germanic Yukaghir Uralic, Permian Koreanic Austroasiatic, Mundaic Songhay Songhay Mande Kadugli-Krongo Indo-European, Upper Guinea Portuguese Sino-Tibetan, Kiranti Turkic, Kipchak Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Atlantic-Congo, Central Atlantic Austronesian, Oceanic Atlantic-Congo, Bantu Sino-Tibetan, Loloish

Glossonym

KiKongo Kilivila Kiliwa Kirghiz Kiwai Kobon Koḍava Kokota Kol Kölsch (Landkölsch, Stadtkölsch) Kolyma Yukaghir Komi Korean Korku Koyra Chiini Koyraboro Senni Kpelle Krongo Kryol Kulung Kumyk Kurmanji Kuwaataay Kwaio Kwami Lamut

704 | Appendix: Language sample

Africa Oceania Americas Asia Oceania Oceania Asia Oceania Africa Europe Asia Europe Asia Asia Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Asia Europe Europe Africa Oceania Africa Asia

Continent

X

X

X

X

LPP

DGB & other X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

instatistics

X

X

X

additionally discussed X

704 Appendix: Language sample

Affiliation

Indo-European, Romance Tai-Kadai, Daic Indo-European, Italic Indo-European, Baltic Indo-European, Baltic Indo-European, Baltic Indo-European, Germanic Lavukaleve Kartvelian Kartvelian Otomanguean, Chinantecan Afro-Asiatic, Chadic Indo-European, Slavic Sino-Tibetan, Himalayish Nakh-Daghestanian, Dhagestanian Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Baltic Indo-European, Baltic Indo-European, Baltic Indo-European, Baltic Indo-European, Baltic Uralic, Finnic Austronesian, Oceanic

Glossonym

Languedocien Lao Latin Latvian Latvian (Latgalian) Latvian (Zemgalian) Laurein Lavukaleve Laz Laz (Ardeşen) Lealao Chinantec Lele Lemko Lepcha Lezgian Lìegeois Limburgish (North) Limburgish (South) Limousin Lithuanian Lithuanian (Aukshtaitish) Lithuanian (Samogitian) Lithuanian (Southwest) Lithuanian (Zíetala) Livonian Longgu

Europe Asia Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Oceania Europe Europe Americas Africa Europe Asia Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Oceania

Continent

X X X X X

X

X

X X

X

LPP

X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X X X

DGB & other

X

X X X X X

X

X X

X X

X

instatistics X X

X X X X X

X

X

X

X X X

X

additionally discussed

Appendix: Language sample | 705

Appendix: Language sample

705

Affiliation

Austronesian, Oceanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Uralic, Finnic Indo-European, Germanic Ta-Ne-Omotic Indo-European, Slavic Austronesian, Malayo-Sumbawan Austronesian, Greater Barito Northern Daly Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Austronesian, Oceanic Mande Mangarrayi-Maran Indo-European, Celtic Austronesian, Polynesian Araucanian Uralic Uralic Austronesian, Polynesian Austronesian, Micronesian Indo-European, Circum-Caribbean French Otomanguean, Otopamean Eastern Daly

Glossonym

Loniu Lorrain Franconian Lovari Low German (East Frisia) Low German (Holstein) Ludian Luxembourgish Maale Macedonian Madurese Malagasy Malakmalak Maltese Manam Mandinka Mangarayi Manx Maori Mapudungun Mari (Eastern) Mari (Western) Marquesan Marshallese Martiniquan Creole French Matlatzinca Matngele

706 | Appendix: Language sample

Oceania Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Africa Europe Asia Africa Oceania Europe Oceania Africa Oceania Europe Oceania Americas Europe Europe Oceania Oceania Americas Americas Oceania

Continent

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X X X

LPP

X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

DGB & other X

X X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X X

instatistics X X X X X

X X

X

X

additionally discussed

706 Appendix: Language sample

Affiliation

Maybrat Uto-Aztecan Otomanguean, Otopamean Kartvelian Sino-Tibetan, Manipuri Uto-Aztecan East Bird's Head Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Germanic Algic Austronesian, Micronesian Indo-European, Romance Mongolic Uralic Indo-European, Isle-de-France Creole Mosetén-Chimané South Bougainville Pama-Nyungan, Paman Austronesian, Malayo-Sumbawan Austronesian, Celebic Atlantic-Congo, Adamawa Austroasiatic, Mundaic Atlantic-Congo, Bantu Pama-Nyungan, Muruwaric Salishan Uto-Aztecan

Glossonym

Maybrat Mayo Mazahua Megrelian Meitei Mexicanero Meyah Milanese Mócheno Mohegan-Pequot Mokilese Moldavian Mongolian (Khalkha) Mordvin Morisyen Mosetén Motuna Mpakwithi Mualang Muna Mundang Mundari Munukutuba Muruwari Musqueam Nahuatl (Acaxochitlan)

Asia Americas Americas Europe Asia Americas Oceania Europe Europe Americas Oceania Europe Asia Europe Africa Americas Oceania Oceania Asia Asia Africa Asia Africa Oceania Americas Americas

Continent

X

X

X

X

LPP

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X

DGB & other X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

instatistics X X X X X X X X

X

X

additionally discussed

Appendix: Language sample | 707

Appendix: Language sample

707

Affiliation

Uto-Aztecan Uto-Aztecan Maningrida Athapaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, Athapaskan Indo-European, Guinea Coast Creole English Indo-European, Romance Austronesian, Oceanic Uralic, Samoyedic Southern Daly Central Sudanic, Lenduic Afro-Asiatic, Chadic Pama-Nyungan Indo-European, Romance Austroasiatic, Nicobaric Nubian Chocoan Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Pama-Nyungan, Nyawaygic Nyulnyulan Atlantic-Congo, Bantu Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Slavic Indo-European, Balto-Slavic Turkic Atlantic-Congo, Igboid

Glossonym

Nahuatl (Classical) Nahuatl (Pajapan) Nakara Navaho Ndyuka Neapolitan Neverver Nganasan Ngankikurungkurr Ngiti Ngizim Nhanda Niçard Nicobarese (Central) Nobiin Northern Emberá Norwegian (Bokmål) Norwegian (Nynorsk) Nyawaygi Nyulnyul Nzadi Occitan (Piemonte) Old Church Slavonic Old Prussian Old Turkic Ò̥nì̥chà Igbo

708 | Appendix: Language sample

Americas Americas Oceania Americas Americas Europe Oceania Asia Oceania Africa Africa Oceania Europe Asia Africa Americas Europe Europe Oceania Oceania Africa Europe Europe Europe Europe Africa

Continent

X

X

X

X

LPP

X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X

DGB & other X X X X X X X

X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

instatistics

X X X

X

additionally discussed X

708 Appendix: Language sample

Affiliation

Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic Siouan Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Uralic, Khantyic Otomanguean, Otopamean Otomanguean, Otopamean Otomanguean, Otopamean Heiban Austronesian, Oceanic Austronesian, Nuclear Austronesian Indo-European, Germanic Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Atlantic-Congo, Bantu Indo-European, Upper Guinea Portuguese Indo-European, Romance Austronesian, Celebic Indo-European, Germanic Otomanguean, Mixtecan Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Uto-Aztecan Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Slavic Mixe-Zoque, Zoque

Glossonym

Oromo Osage Ossetic Ostyak Otomí Otomí (de la Sierra) Otomí (San Andrés Cuexcontitlán) Otoro Owa Paiwan Palatinate Palauan Pamue Papiamentu Parmigiano Pendau Pennsylvania German Peñoles Mixtec Persian Picard Picard (Borain) Piemontese Pima Bajo Plautdietsch Polish Popoluca (Texistepec)

Africa Americas Europe Asia Americas Americas Americas Africa Oceania Asia Europe Oceania Africa Americas Europe Asia Americas Americas Asia Europe Europe Europe Americas Europe Europe Americas

Continent

X X

X X X

X

X X

X

X

LPP

X

X

X X

X

X X

X X X X X

DGB & other X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

instatistics X X

X

X

additionally discussed

Appendix: Language sample | 709

Appendix: Language sample

709

Affiliation

Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Lower Guinea Portuguese Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Atlantic-Congo, North Atlantic Tarascan Quechuan Quechuan Quechuan Sino-Tibetan, Kochic Austronesian, Polynesian Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Austronesian, Greater Central Philippine Austronesian, Oceanic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Slavic Indo-European, Slavic Uralic Uralic

