Questions & explanations
1. In Jarawara (another Amazonian language), how does the evidential system interact with gender?
In Jarawara, evidentiality is marked on the verb and also interacts with gender of the speaker. There are two main evidentials: immediate (seen or heard) and non-immediate (inferred or reported). However, the forms differ depending on whether the speaker is male or female. For example, male speakers use -ke for immediate and -te for non-immediate, while female speakers use -ke for immediate and -te for non-immediate as well? Actually, the system is complex: males use -ke for immediate and -te for non-immediate, but females use -ke for immediate and -te for non-immediate? Wait, I need to be accurate. In Jarawara, the evidential suffixes are -ke (immediate, used by both genders) and -te (non-immediate, used by both genders) but with different allomorphs? Actually, the gender distinction is in the person-marking prefixes, not evidentials. Let me correct: In Jarawara, evidentiality is marked by suffixes: -ke for direct (visual/auditory) and -te for indirect (inferential/reportative). Gender of the speaker affects the form of the verb's final suffix, but not the evidential itself. So the
2. Give an example of a language with flexible word order and explain how it works.
Russian has flexible word order. The sentence 'Kot vidit mysh' (cat sees mouse) is SVO. But you can also say 'Mysh vidit kot' (mouse sees cat) – but that changes the meaning to 'The mouse sees the cat' because the case endings are the same? Actually, in Russian, 'kot' is subject (nominative) and 'mysh' is object (accusative) in the first, but in the second, 'mysh' is still object? Wait, careful: In Russian, 'kot' (cat) is nominative, 'kota' is accusative; 'mysh' (mouse) is nominative or accusative? Actually, 'mysh' is feminine, nominative and accusative are the same. So 'Mysh vidit kot' could be ambiguous. Better example: In Latin, 'Canis felem videt' (dog sees cat) – 'canis' is subject (nominative), 'felem' is object (accusative). You can reorder: 'Felem canis videt' still means 'dog sees cat' because the endings tell you.
3. Give a concrete example of a counterfeeding opacity from a real or plausible language.
In some dialects of English, a rule that deletes /g/ before /n/ (as in 'sign' → [saɪn]) and a rule that nasalizes vowels before nasals. If nasalization applies first, it nasalizes the vowel before /n/, then /g/ deletion removes the nasal? Actually, /g/ deletion does not remove the nasal. Better example: In a language where final devoicing applies, and then a vowel deletion removes the devoicing trigger? Wait. A classic example: In a language with vowel harmony and then deletion of the triggering vowel. For instance, a rule that raises vowels before high vowels, and then a rule that deletes final high vowels. If raising applies first, it raises the vowel, then deletion removes the trigger. The surface vowel is raised but the trigger is gone, creating opacity. This is counterbleeding.
4. Compare the Warlpiri case system with English: how do they mark the doer and receiver differently?
In English, the doer is the subject and comes before the verb, and the receiver is the object and comes after the verb. There is no special suffix on nouns. For example, 'The man spears the kangaroo.' In Warlpiri, the doer gets an ergative suffix, and the receiver gets no suffix (absolutive). Word order is free. Also, English uses the same form for the subject of intransitive verbs (e.g., 'The kangaroo walks') as for the doer of transitive verbs (e.g., 'The man spears'), but Warlpiri uses absolutive for intransitive subjects and ergative for transitive doers. So, Warlpiri groups intransitive subjects with objects, while English groups them with subjects.
5. Why might a language lose its T/V distinction over time, and what areal factors could contribute to this loss?
A language might lose its T/V distinction if social hierarchies become less rigid or if there is influence from a language without such a distinction. For example, English lost 'thou' as society became more egalitarian and due to contact with other languages that did not have the distinction. Areal factors include the spread of a lingua franca that lacks T/V, like English in global communication. When speakers of a T/V language are exposed to a language that uses only 'you', they may start using the informal form more broadly. This can lead to the loss of the formal form. So areal pressure from a dominant language can erode politeness distinctions.
