Band 27, Heft 3

Existing sampling methods in language typology strive to control for areal biases in typological datasets as a means to avoid contact effects in the distribution of linguistic structure. However, none of these methods provide ways to directly compare contact scenarios from a typological perspective. This paper addresses this gap by introducing a sampling procedure for worldwide comparisons of language contact scenarios. The sampling unit consists of sets of three languages. The Focus Language is the language whose structures we examine in search for contact effects; the Neighbor Language is genealogically unrelated to the Focus Language, and counts as the potential source of contact influence on the Focus Language; the Benchmark Language is a relative of the Focus Language neither in contact with the Focus nor with the Neighbor language, and is used for disentangling contact effects from genealogical inheritance in the Focus Language. Through this design, we compiled a sample of 49 three-language sets (147 languages in total), which we present here. By switching the focus of typological sampling from individual languages to contact relations between languages, our method has the potential of uncovering patterns in the diffusion of language structures, and how they vary and change.

Do signers of different signed languages establish and maintain reference the same way? Here we compare how signers of five Western deaf signed languages coordinate fully conventionalized forms with more richly improvised semiotics to identify and talk about referents of varying agency. The five languages (based on a convenience sample) are Auslan, Irish Sign Language, Finnish Sign Language, Norwegian Sign Language, and Swedish Sign Language. Using ten retellings of Frog, Where Are You? from each language, we analyze tokens of referring expressions with respect to: (a) activation status (new vs. maintained vs. re-introduced); (b) semiotic strategy (e.g., pointing sign, fingerspelling, enactment); and (c) animacy (human vs. animal vs. inanimate object). Statistical analysis reveals many similarities and some differences across the languages. For example, signers of each language typically used conventionalized forms to identify new referents, and less conventional strategies to maintain and reintroduce referents. Differences were mainly observed in relation to the patterning across animacy and activation categories and in the use of fingerspelled words from ambient spoken/written languages. We suggest that doing reference in these signed languages involves both signed language-specific and ecology-specific strategies. The latter may be attributed to the different social and historical trajectories of each language.

This study compares standard negation in the indigenous languages of South America to the rest of the world. We show that South American languages not only prefer postverbal negation to preverbal negation and negative morphology to syntax, but postverbal morphological negation to any other negation strategy. The predominance of this strategy makes South America distinct from other macro-areas. The study also considers the areal distribution of negation on the South American continent. It shows that negation strategies each have their own concentration area. Postverbal morphological negation, which is the dominant strategy, turns out to be concentrated in the northwest of the continent, with the highest density around the boundaries between Colombia, Peru and Brazil. We suggest that the preference for postverbal morphological negation in South America is likely to be the result of language-internal mechanisms of negation renewal, coupled with language contact.

This profile of the Pahoturi River language family of southern Papua New Guinea draws from extensive fieldwork on Idi [ISO 639-3: idi] and Ende [kit] – two of six varieties comprising this family – and brief surveying of the other four, which we illustrate in print for the first time. We present the first typological treatment of Pahoturi River in pursuit of shining more light on this understudied corner of the linguistic landscape. This profile is organized into two parts: first, we present sections on the basic structures and systems of Pahoturi River, illustrated with examples from across the family and supplemented with descriptions of Idi and Ende as relevant. From our preliminary data on the four other varieties, we gather that they are similar to Idi and Ende in many respects, but more investigation is warranted. Second, we provide an in-depth treatment of the verbal complex of Idi and Ende. We highlight two intriguing aspects of these complex systems – analytic constructions and ditransitive indexing – that distinguish the Pahoturi River family and the linguistic region of southern New Guinea.