Glossonym

Portguguese (Old) Portuguese Príncipense Provençal I Provençal II Pugliese Pular Purépecha Quechua (Ayacuchano) Quechua (Cuzqueño) Quechua (Kichwa) Rabha Rapanui Romanesco Romani (Latvian) Romani (North Russian) Romanian Romanian (Old) Romblomanon Rotuman Ruhr German Rumantsch Grischun Russian Russian (Old) Saami (Inari) Saami (North)

710 | Appendix: Language sample

Europe Europe Africa Europe Europe Europe Africa Americas Americas Americas Americas Asia Oceania Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Asia Oceania Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe

Continent

X X

X X X

X

X

X X

X X

X

LPP

(X)

X

X X X X X X

X X

X X X X

DGB & other X X X

X X

X X X X X

X

X X X X X X X

X X X X

instatistics

X

X

X X X

X

additionally discussed X

710 Appendix: Language sample

Affiliation

Uralic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Circum-Caribbean French Austronesian, Polynesian Indo-European, Guinea Coast Creole English Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Celtic Austroasiatic, Aslian Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Slavic Seri Indo-European, Isle-de-France Creole Shastan Atlantic-Congo, Bantu Indo-European, Romance Athapaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, Athapaskan Indo-European, Slavic Indo-European, Slavic Indo-European, Slavic Indo-European, Slavic Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic Kuliak Indo-European, Slavic

Glossonym

Saami (Skolt) Saarlandish Saint Lucian Creole French Samoan Saramaccan Sardinian Sardinian (Campidanese) Sardinian (Logudorese) Sardinian (Nuorese) Scots-Gaelic Semelai Sephardic Serbian Seri Seselwa Shasta Shona Sicilian Slave (Hare) Slavomolisano Slovak Slovenian Slovenian (Resia San Giorgio) Somali Soo Sorbian (Lower)

Europe Europe Americas Oceania Americas Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Asia Europe Europe Americas Africa Americas Africa Europe Americas Europe Europe Europe Europe Africa Africa Europe

Continent

X

X

X X X

X

X

X XX

X

X

X X

LPP

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

DGB & other

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

instatistics X X X X X X

X

X X X

additionally discussed

Appendix: Language sample | 711

Appendix: Language sample

711

Affiliation

Indo-European, Slavic Austronesian, Oceanic Indo-European, Romance Sino-Tibetan, Kiranti Indo-European, Romance Mande Indo-European, Germanic Atlantic-Congo, Bantu Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Songhay Austronesian, Greater Central Philippine Austronesian, Polynesian Nuclear Trans New Guinea, Kainantu Austronesian, Polynesian Afro-Asiatic, Berber Afro-Asiatic, Berber Afro-Asiatic, Berber Turkic, Kipchak Nuclear Trans New Guinea, Madang Timor-Alor-Pantar, Alor Pantar Dravidian Totonacan Austronesian, Central Malayo-Polynesian Tai-Kadai, Daic Sino-Tibetan, Newaric

Glossonym

Sorbian (Upper) South Efate Spanish Sunwar Surmiran-Albula Susu Swabian Swahili Swedish Swiss German (Bern) Tadaksahak Tagalog Tahitian Tairora Takuu Tamasheq Tamasheq (Tamaghit/Tadrak) Tamasheq (Tudalt) Tatar Tauya Teiwa Telugu Tepehua (Pisaflores) Tetun Thai Thangmi

712 | Appendix: Language sample

Europe Oceania Europe Asia Europe Africa Europe Africa Europe Europe Africa Asia Oceania Oceania Oceania Africa Africa Africa Europe Oceania Oceania Asia Americas Asia Asia Asia

Continent

X

X

X X

X X X X

X

X

X

LPP

X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X

X

DGB & other X X X X

instatistics X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

additionally discussed

712 Appendix: Language sample

Affiliation

Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Austronesian, Melanesian Cochimi-Yuman, Yuman Heiban Mixe-Zoque, Mixe Otomanguean, Tlapanec-Manguean Guaicuruan Austronesian, Oceanic Totonacan Totonacan Cariban, Guianan Otomanguean, Mixtecan Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic Nakh-Daghestanian, Dhagestanian Sino-Tibetan, Bodic Austronesian, Celebic Turkic Turkic Indo-European, Germanic Indo-European, Germanic Abkhaz-Adyge Uralic, Permian Indo-European, Slavic Umbugarla Indo-European, Germanic Urarina

Glossonym

Tigrinya Tinrin Tipai Tira Tlahuitoltepec Mixe Tlapanec Toba Toqabaqita Totonac (Misantla) Totonac (Papantla) Trio Trique (San Juan Copala) Ts’amakko Tsez Tshangla Tukang Besi Turkish Tuvinian Tyrolean (Burggräfel) Tyrolean (Northern) Ubykh Udmurt Ukrainian Umbugarla Upper Austrian German Urarina

Africa Oceania Americas Africa Americas Americas Americas Oceania Americas Americas Americas Americas Africa Europe Asia Asia Europe Asia Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Oceania Europe Americas

Continent

X

X X

X X

X

X

LPP

X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

DGB & other X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

instatistics X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X

additionally discussed

Appendix: Language sample | 713

Appendix: Language sample

713

Affiliation

Nuclear Trans New Guinea, Madang Turkic Turkic, Oghuz Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Uralic, Finnic Indo-European, Germanic Austroasiatic, Vietic Uralic, Mansi Uralic, Finnic Indo-European, Romance Indo-European, Romance Mirndi Yangmanic Pama-Nyungan Pama-Nyungan, Greater Maric Pama-Nyungan, Kartu Tupian, Tupi-Guarani Indo-European, Celtic Indo-European, Celtic Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Atlantic-Congo, North Atlantic Pama-Nyungan, Galgadungic Austronesian, Batanic

Glossonym

Usan Uyghur Uzbek Valdotain Valenciano Vallader Venetian Veps Viennese German Vietnamese Vogul Votic Walloon Walloon (Central) Wambaya Wardaman Wargamay Warrongo Watjarri Wayampi Welsh Welsh (Middle) Wolane Wolof Yalarnnga Yami

714 | Appendix: Language sample

Oceania Asia Asia Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Asia Asia Europe Europe Europe Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Americas Europe Europe Africa Africa Oceania Asia

Continent

X

X X

X X

X X X X X

LPP

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X

DGB & other X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X

instatistics X X X X X X X

X

X

X

additionally discussed

714 Appendix: Language sample

Affiliation

Indo-European, Germanic Pama-Nyungan, Ngayarda Pama-Nyungan Pama-Nyungan, Paman Pama-Nyungan, East Victoria Atlantic-Congo, Defoid Mayan Atlantic-Congo, Yukubenic Tangkic Eskimo-Aleut, Eskimo Uralic, Samoyedic Pama-Nyungan, Wiradhuric Otomanguean, Zapotecan Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Mixe-Zoque, Zoque Mixe-Zoque, Zoque Atlantic-Congo, Bantu

Glossonym

Yiddish Yindjibarndi Yingkarta Yir-Yoront Yorta Yorta Yoruba Yucatec Yukuben Yukulta Yup’ik Yurak (Tundra Nenets) Yuwaalaraay Zapotec (Istmo) Zay Zazaki Zazaki (Çermik-Siverek) Zazaki (Dersim) Zoque (Chimalapa) Zoque (San Miguel Chimalapa) Zulu

Europe Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Africa Americas Africa Oceania Americas Europe Oceania Americas Africa Europe Europe Europe Americas Americas Africa

Continent

X

X

X

X

LPP

X X X X

X X X X X X X

DGB & other (X) X X X X X

X X X

X X X X

instatistics X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X

additionally discussed

Appendix: Language sample | 715

Appendix: Language sample

715

Index of Authors Adler, Elna 419 Al-Amin Abu-Manga 479f. Alavi, Bozorg 628, 630 Alekseev, Michael E. 433 Alexander, Ronelle 289 Alexander-Azzopardi, Marie 437 Alhoniemi, Alho 416f. Alpher, Barry 485 Amha, Azeb 467, 514f. Amir-Babenko, Svetlana 657 Anderson, Gregory David 474 Andrews, J. Richard 524 Andvik, Erik E. 483 Anyanwu, Rose-Juliet 497 Aquilina, Joseph 438 Ariste, Paul 419 Armagost, James 488, 655f. Arys-Djanaïéva, Lora 360f. Ashiwaju, Michael 479 Avril, Yves 422 Badia Margarit, Antonio M. 143 Baerman, Matthew 35, 44 Bammesberger, Alfred 372 Barbour, Julie 488 Bartens, Hans-Hermann 418 Bateman, John 10 Bauer, Ursula 473 Bauer, Winifred 476 Bedir Khan, Djeladet Emir 354, 356 Bělič, Jaromír 299 Bell, Christopher R. V. 467 Bendel, Christiane 21, 441 Bender, Byron W. 476, 529 Bender, Ernest 483 Bendiks, Hermanis 382 Benzing, Johannes 55f., 425, 427, 473 Berg, René van den 501 Berger, Hermann 473 Berger, Tilman 299 Bergsland, Knut 470 Bernabé, Jean 493 Beyrer, Arthur 141 Bhat, Darbhe N. S. 6