6. What does non-configurationality mean in language?
Non-configurationality means a language does not have a fixed word order to show who does what to whom. In configurational languages like English, word order is strict: 'The dog bites the man' means something different from 'The man bites the dog.' In non-configurational languages, words can be arranged in many orders, and the meaning is shown by other things like case markings on nouns. For example, in Latin, 'canis hominem mordet' and 'hominem canis mordet' both mean 'the dog bites the man' because 'canis' has the nominative case (doer) and 'hominem' has the accusative case (receiver). So, word order is free, but grammar still shows the roles.
7. Give an example of an Omaha kinship system and explain how it differs from a Crow system.
In an Omaha system, the father's side is more important: your father's brother is called 'father', but your mother's brother is called 'uncle' or a different term. Also, your father's sister is called 'aunt', but your mother's sister might be called 'mother'. In a Crow system, the mother's side is emphasized: your mother's sister is 'mother', and your father's sister is 'aunt'. Both systems are patrilineal (Omaha) or matrilineal (Crow) and are found in specific areas. For example, Omaha systems are common among some Native American tribes in the Great Plains, while Crow systems are found in other tribes. They reflect different social structures.
8. Compare how areal diffusion and inheritance from a common ancestor can both explain similarities between languages. Give an example of each.
Inheritance means languages share features because they come from a parent language, like Spanish and Italian both having similar words for 'hand' (mano, mano). Areal diffusion means languages become similar because of contact, even if they are not related. For example, languages in the Balkans share certain grammatical features like postposed articles (e.g., Romanian 'omul' vs. Bulgarian 'chovekăt') even though they belong to different families. So inheritance is vertical (parent to child), while diffusion is horizontal (neighbor to neighbor). Both can produce similarities, but linguists look at systematic correspondences to tell them apart.
9. Why might two unrelated languages in the same region have similar color term systems, even if they are not related?
Languages in the same region often share cultural practices, trade, and environment, which can lead to similar color term systems. For example, in the Amazon, many unrelated languages have a single term for blue and green, possibly because the rainforest environment does not require distinguishing them. Also, if one language borrows color terms from another, the system spreads areally. So similarity can arise from contact rather than inheritance. The Berlin and Kay hierarchy may be less visible in such areas because areal diffusion overrides the universal tendency. Thus, areal patterns explain why color term systems cluster geographically.
10. How does the evidential system in Lhasa Tibetan differ from that in Turkish, which also has direct/indirect past?
Lhasa Tibetan has a more complex system with egophoricity, mirativity, and multiple evidential distinctions (direct, inferential, reportative), while Turkish mainly has a direct vs indirect past (-di vs -miş). Tibetan's evidentials are sensitive to person (egophoric for first person), whereas Turkish evidentials are not person-based. Additionally, Tibetan uses different suffixes for present, past, and future, while Turkish's evidential is primarily in past tense. Tibetan also integrates mirativity more systematically, with specific suffixes like -song for surprise. Both systems, however, require speakers to mark their source of knowledge.
11. Compare the use of honorifics in Japanese and Korean. How are they similar and different?
Both Japanese and Korean have complex honorific systems with different speech levels. In Japanese, there are plain, polite, and honorific forms, and you must choose the correct verb ending. In Korean, there are seven levels, from intimate to formal, each with different verb endings and vocabulary. Both systems require using different words for 'I' and 'you' depending on the situation. A key difference is that Korean honorifics also affect nouns and particles, while Japanese focuses more on verbs. Both are areally connected due to historical contact between Japan and Korea. They reflect a shared cultural emphasis on social hierarchy.
12. How can the areal distribution of base-5 systems help us understand past trade networks?
Base-5 systems, where numbers are grouped by fives, are less common but appear in some regions like parts of Africa and South America. If base-5 is found in a cluster of unrelated languages, it might have spread through contact. For example, in the Amazon, some languages use base-5, possibly because of trade in items counted in fives (like cacao beans). The pattern can show which groups interacted economically. By mapping base-5 systems, linguists can infer ancient trade routes. This is because counting systems often align with the goods being traded. So areal patterns of numeral bases provide clues about past economic networks.