The language maps have been generated using the data coded in the language sample in the Appendix.
6.3.1 Data points for geographic coding
Each language is displayed as one data point. The corresponding geographic coordinates have either been taken from Dryer & Haspelmath (2013) or were included using the language coordinates provided by Bickel & Nichols (2001– 2016). For some languages, which were missing in the mentioned databases, new coordinates had to be defined based on the main geographic location where the respective languages are spoken.
2The table is derived from Bickel, Nichols & Rießler (2001–2016) where these languages are
6.3 The language maps Displaying the distribution of a given feature by means of a borderline around a group of languages – like in the maps used by typological surveys of the EU-
ROTYP-project3– was not preferred because these maps might imply the exis-
tence of isoglosses around continuous language and dialect areas. A typological survey of non-continuos languages seems rather inadequate for drawing such isoglosses.4
6.3.2 Data points for type coding
In several languages more than one default attribution marking device occurs, for example in Albanian (see §7.18.1) where two lexical classes of adjectives exist: one of them marked for head-driven agreement, the other simultaneously marked for head-driven agreement and attributive nominalization. In the map’s legend, a slash marks the occurrence of multiple basic types in one language: Albanian
HDrAgr/Nmlz+HDrAgr.5
Parentheses denote secondary types of attribution marking devices with addi- tional semantic content, as in Chuvash (see §7.12.1), where attributive adjectives are normally juxtaposed but can alternatively be marked for attributive nominal- ization in contrastive focus constructions: Chuvash Juxt(Nmlz).
Square brackets are used for languages where the occurrence of a given type of attribution marking device seems even more restricted or if the device’s charac- teristics remain uncertain due to inadequate data. Consider for example Turkish (see §7.12.2.1), where attributive nominalization occurs as a secondary type but is restricted to headless noun phrases in direct object position (marked for ac- cusative): Turkish Juxt[Nmlz]. Secondary and tertiary types are not coded in the maps.
6.3.3 The maps
The maps in Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the distribution of different adjective attri- bution marking devices across those world’s languages mentioned in the present study. Whereas all types are coded with different colors or shapes in Figure 1, a
3http://www.degruyter.com/view/serial/16329 (Accessed 2016-07-19)
4Cf. also Van Pottelberge’s 2001 critique of the “name maps” used by EUROTYP. Furthermore,
the EUROTYP language sample is somewhat arbitrary. The western Romance varieties, for instance, are represented in large number whereas varieties of Balkan Romance (Megleno- Romanian, Aromunian, etc.) are missing completely. Also the whole Saamic branch is repre- sented in the EUROTYP sample as one single language only even though Saamic languages are as diverse as Romance languages.
similar language sample is coded only for the main morpho-syntactic types (jux- taposition, agreement, attributive state, incorporation) in Figure 2. Note that these world maps do not reflect systematic sampling but are rather the result of random choice due to my work with data coded for the noun phrase structure module of AUTOTYP (Bickel, Nichols & Rießler 2001–2016). Note also that the maps show fewer languages from the northern Eurasian area than are actually coded in the language sample in the Appendix.
The other pairs of maps are coded similarly but zoom in on northern Eurasia (Figure 3 and Figure 4), on North Asia (Figure 5 and Figure 6) and on Europe (Figure 7 and Figure 8). Whereas the maps of northern Eurasia and North Asia show only representatives for the known single taxa, the maps of Europe present a more complete picture. The reason for displaying a deeper resolution in the European map is the easier accessibility of data for almost all existing languages of that area. Displaying a similar deep resolution on the whole northern Eurasian area was not possible due to lack of data for several languages.
In order to present a balanced picture, several European languages are thus not displayed in the larger map of northern Eurasia. When a choice had to be made whether or not to keep a language inside a given taxon, this was al- ways done in favor of diversity rather than uniformity. One taxon can even be represented by more than one language in order to display extraordinary diver- sity inside that group of closely related languages. Consequently, the northern branch of Germanic is represented by Icelandic (with HDrAgr), Swedish (with
ACAgr+HDrAgr/HDrAgr) and Västerbotten Swedish (with Inc/HDrAgr) (§7.18.6.2).
The choice to let the maps illustrate the highest possible diversity instead of displaying a genealogically and geographically balanced picture is justified by the general goal of the present investigation, namely the synchronic and diachronic mapping of cross-linguistically attested adjective attribution marking devices in a geographically restricted area. Whereas the mapping of synchronically attested diversity is the aim of the present part, Part IV (Diachrony) will inspect this diversity form a diachronic perspective.
7 Adjective attribution marking in the
languages of northern Eurasia
The following chapter contains an overall survey of adjective attribution marking devices which occur in the languages of northern Eurasia. For each genealogi- cal unit, both the prototypical and the known minor noun phrase type(s) will be characterized and illustrated with examples. A complete list of adjective attri- bution marking devices in over 200 single languages considered for the present survey is found in a table starting on page 246 in the Appendix. The geographic spread of the different noun phrase types is shown on several maps starting on page 254 in the Appendix.
7.1 Eskimo-Aleut (Central Siberian Yupik)
Whereas most languages of the Eskimo-Aleut family are spoken on islands in the Bering Strait or on the North American continent, a few varieties of the Yupik subbranch of Eskimo can be localized to north-easternmost Siberia. But only one of these languages, Central Siberian Yupik, is still spoken (Salminen 2007: 224).
In Central Siberian Yupik, only one adjective attribution marking device is attested:
• incorporation.
Adjective incorporation in Central Siberian Yupik Items that correspond to
property-denoting words in other languages (“adjectives”) are phonologically bound nominal roots in Central Siberian Yupik. Adjectival modification is thus expressed by means of polysynthetic morphology and can be characterized as ad- jective incorporation according to the ontology presented in Part II (Typology).
(1) Central Siberian Yupik (de Reuse 1994) a. qawaagpag-rukutaagh-ghllag-Ø
legendary_big_bird-huge.noun-big.noun-abs ‘huge big (legendary large) bird’ (54)
b. mangteghagh-ghllag-lgu-uq
house-big.noun-have.noun-ind(3s) ‘He has a big house.’ (55)
c. mangteghagh-ghrugllag-ngllagh-yug-nghit°e-unga house-big.noun-make.noun-want_to.verb-neg-ind(1s) ‘I did not want to make a big house.’ (56)