Biber, Douglas 33 Bilodid, Ivan K. 288, 658 Birk, David B. W. 476 Bitima, Tamene 479, 580 Bittigau, Karl Rudolf 35, 483 Blake, Barry J. 11f., 23, 477 Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo 142 Blevins, Juliette 477 Blinkena, Aina 382 Böðvarsson, Árni 227 Bollée, Annegret 492 Booij, Geert 52 Bopst, Hajo 235 Borchers, Dörte 483 Boretzky, Norbert 43, 347f., 352 Borg, Albert 437 Borg, Alexander 438 Bornemann, Eduard 20, 336 Bosque, Ignacio 145 Bowe, Heather J. 477 Bowern, Claire 476 Boyd, Raymond 501 Braune, Wilhelm 239f., 244 Brauner, Siegmund 497, 618 Breen, Gavan 476f. Breu, Walter 295 Broadwell, George A. 481 Broderick, George 375 Buchholz, Oda 344ff., 607f. Buenrostro, Cristina 500 Buğday, Korkut 424 Bukšs, Mikelis 382 Byrne, Francis 500 Cablitz, Gabriele H. 485, 487 Calder, George 374 Camaj, Martin 346f. Canger, Una 481, 524 Capell, Arthur 25 Cárdenas Martínez, Celestino 481 Carlin, Eithne 471, 498 Carrington, Lawrence D. 500 Cathey, James E. 239f. Catta Quelen, Javier 472

718 | Index of Authors Çetta, Anton 348ff. Chamoreau, Claudine 500 Charachidze, Georges 57 Charney, Jean Ormsbee 655f. Chelliah, Shobhana L. 483 Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen 6, 32 Chisholm, William 6 Christensen, Lisa 227 Christensen, Robert Zola 227 Christiansen-Bolli, Regula 497 Christophory, Jul 216 Coly, Jules Jacques 497 Comrie, Bernard 21, 24 Corbett, Greville G. 22, 31, 34, 41, 44, 423, 546, 645, 648 Corne, Chris 492 Costa, Joaquim Almeida 146 Cowell, Andrew 470 Crane, Thera M. 479, 488 Creissels, Denis 11, 13, 22, 94f., 156, 170, 212, 447f., 460, 479, 498, 519 Crowley, Terry 477, 503 Cyffer, Norbert 497, 619ff. Cysouw, Michael 6, 15, 20, 645, 660f. Daly, John 499 Daly, Margarita Holland de 499 Davies, Jennifer 485, 525 Davies, John 503, 660 Davies, William D. 473 De Reuse, Willem J. 470, 580f. De Sivers, Fanny 414f. Décsy, Gyula 48 Demiraj, Shaban 343 Dench, Alan C. 486 Dhrimo, Ali 344 Diatta, Christian Sina 497 Dingatoloum, Jean-Pierre 497 Dixon, Robert M. W. 6, 32f., 477, 485, 642 Djordjević, Ksenija 421 Dol, Philomena H. 473 Dong, Ma-nu 501 Doniyorova, Soadat 427 Donohue, Mark 474 Doornenbal, Marius Albert 472 Dor, Rémy 484 Douglas, Wilfrid H. 477

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 22, 46 Drosdowski, Günther 235 Drossard, Werner 212 Dryer, Matthew S. 15 Du Feu, Veronica 477, 563f. Dubnov, Helena 467 Dum-Tragut, Jasmine 339 Eather, Bronwyn 477 Ebbinghaus, Ernst A. 239f., 244 Ebert, Karen 473 Echegoyen, Artemisa 495 Egli, Hans 51, 483 Eisenberg, Peter 235 Elbert, Samuel H. 485, 488, 557 Elders, Stefan 497 Embrey, Virginia 500, 612f. Epps, Patience 488 Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I. 423ff. Escalante H., Roberto 499 Estrada Fernández, Zarina 481 Evans, D. Simon 45 Evans, Nicholas D. 476 Faarlund, Jan Terje 225 Fähnrich, Heinz 390, 435 Faßke, Helmut 301f. Fava, Elisabetta 38 Favereau, Francis 366f., 369 Feldman, Harry 502, 512 Fiedler, Wilfried 344, 607 Fierro, Aurelio 166 Fillmore, Charles J. 1 Fischer, Kerstin 22 Fischer, Rudolf 281 Fleischer, Jürg 232 Flierl, Wilhelm 485 Forker, Diana 433f. Fortescue, Michael 471 Foulon-Hristova, Jordanka 284 Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 25, 479, 497 Freeze, Ray A. 499, 555f. Friederich, Michael 474 Friedländer, Marianne 497 Gabain, Annemarie von 429 Galloway, Brent D. 471

Index of Authors | 719

Gardiner, Sunray C. 280f. Gauto Bejerano, Miguel Ángel 481 Genevska-Hanke, Dobrinka 293 Georg, Stefan 473, 660 Goldap, Christel 10, 22 Gómez, Paula 499 Graczyk, Randolph 470, 572f. Gravelle, Gilles 477 Greco, Antonio 338 Greenberg, Joseph H. 10 Grenand, Francoise 471, 528f. Greva, Ranka 284 Griefenow-Mewis, Catherine 479, 580 Guasch, Antonio 481 Guérin, Françoise 433f. Gulya, János 473 Günther, Wilfried 497 Hagège, Claude 6, 15, 519f., 545 Hamel, Patricia J. 476, 574f. Hardman, Martha J. 54, 470f. Harrison, K. David 474 Harrison, Sheldon P. 503 Hartmann, Roswith 471 Haruna, Andrew 497 Haspelmath, Martin 16, 22, 24, 33, 44f., 49, 51, 93, 433, 446 Haviland, John 485 Hayward, Dick 497 He, De-hua 501 Heath, Jeffrey 38f., 41, 467, 497, 625ff. Heine, Bernd 50, 494, 624, 661 Henson, Bonnie J. 497 Hercus, Luise Anna 492 Hernández, Marciano 499 Herskovits, Annette 10 Hettich, Bela 361 Hetzer, Armin 346, 350 Hewitt, B. George 390, 431 Hill, Deborah 502 Hinds, John 483 Hoddinott, William G. 477 Hoff, Bernd J. 52, 470 Hollenbach, Elena E. de 500 Hollenbach, Fernando 500 Hovdhaugen, Even 503 Hull, Geoffrey 511f.

Hundertmark-Santos Martins, María Teresa 145f. Hutchinson, John P. 619 Huttar, George L. 499 Huttar, Mary L. 499 Igla, Birgit 43, 352 Imnaishvili, Ivane 435 Ingkaphirom, Preeya 474 Isaković, Alija 292 Iwasaki, Shoichi 474 Jacobs, Neil G. 231f. Jacobson, Steven A, 471 Jaimoukha, Amjad 431 Jannasch, Klaus-Peter 301 Jenko, Elizabeta M. 296 Johnson, Heidi A. 488 Joseph, Umbavu V. 473 Josephs, Lewis S. 503, 604ff. Jungraithtmayr, Herrmann 479f. Kabata, Kaori 11f., 23 Kálmán, Béla 474 Karanfil, Güllü 427 Karlsson, Fred 19f., 415 Keen, Sandra 477 Keesing, Roger M. 485 Kervella, Frañsez 366 Kharwanlang, Francis 483, 492f. Kilian-Hatz, Christa 479, 497, 614ff. King, John T. 473 Klamer, Margaretha A. F. 483, 573f. Klamer, Marian 503 Klychev, Rauf 431 Knudson, Lyle 492 Kofod, Frances D. 477 Koji, Ando 471 Kollmann, Cristian 238 Komaitai, Rusiate T. 476 König, Ekkehard 2, 10, 93 Kortmann, Bernd 26 Kostallari, Androkli 346 Kouwenberg, Silvia 499 Kramer, Raija 497 Kratchovíl, František 492, 495f. Kratzschmann, Michael 473

720 | Index of Authors Kress, Bruno 227 Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju 474 Kruspe, Nicole 474, 525 Kujola, Juho 420 Kuteva, Tania 661 Kutsch Lojenga, Constance 467, 523 Kutscher, Silvia 638 Laanest, Arvo 418f. Labatut, Roger 497 Lafitte, Pierre 441 Lakusta, Laura 644 Landau, Barbara 644 Landmann, Angelika 20, 426, 484 Larsson, Lars-Gunnar 414 Lastra, Yolanda 481, 488, 492, 494f., 623ff. Launey, Michel 524 Lazard, Gilbert 475, 486f. Leger, Rudolf 479, 508f. Lehmann, Christian 1, 10, 155 Leluda-Voss, Christina 337 Léonard, Jean-Léo 421 Leppik, Merle 419 Lescot, Robert 354, 356 Lestrade, Sander 11ff., 16, 18, 21ff., 154, 170, 212, 637f., 642 Leuy, To 473 Levinson, Stephen C. 10 Levkovych, Nataliya 657 Levy, Paulette 500 Lewis, Henry 368, 371, 376 Lichtenberk, Frantisek 486, 502 Lincoln, Peter C. 502f. Lindow, Wolfgang 232ff. Lissarague, Amanda 476 Lockwood, William B. 229 Lomatidze, Ketevan 431 Lončarić, Milo 292 Lorenz, Manfred 628, 630 MacDonald, Lorna 485 Mackay, Carolyn J. 492, 500 Mackenzie, J. Lachlan 157f., 163f., 240, 640 Mahootian, Shahrzad 483, 629 Malchukov, Andrej 629 Malherbe, Michel 431, 498 Malotki, Ekkehart 471

Man, Edward H. 473, 544 Mann, Stuart E. 639 Mānušs, Leksa 352f. Marcato, Gianna 161ff. Mark, Colin 373f. Maslova, Elena 473 Matras, Yaron 43 Mattos e Silva, Rosa Virgínia 159f. Maurer, Philippe 498 Mayerthaler, Willi 16, 49 Mažiulis, Vytautas 383f. Mazzitelli, Lidia Federica 298 McCallum Jones, Ross 479 McGregor, William 486 Meakins, Felicity 485 Mel’čuk, Igor 54 Mel’nyčuk, O. S. 288 Meléndez Lozano, Miguel Ángel 470 Mellow, Greg 488 Melo, Antonio Sampaio 146 Melzian, Hans J. 498, 518 Mensching, Guido 142 Merkle, Ludwig 237 Merlan, Francesca C. 485f. Meunmany, Nirath 473 Meyer, Ronny 467 Mfoutou, Jean-Alexis 492ff., 623f. Miller, Amy 471 Miller, Wick R. 499 Minassian, Martirios 340 Minde, Don 483 Miroux, Daniel 476 Mitchell, Bruce 241 Mixco, Mauricio J. 488, 490 Mock, Carol 499 Mondesir, Jones E. 500 Montler, Timothy 521 Morelli, Steve 476 Morey, Stephen 477 Morphy, Frances 476 Mosel, Ulrike 503 Moser, Mary Beck 500 Moser, Rosmarie 497 Moss, Alonzo 470 Mossé, Fernand 242 Mous, Maarten 497 Moyle, Richard M. 477

Index of Authors | 721

Moyse-Faurie, Claire 503, 517f. Mucanheia, Francisco U. 497 Mugdan, Joachim 52 Mullonen, Marija I. 418f. Nagaraja, Keralapura S. 473 Nance, R. Morton 369f. Nau, Nicole 382 Ndongo Esono, Salvador 497 Negele, Michaela 232 Neukom, Lukas 467 Newell, Leonard E. 501 Nichols, Johanna 432ff. Nickel, Klaus-Peter 418, 609 Nikolaeva, Irina 421f. Noonan, Michael 11f., 23, 69 Nordlinger, Rachel 485 Nsondé, Jean de Dieu 624 Oates, Lynette F. 486 Olawsky, Knut J. 481 Onishi, Masayuki 477 Osada, Toshiki 473 Osumi, Midori 477, 582f. Palmer, Bill 502 Pantcheva, Marina 8, 11ff., 21ff., 36, 69, 90f., 154, 418f., 610, 619, 621, 637ff., 642 Paris, Catherine 431 Partchieva, Para 433f. Paul, Hermann 244 Paul, Ludwig 359 Pedersen, Holger 376 Peltzer, Louise 475, 486f. Pensalfini, Robert 476 Perrone, Luca 349 Piccoli, Giovanni 295 Pickett, Velma 500, 612f. Pinheiro-Weber, Ursula 220f. Placinskis, Juris 382 Plaisier, Heleen 483 Pool, Peter A. S. 369 Popjes, Jack 481 Popjes, Jo 481 Poulsen, Jóhan Hendrik W. 228ff. Press, Ian 287, 366 Preuss, Konrad Theodor 47, 481 Pride, Kitty 488

Pride, Leslie 488 Prince, John D. 463, 467, 469, 480, 482, 484, 500 Pritsak, Omeljan 427, 429 Procházka, Stephan 438 Prokosch, Erich 428 Pugh, Stefan 287 Pukui, Mary Kawena 485, 488, 557 Qahramonil, Toshtemirov 427 Quick, Phil 483 Quintero, Carolyn 499 Quirk, Randolph 33 Rabel, Lili 473 Rabelais, François 158 Radeva, Vassilka 293 Radžabov, Ramazan N. 433 Rahmati, Nehmat 424 Rasoloson, Janie Noëlle 662 Rau, Der-Hwa V. 502 Rau, Peter 284 Ray, Sidney H. 476 Reesink, Ger P. 503 Refsing, Kirsten 472 Regmi, Dan R. 483, 581f. Reh, Mechthild 479, 560f. Reichard, Gladys A. 471 Reintges, Chris H. 3ff. Reseck, Tamar 436 Rice, Keren 481, 509f. Rice, Sally 11f., 23 Richter, Eberhardt 472 Riley, E. Baxter 476 Risch, Ernst 20, 336 Rivierre, Jean-Claude 476 Robinson, Fred C. 241 Robinson, Lila Wilstrand 488, 655f. Rohde, Ada 644 Rohlfs, Gerhard 157f., 337f. Romero-Mendez, Rodrigo 481 Rongier, Jacques 497 Rowley, Anthony R. 237 Rubino, Carl R. G. 483 Rudzīte, Martha 382 Rupp, John 46, 470, 515f. Ryding, Karin C. 44, 472

722 | Index of Authors Sa’ad, Isa 501 Saar, Eva 420 Sakayan, Dora 340 Sakel, Jeanette 481 Sall, Cheikh 498 Sambou, Pierre-Marie 479, 519 Sammallahti, Pekka 639f. Sara, Solomon I. 481 Savà, Graziano 467, 469 Scantamburlo, Luigi 479 Schadeberg, Thilo C. 497 Schanen, François 216f. Schanidse, Akaki 435 Schmitt, Rüdiger 340 Schuh, Russel G. 467 Schütz, Albert 476 Schweizer, Bruno 236f. Seedoch, Ivan 292 Seibert, Uwe 10 Seki, Lucy 481 Selcan, Zülfü 357ff. Senft, Gunter 502 Senn, Alfred 377f. Shay, Erin 10, 479 Siemund, Peter 2, 6, 8ff., 50, 223 Silver, Shirley 500 Sims, Andrea D. 22, 44f. Sinha, Jasmin 440 Sivananda Sarma, P. 474 Smeets, Ineke 499 Smith, Norval 21 Sohn, Ho-min 483, 563 Speck, Frank G. 500 Spellenberg, Friedrich 488, 498 Stairs, Emily F. de 499 Stairs, Glenn A. 499 Stanislav, Ján 298 Stanislaw, Ján 281 Stassen, Leon 651 Steenwijk, Han 297 Stefanowitsch, Anatol 22, 644 Stevenson, Roland C. 479, 497, 572 Stich, Dominique 220 Stoebke, Renate 420 Stolz, Thomas 15f., 53, 629, 642ff., 648, 651 Strauss, Hermann 485 Suárez, Jorge A. 500

Sudlow, David 488 Suttles, Wayne P. 471 Svorou, Soteria 10 Swart, Peter de 629 Tabardilla, Emilia 501 Taibbi, Giuseppe Rossi 337f. Tauli, Valter 415f. Tecle, Zemicael 467 Teleman, Ulf 223 Terrill, Angela 492, 520 Thieberger, Nick 503 Thorne, David A. 362f. Thornton, Anna 36 Thráinsson, Höskuldur 172, 228 Thurneysen, Rudolf 376 Tiling-Herrwegen, Alice 212 Tjia, Jonny 473, 516f. Tolsma, Gerard J. 483 Tompa, József 415 Topping, Donald 476, 544f. Tosco, Fiorenzo 146ff. Touratier, Christian 149 Trechsel, Frank R. 492, 500 Trillos, Amaya María 471, 499 Tschenkéli, Kita 390, 435 Tsunoda, Tasaku 485 Turin, Mark 483 Turpin, Myfany 476 Ultan, Russell 1, 6 Ulvydas, K. 379 Ursini, Flavia 161ff. Valeckienė, A. 378 Valfells, Sigrid 239f. Vamarasi, Marit K. 477 Van den Berg, Helma 433 Van Driem, George 483 Vaverková, Irena 298 Vincent, Alex 477 Virtaranta, Pertti 420 Voigtlander, Katherine 495 Volodin, Alexander P. 473, 660 Vorbichler, Anton 488f. Vries, Lourens 476 Vujani, Milica 290

Index of Authors | 723

Wälchli, Bernhard 1 Wąsik, Zdzisław 6ff., 342, 346, 378 Watahomigie, Lucille J. 500 Wedekind, Klaus 467 Wentzel, Tatjana W. 43 Werner, Heinrich 473, 601ff. Werner, Roland 479 Westermann, Diedrich 498, 518 Wetter, Andreas 467 Wichmann, Søren 500 Wiliam, Uriel 362 Wilkins, David 10 Williams, Corinne 488, 491 Williams, Stephen J. 362 Williamson, Kai 497 Williams-van Klinken, Catharina 511f. Willkommen, Dirk 61ff. Winkler, Eberhard 415

Wohlgemuth, Jan 15 Woidich, Manfred 479 Wolff, H. Ekkehard 479 Woollams, Geoff 473 Wordick, Frank J. F. 477 Wurzel, Petra 354ff. Zabjelina, V. P. 658 Zajceva, Marija I. 418f. Zandvoort, Franklin D. 486 Zavala Maldonado, Roberto 499 Zeshan, Ulrike 6 Zimmer, Jacqui 217 Zinkevičius, Zygmas 378f. Zof, Fausto 146 Zoller, Claus P. 473 Zúñiga, Fernando 1

Index of Languages Abaza 431 Abkhaz 385, 395, 402, 407, 430f. Abui 492, 495f. Abzakh 431 Acatec (de la Frontera) 499 Achagua 470 Afrikaans 167f., 174, 176, 182, 188, 200, 204, 235 Agta 521 Ainu 472 Albanian 7ff., 14, 18, 42, 66, 78, 81, 303, 334, 342ff., 447, 606ff., 610, 625, 639, 656, 658f. – Gheg 304, 307f., 316, 323, 327, 342ff., 346, 348ff. – Tosk 304, 307, 310, 313, 316, 323f., 327, 342ff., 350 Alemannic 168, 174, 183, 188, 199 Aleut 470 Alsatian 168, 175, 183, 188 Alur 497 Ambonese Malay 472, 483 Angolar 498 Apache 470, 580f. Arabic 44, 66, 72, 438f., 463, 472, 475, 479, 527f. – Algiers ~ 479 – Çukorova ~ 439f. – Cypriot ~ 439f. – Kairean ~ 466 Aragonese 96, 100f., 104, 107, 129, 136, 152 Aramaic 93, 385ff., 389, 391, 395, 400, 402, 407, 439f. Aranese 96, 101, 107, 110, 117, 121, 123, 128, 136, 153, 155, 163 Arapaho 470 Arbore 497 Argobba 467 Armenian 334, 339ff. – Eastern ~ 303f., 307, 313, 316, 322, 324, 327f., 339, 341 – Old ~ 340f. – Western ~ 340f. Aromunian 95, 101, 107, 128, 137f., 151, 160 Asturian 97ff., 101, 104, 108, 117, 123, 129, 138ff., 144, 151, 153f.

Atayal 502 Awtuw 502, 512, 518f. Aymara 54, 67, 463, 470 Azerbaijani 385, 395, 402, 407, 423ff., 430 Badiota 95, 101, 108, 128, 151 Bāgandji 475, 492 Baka 466, 479 Balese 488f. Balkar 427f., 430 Bambara 497, 555 Bankon 488, 498 Bannoni 502f. Bantawa 472 Bardi 476 Bashkir 425ff., 430 Basque 21, 384f., 388, 395, 400, 402, 407, 441f. – Souletin 385, 388, 395, 400, 402, 407, 441f. Batak Karo 473 Bavarian 168, 175, 183, 188, 200, 236f. Beja 467, 521 Belarusian 247, 251, 253, 259, 264, 270, 274, 282, 288 Bemba 521 Berbice Dutch 499 Bergamasco 95, 101, 108, 128, 152, 164 Bhujel 472, 483, 581 Bilinara 475, 485 Bislama 503 Boko/Busa 479 Bologna Emiliano 97f., 101, 107, 110, 117, 128, 136, 151f., 164 Bosnian 248, 251, 259, 264, 270, 274, 289, 291f. Breton 304, 308, 316, 322, 324, 328, 365ff. Bugurdži 352 Bulgarian 248, 250, 259, 264, 269f., 274, 281, 292ff. Burmese 472 Burushaski 463, 473 Camling 473 Canela-Krahô 470, 481 Carinthian 168, 174, 182, 188 Catalan 95, 101, 108, 122, 128, 135, 143ff., 152, 162

Index of Languages | 725

Cèmuhî 476 Chamba-Lahuli 501 Chamorro 476, 543ff. Chatino (Zona Alta) 488 Chechen 385, 395, 400, 402, 407, 432ff. Chinese 473, 542f. Chocho 499 Choctaw 481 Chuj 500 Chuvash 427, 430 Cogui (Kögaba) 47, 67, 81, 463, 481f. Comanche 488, 655f. Comox 520 Coptic (Sahidic) 2ff., 13, 18, 23, 29, 35, 37, 45, 67, 72, 81, 463 Cornish 369ff., 376 Corsican 95, 98f., 101, 104, 108, 112, 117, 121, 129, 152, 164 Croatian 247, 251, 254, 259, 264, 270, 274, 281, 289, 292, 295 Crow 470, 572f. Cymbrian 236ff., 240, 245 Czech 247, 251, 254, 259, 264, 270, 274, 281, 298f. Damana 471 Danish 169, 171, 174f., 183, 188f., 195f., 199, 207, 210, 226f. Dhanggati 476 Dhimal 473 Djapu 476 Drehu 475, 503, 517f. Drents 168, 174, 183, 188, 200, 204 Dumi 472, 483 Dutch 168, 174, 182, 188, 204, 214f., 235, 238, 240, 246 Dyula 497 Ekoti 497 Elfdalian 42f., 66, 168, 172, 178, 187, 199, 204, 240 English 1, 3ff., 13, 18, 25, 27ff., 32f., 35, 38, 67, 72, 138, 157, 169f., 174, 176, 182, 187, 194, 197, 199, 218, 223f., 228ff., 235, 238, 240, 243, 335, 348, 354, 364, 366, 370, 375, 378, 440, 463, 490, 515, 530, 544, 557

– Early Modern ~ 243 – Middle ~ 241ff., 245, 369 – Old ~ 241, 243f., 369 Eonavian 95, 102, 108, 128, 153, 162 Erromangan (Sie) 503 Esperanto 60ff., 67, 72 Estonian 385, 395, 402, 407, 415f., 421 Ette Taara 499 Ewe 497 Extremaduran 96, 98f., 101, 107, 123, 129, 153, 162 Fali 497 Faroese 169f., 172, 178, 194, 197, 199, 227ff., 238, 240, 246 Fijian 476, 478, 485 Finnish 8, 19f., 33f., 67, 385, 395, 402, 407, 415f., 421, 643 Franconian 169, 174, 182, 188, 200, 231, 235 French 7f., 26ff., 35, 67, 72, 93, 95, 97, 102, 108, 122, 128, 137f., 151, 154, 157ff., 165, 231, 238, 284, 354, 366, 433, 481, 492f., 518 – Guadeloupean Creole ~ 493, 499 – Guianese Creole ~ 500 – Martiniquan Creole ~ 470, 481, 492f., 500 – Middle ~ 158 – Old ~ 157ff. – Saint Lucian Creole ~ 500 Frisian – Eastern 169, 200, 204 – Fering 168, 174, 183, 188, 204, 235 – Frasch 168, 174, 183, 188, 204 – Sölring 168, 188, 199, 235 – Western 168, 174, 183, 188, 204 Friulian 95, 100, 104, 113, 117, 121, 123, 128, 135, 146f., 152, 166 Fula 479f. Futuna-Aniwa 25 Gagauz 427f., 430 Galibi Carib 52f., 67, 463, 470 Galician 96, 98, 101, 107, 129, 153, 157, 162 Gardenese 95, 102, 108, 128, 151 Gascon 96, 101, 107, 129, 136, 153, 162 Genoese 95, 100, 104, 113, 117, 121, 123, 128, 146ff., 152, 164f.

726 | Index of Languages Georgian 8, 93, 385f., 389f., 395, 402, 407, 434ff. – Old ~ 435f. German 6ff., 67, 72, 168, 174, 182f., 185, 188, 199, 211ff., 216f., 219ff., 231f., 235ff., 241, 243, 245, 295, 297, 302f., 347f., 648, 660 – Berlin ~ 168, 174, 183, 188, 199 – Low ~ 232ff., 348 – Low ~ (East Frisia) 168, 174, 183, 188, 199, 233 – Low ~ (Holstein) 169, 171, 175, 178, 183, 188f., 194ff., 199, 204, 232ff. – Middle High ~ 172, 215, 241, 244f., 369 – Old High ~ 172, 215, 241, 243ff., 335, 369 – Pennsylvania ~ 167f., 174, 183, 188, 204 – Ruhr ~ 168, 183, 188, 199 – Upper Austrian ~ 168, 175, 183, 188, 199 – Viennese ~ 168, 174, 182, 188, 200, 204 Gothic 239f. Greek 303f., 308, 316, 322, 324, 327, 334ff., 340f., 439 – Ancient ~ 20, 335ff., 369 – Calabrian ~ 337 – Kastelli ~ 337 – Salento ~ 338 Greenlandic 471, 520 Guaraní 481f. Guarijío 499 Gumbaynggirr 476 Gùrdùn 497 Guugu Yimidhirr 475, 485 Halkomelem 471 Hausa 466, 479 Hawaiian 475f., 478, 485, 488, 556f. Hdi 479 Hebrew 473, 475 Hessian 168, 175, 183, 188, 200 Hiligaynon 483 Hindi 483 Hinuq 433f. Hopi 471 Hualapai 500 Huave (San Mateo del Mar) 499 Huichol 499 Hungarian 385, 395, 402, 407, 415f., 421

Hunzib 433f. Hup 488 Iaaï 476 Icelandic 168, 172, 178, 187, 199, 204, 227ff., 239ff. – Old ~ 172, 239f. Iloko 472, 483 Ilongo 472 Inanwatan 476 Indonesian 473, 556f. Indus Kohistani 473 Ingrian 420 Ingush 433 Innamincka 476 Iraqw 497 Irish 304, 308, 316, 322f., 327, 371ff. – Old ~ 374, 376 Italian 37f., 41, 67, 72, 95, 102, 108, 128, 140, 152, 161f., 164ff., 237f., 295, 303, 346, 439 Itelmen 473, 660 Ivatan 476 Japanese 473ff., 483 Jaqaru 471 Jingulu 476 Kaba 497 Kabardinian 431 Kabuverdianu 467ff., 478 Kabyle 466, 479f., 520 Kalderash 352f. Kalmyk 55f., 59, 67, 414 Kamaiura 481 Kambera 472, 483, 573 Kanuri 497, 619ff., 632 Kaqchikel 499 Karaim – Halič 429 – Troki 429 Karelian 420 Kashubian 247, 251, 254, 259, 264, 270, 274, 281 Kâte 485 Kayardild 476 Kaytetye 476

Index of Languages | 727

Kazakh 93, 385, 395, 402, 407, 423, 426f., 430, 484 Kenga 467 Ket 463, 473, 600ff. Khasi 473, 483, 492f. Khmer 473 Khwe 497, 614ff. KiKongo 623 Kilivila 502 Kiliwa 488ff., 494 Kirghiz 483f. Kiwai 476 Klallam 521 Kobon 503, 660 Koḍava 473 Kokota 502 Kol 497 Kölsch 169f., 175, 183, 188, 200, 211ff., 216, 219, 222, 342 – Landkölsch 212f., 215, 220, 222, 648 – Stadtkölsch 212f. Kolyma Yukaghir 473 Komi 421f. Korean 472, 483, 562f. Korku 473 Koyra Chiini 497 Koyraboro Senni 467 Kpelle 498, 518f. Krongo 479, 560, 660 Kryol 479 Kulung 472, 483 Kumyk 427f., 430, 484 Kurmanji 304, 308f., 316, 322, 324, 328, 351, 353ff. Kuwaataay 497 Kwaio 485 Kwami 479, 507ff. Lamut 473 Languedocien 95, 102, 108, 122, 128, 152, 162 Lao 473 Latin 148ff., 161ff., 241, 335, 369, 390, 639, 649, 654 Latvian 304, 306, 308, 316, 324, 328, 352, 377, 380ff., 414f. – Latgalian 382f. – Zemgalian 383

Laurein 238 Lavukaleve 475, 492, 520 Laz 385, 395, 400, 402, 407, 434, 436f., 638 Lealao Chinantec 46f., 67, 463, 470, 472, 515 Lele 497 Lemko 653f., 656 Lepcha 483 Lezgian 8, 33f., 67, 414, 433f. Liègeois 96, 102, 108, 110, 117, 128, 136, 164f. Limburgish – North 169ff., 175, 183, 188, 200, 204, 213ff., 220, 222, 235, 342 – South 168, 174, 183, 188, 204, 215, 235 Limousin 96, 102, 108, 123, 128, 152, 162 Lithuanian 7f., 67, 72, 304, 308, 316, 322, 324, 328, 377ff., 383 – Aukštaitian 379f. – Old ~ 378 – Samogitian 380 – Southwest 380 – Zietala 380 Livonian 414ff. Longgu 502 Loniu 476, 574 Lorrain Franconian 168, 174, 182, 188, 200, 230, 235 Lovari 304, 307, 310, 313, 316, 323, 328, 351ff. Ludian 420 Luxembourgish 168, 172, 178, 182, 187, 199, 204, 215ff., 222, 240, 245 Maale 467, 514f. Macedonian 248, 250, 252, 259, 264, 269f., 274, 281, 283ff., 292, 344, 352 Madurese 473 Malagassy 466, 479f. Malakmalak 476 Maltese 385, 388, 390f., 395, 402, 407, 437ff. Manam 502 Mandinka 466, 479, 518f. Mangarayi 475, 485 Manx 375f. Maori 476, 478 Mapudungun 499, 501 Mari 385, 395, 402, 407, 415f.

728 | Index of Languages – Hill (aka Western Mari) 385, 395, 402, 407, 416 – Meadows (aka Eastern Mari) 416 Marquesan 485ff. Marshallese 476, 529 Matlatzinca 499 Matngele 475, 486 Maybrat 473 Mayo 499, 555 Mazahua 481 Megrelian 385, 387, 395, 400, 402, 407, 434ff. Meitei 483 Mexicanero 481, 523f. Meyah 477 Milanese 96, 101, 107, 113, 121, 123, 129, 152, 164f. Mócheno 237f. Mohegan-Pequot 500 Mokilese 503 Moldavian 96, 102, 108, 128, 140f., 153, 162 Mongolian 35ff., 41, 55, 67, 463, 472, 483 Mordvin 421f. Morisyen 497 Mosetén 481f. Motuna 477 Mpakwithi 477 Mualang 473, 516f. Muna 501 Mundang 497 Mundari 473 Munukutuba (aka Kituba) 492ff., 498, 622ff. Mupun 25 Muruwari 475, 486 Musqueam 471, 521 Nahuatl 470f., 488, 524 – Acaxochitlan 470, 488 – Classical ~ 524 – Pajapan 471 Nakara 477 Navaho 471 Ndyuka 499 Neapolitan 96, 102, 108, 113, 121, 123, 129, 152, 164f. Neverver 488 Nganasan 473 Ngankikurungkurr 477 Ngiti 467, 522f. Ngizim 467

Nhanda 477 Niçard 96, 102, 108, 128, 153, 155, 163 Nicobarese (Central) 473 Nivkh 520 Nobiin 466, 479 Northern Emberá 481f. Norwegian 225, 227, 238 – Bokmål 168, 174, 183, 188, 199, 224ff., 235 – Nynorsk 225 Nyawaygi 477 Nyulnyul 475, 486 Nzadi 479f., 488 Occitan (Piemonte) 96, 102, 108, 128, 153, 162 Old Church Slavonic 280ff., 286f., 289 Old Norse 172 Old Prussian 383f. Old Turkic 429 Ò̥nì̥chà Igbo 497 Oromo 479, 580 Osage 499 Ossetic 351, 360f. Ostyak 473 Otomí 492, 494f., 500, 622ff. Otoro 466, 479, 521, 571f. Owa 475, 488 Paiwan 51ff., 67, 72, 463, 483 Palatinate 168, 175, 183, 188, 200 Palauan 503, 604ff. Pamue 497 Papiamentu 481 Parmigiano 96, 102, 108, 123, 128, 152, 164 Pendau 472, 483 Peñoles Mixtec 499 Persian 483, 628ff. Picard 96, 102, 108, 123, 128f., 152, 164f. Piemontese 97ff., 102, 104, 108, 123, 129, 152f., 162 Pima Bajo 470, 481 Plautdietsch 168, 175, 183, 188 Polish 7ff., 42, 67, 232, 248f., 251, 253, 259, 264, 270, 274, 281, 286f., 342, 654 Popoluca (Texistepec) 500 Portuguese 96, 98, 101, 107, 111, 129, 145f., 153, 159f., 162, 467f. – Old ~ 159f.

Index of Languages | 729

Príncipense 497 Provençal 95ff., 102, 108, 117, 123, 128f., 153, 157, 162f. – Old ~ 157 Pugliese 164 Pular 497 Purépecha 500 Quechua – Ayacuchano 471, 561 – Cuzqueño 471, 561ff. – Kichwa 471f., 475, 561 Rabha 473 Rapanui 477, 563f. Romanesco 653f., 656 Romani 43, 67 Romanian 96, 98f., 104, 128, 140f., 153, 159f., 162, 166 – Old ~ 159f. Romblomanon 501 Rotuman 477f. Rumantsch 96, 100, 104, 113, 117, 121, 128, 152, 166 Russian 7f., 43f., 67, 247, 251, 254, 259, 264, 270, 274, 281ff., 286, 288f., 351ff. – Old ~ 288 Saami 385, 417f., 421, 447, 606, 609f., 638ff. – Inari 385, 395, 402, 407, 418 – North 385, 395, 402, 407, 417f. – Skolt 385, 395, 402, 407, 418 Saarlandish 168, 174, 176, 182, 188, 199 Samoan 503 Saramaccan 500 Sardinian 96, 101, 107, 113, 121, 123, 128, 136, 142f., 151f., 164f. – Campidanese 142f. – Gallurese 95, 102, 108, 128, 153, 162 – Limba Sarda 142 – Logudorese 142 – Nuorese 142 Scots-Gaelic 304, 306ff., 316, 324, 328, 373ff. Semelai 474, 525 Sephardic 97ff., 102, 108, 128, 153, 162

Serbian 247, 251, 253, 259, 264, 270, 274, 289ff. Seri 500 Seselwa 492f., 498 Shasta 500 Shona 497, 617f. Sicilian 96, 98, 102, 108, 123, 128, 153, 162 Slave (Hare) 470, 481, 509 Slavomolisano 248f., 251ff., 259, 264, 269f., 274, 282, 294f., 303 Slovak 232, 247, 251, 254, 259, 264, 270, 274, 281, 298ff. Slovenian 247, 251f., 254, 259, 264, 270, 274, 296ff. Somali 467, 497f. Soo 498 Sorbian 654 – Lower ~ 247, 250, 252, 259, 264, 269f., 274, 282, 300ff. – Upper ~ 247, 251, 254, 259, 264, 270, 274, 281, 300ff. South Efate 503 Spanish 96, 102f., 107, 129, 135, 144f., 153, 155, 157, 163, 489f., 524, 612, 623 – Old ~ 158 Sunwar 483 Surmiran-Albula 96, 100, 104, 113, 117, 121, 128, 152, 166 Susu 497 Swabian 168, 182, 188, 200, 204 Swahili 497f. Swedish 8f., 168, 172, 182, 188, 199, 204, 222ff., 235, 240, 246 – Old ~ 172 Swiss German 221 – Bern 168, 175, 183, 188, 204, 219ff., 230, 235, 342 – Luzern 220 – Zurich 220 Tadaksahak 497 Tagalog 472, 501f. Tahitian 475, 477f., 486f. Tairora 477 Takuu 477f. Tamasheq 38ff., 67, 72, 463, 467, 488, 625ff. – Ansongo 39

730 | Index of Languages – Gao 39 – Goundam 39 – Gosi 39 – Gourma 39 – Hombori 39 Tatar 385ff., 395, 402, 407, 423, 425, 427f., 430 – Crimean ~ 428, 430 Tauya 485 Teiwa 503 Telugu 474 Tepehua (Pisaflores) 492 Tetun 474, 510ff. Thai 474 Thangmi 483 Tigrinya 467 Tinrin 477, 582 Tipai 471 Tira 497 Tlahuitoltepec Mixe 470, 481 Tlapanec 500 Toba 481 Toqabaqita 475, 486 Totonac (Misantla/Papantla) 500 Trio 471 Trique (San Juan Copala) 500 Ts’amakko 467, 469, 472 Tsez 433f. Tshangla 472, 483 Tukang Besi 474 Turkish 384, 386, 395, 402, 407, 423ff., 430, 439 Tuvinian 474 Tyrolean – Burggräfel 168, 174, 182, 188, 199, 204 – Northern 168, 174, 182, 188, 204 Ubykh 57f., 67, 414, 431 Udmurt 385, 395, 402, 407, 415f. Ukrainian 247, 249, 251, 253, 259, 264, 270, 274, 282, 286ff., 656ff. Umbugarla 485, 525f. Urarina 481 Usan 503 Uyghur 474 Uzbek 20, 474 Valdotain 96, 102, 108, 128, 152 Valenciano 96, 102, 108, 123, 128, 152, 162

Vallader 96, 117, 129, 153, 166 Venetian 96, 102, 108, 129, 152, 161f., 164 Veps 418ff. Vietnamese 472, 483 Vogul 474 Votic 418ff. Walloon 96, 102, 108, 123, 128, 151 Wambaya 485 Wardaman 475, 486 Wargamay 477 Warrongo 485 Watjarri 477 Wayampi 471, 528 Welsh 45f., 67, 72f., 304, 308f., 316, 322, 324, 328, 361ff., 368 Wolane 467 Wolof 498, 521 Xârâcùù 520 Yalarnnga 477 Yami 501 Yiddish 169ff., 174, 182, 188, 193f., 197, 199, 204, 230f., 235, 240, 245 Yindjibarndi 477 Yingkarta 475, 486 Yir-Yoront 485 Yorta Yorta 477 Yoruba 479 Yucatec 500 Yukuben 497 Yukulta 477 Yup’ik 471 Yurak (aka Nenets, Tundra Nenets) 48, 67, 414f., 421f. Yuwaalaraay 488, 491 Zapotec 500, 611ff. Zay 467 Zazaki 304, 306ff., 316, 322, 324, 328, 351, 356ff. Zoque 470, 488, 492 – Chimalapa 470, 492 – San Miguel Chimalapa 488 Zulu 497

Index of Subjects ablative 35, 43, 49, 56, 135f., 138, 147ff., 155ff., 161, 163, 165f., 170, 224, 230, 235, 280, 288, 295, 336, 340, 343ff., 352, 354, 358, 361, 365, 374, 382, 390, 420, 425, 434, 482, 490f., 515, 523f., 556, 561, 601ff., 607f., 619, 621, 625, 627, 638, 640, 643, 654 adessive 601, 603, 625, 643 adjective 362, 417, 610 adposition 51, 94, 136, 223, 235, 374, 523, 600 adverbial/adverb 17, 22, 25, 56f., 150, 161, 232, 244f., 280f., 353, 361, 510, 519, 597, 602f., 639 – spatial adverb 25, 57, 217, 239, 284, 336, 347, 379, 493, 600, 615 – interrogative adverb 232, 239f., 492, 614 affix/affixation 43, 56, 515, 561, 573, 620, 638, 640, 643 – prefix 293, 384, 431, 545, 560f., 617, 619, 638 – suffix/suffixation 32, 42f., 49, 53ff., 62, 239, 289f., 336, 354, 370, 390, 414, 417, 420, 424, 431, 433, 441, 469, 472, 478, 490f., 515, 561, 563, 573, 601ff., 609 agglutinative 32, 647 allative 49, 94, 170, 337, 343ff., 352, 354, 358, 361, 381, 432, 441, 490f., 511, 556, 562, 601ff., 607f., 619, 625, 629, 638, 643 allomorph/allomorphy 37, 45, 57, 61, 140, 142f., 167, 227, 290, 293, 299, 301, 365, 369ff., 378, 390, 417ff., 429, 435, 438, 441, 469, 475, 487, 493, 506, 510, 512, 519, 536, 561, 581ff., 603, 605, 607, 612, 614, 619f., 624f., 643 alternation 172, 236, 238, 286, 355 ambiguity/disambiguation 155f., 163, 233, 287, 337, 343f., 346, 352, 356, 358, 491, 498 animacy 390, 561, 614, 660 – animate 561, 660 – inanimate 43, 601, 660 asymmetry 16, 31, 48f., 53, 59, 377, 638, 642

boundedness 390, 467, 469, 478 canonicity 32ff., 41, 46, 67, 180, 648 canonical paradigm 30ff, 47, 52, 70, 97, 180, 283, 286, 345, 441, 546, 641, 648f. case 1, 20, 32ff., 43, 49, 56f., 62, 94, 240f., 246, 354, 361, 378, 381, 383f., 390, 417, 422, 436, 441, 472, 478, 560ff., 600ff., 609, 627, 638ff., 643, 647, 655 clitic/cliticization 51, 357, 363, 389f., 482, 626ff., 655 – enclitic 39, 47, 140, 357, 359, 377, 384, 390, 472, 564 – proclitic 147, 389, 440, 564 complement 29, 44, 62, 137, 161, 295, 298, 303, 335, 343, 362f., 389f., 440, 519, 526, 544, 604, 607, 630, 640 constraint 23, 139, 156 Creole(s) 24, 463f., 467f., 470, 481, 492f., 499ff., 622 dative 33, 55f., 336, 382 declarative 5, 10f., 13, 15ff., 44, 352, 358, 448, 460, 490, 498, 596ff., 621ff., 642f., 651, 660, 662 declension 43, 56, 414, 420, 435, 601, 609, 639f. definite 372, 509, 660 deictic 1, 32, 281, 348, 357, 542, 614ff., 627, 655 demonstrative 32, 280, 361, 511, 597, 604 deponency 34, 43 derivation/derivational 36, 53f., 61, 90ff., 94, 134ff., 151, 158, 210, 239, 279f., 300, 302, 333f., 413, 432, 435, 465, 491, 515, 562, 583, 585ff., 602, 620 destination 510, 575, 623 diachronic/diachrony 13, 19, 22, 36, 94, 135, 148, 150f., 154f., 158, 161, 163ff., 216, 232, 239, 243, 245, 251, 282f., 287, 363, 368f., 376, 390, 417, 492, 509, 515, 601, 616, 625, 638f., 641, 649, 661 directional/directionality 4, 9, 13, 21, 46f., 54, 61f., 118, 150, 173, 196, 210f., 214ff.,

732 | Index of Subjects 245f., 302, 343ff., 352f., 356ff., 365ff., 377, 400ff., 434f., 490f., 510, 516, 528, 530, 543, 557ff., 573, 583, 590, 607f., 611f., 616ff., 628f. directive 55, 57, 217 distal 614ff. dynamic ~ spatial interrogatives 73, 90, 92, 232, 235, 298, 301, 361, 363, 367, 391, 490f., 542, 562, 657f. ~ spatial relation(s) 1, 4, 35, 41, 49, 54, 56, 124, 146, 170, 180, 185, 189ff., 194, 200, 205, 208, 211ff., 215f., 229, 249, 262, 281, 287f., 307, 317, 342, 344, 439, 487, 489f., 530, 543ff., 547, 557, 562, 582, 612, 617, 619, 626, 628, 637, 655, 657 elative 19, 414, 417, 420, 433, 441, 625, 639, 643 existential 511, 544 fused exponence 34, 46f., 54, 61, 69ff., 78, 91, 93, 103ff., 117, 143, 177ff., 253ff., 309ff., 391ff., 443ff., 526ff., 588 geminates 57, 417 gender 34, 382f., 601 genitive 19, 361, 382, 390, 640 grammaticalization 20, 23, 43, 511, 640, 661 Ground 1, 22, 619, 629, 644, 660 heteroclisis 34, 44 iconicity 49f. illative 19, 378f., 384, 415, 417, 420, 490, 609, 625, 643 indefinite 20, 149, 242, 301, 432, 496, 562, 660 inessive 19, 33, 414f., 417, 420, 441, 490, 529, 625, 639, 643 inflexion/inflexional 34, 44, 53, 62, 172, 239f., 246, 264, 336, 361, 422, 432, 441, 546, 562, 600, 602, 646 instrumental 16, 58, 296, 390, 436 language contact 9, 232, 303, 366, 375, 429, 439, 442, 612

lative 417, 434 location 1f., 8, 21, 31, 233, 296f., 432, 434, 496, 510, 564, 573, 581, 583, 600f., 606, 609, 615, 659f. locative 1f., 25, 43, 48f., 58, 61, 147, 158, 163, 217, 264, 296, 337, 349, 354, 361, 378, 382, 384, 515, 519, 556, 561, 573, 601, 603, 609, 614, 616, 619, 621, 625, 629, 639f. marker 13f., 33, 43f., 54, 56, 61, 150, 170, 173, 178, 196, 210, 224, 227, 229ff, 240, 246, 310, 354, 359, 390, 431, 433, 469, 490, 509, 511, 515f., 519f., 529, 561f., 573, 601, 603ff., 608f., 612, 614f., 618f., 621, 655 mismatch 10, 21, 30f., 34ff., 48, 59, 61ff., 66ff., 91, 93ff., 99f., 103ff., 141, 145, 148, 150, 167, 179ff., 247, 255ff., 303, 309ff., 356, 383f., 387f., 392ff., 247, 255ff., 303, 309ff., 356, 383f., 387f., 391ff., 416, 428, 430, 436, 438, 441ff., 452, 464f., 514, 522, 526, 530ff., 545f., 588, 597, 642, 645ff. motion event 226, 286, 292, 336, 359, 623, 650 motion verb 147, 221, 224, 226, 230, 336, 491, 511 morphonological 42f., 369, 372, 374, 388, 390, 603 nominative 19, 43, 607 noun 2, 43, 56f., 309, 336, 343f., 354f., 361ff., 368, 370, 374, 376, 390, 417, 420, 426, 561, 600ff., 604f., 607, 609, 616f., 619f., 640, 644 overdifferentiation 34, 423, 428, 446, 469, 506, 516, 518f., 562, 564, 572f., 625, 646, 650f. partitive 19, 158 perlative 295, 298f. postposition 47, 49, 309, 358f., 390, 420, 482, 510, 523, 526, 601f., 614ff., 619ff., 655

Index of Subjects | 733

predicate 498, 511, 518f., 530, 545, 615, 629, 644 preposition/prepositional 3ff., 78, 135, 138ff., 143ff., 148, 155ff., 160ff., 223f., 228ff., 235, 243, 246, 280, 284f., 287f., 293, 295f., 303, 309, 337, 343ff., 349, 352ff., 362ff., 438, 440, 468, 478ff., 487, 490, 509, 511, 517, 524f., 543, 545, 556f., 564, 582f., 604, 607f., 612, 624ff., 654 preverb 221, 224, 231, 233 pronominal 140, 147, 244f., 341, 415, 431, 511 pronoun 17, 20, 25, 33, 149, 158, 239f., 264, 280, 288, 355, 358, 361, 374, 378, 382f., 414, 426, 432, 511, 609f., prototypical 226, 348, 612, 660 proximal 614ff. semantics 26, 235, 348, 491, 498, 520, 562, 625, 629, 638, 640 sentence-modality 352, 641 spatial case 32, 361, 378, 422, 643 specifier 604f.

static 1, 3, 5, 35, 92, 143, 189, 200, 260, 280, 286, 293, 307, 336, 348, 379, 391, 490, 510, 512, 518, 530, 607, 615, 627 suppletion – strong ~ 41f., 66, 99ff., 104, 138, 172, 251f., 307f., 383, 388f. – weak ~ 66, 99, 138, 172, 178, 251, 383, 388 synonymy 146, 284f., 529, 650 tense 492f., 662 univerbation 139, 161, 172, 215f., 287, 341, 363, 365, 373f., 575, 654, 661 universal 2, 18, 23, 51 verb 6, 145, 147, 150, 221, 224, 226, 230f., 233, 336, 348, 363, 373, 381, 431, 491, 498, 511ff., 518ff., 530, 545, 561, 572, 581, 608, 619, 629, 638, 644, 658, 662