In:On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia
Edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Lindsay J. Whaley
[Studies in Language Companion Series 164] 2014
► pp. 205–220
Areal features of copula sentences in Karaim as spoken in Lithuania
Published online: 17 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.164.07csa
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.164.07csa
The paper deals with copula clauses in Karaim, a highly endangered Kipchak Turkic language spoken in Lithuania. Karaim has been dominated by the non-Turkic (Baltic and Slavic) languages of the area. Though Karaim has acquired many properties not typical of Turkic it has preserved its Turkic morphological inventory to the extent that typical Turkic categories are still marked by genuine Turkic formatives (Csató 2012, 2013). Notwithstanding this remarkable sustainability, the paper demonstrates how selective copying has in many cases changed morphosyntactic properties of the copula clauses. The contact-induced features are analyzed in the Code-Copying Model (Johanson 2002).
Keywords: Code-Copying Model, copula clauses, Karaim, language contact, Turkic
References (12)
Csató, Éva Á. 2012. On the sustainability of inflectional morphology. In Copies Versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 371–380. Leiden: Brill.
. 2013. Modal categories in Karaim: A case of complex contact morphology. In More morphologies. Contributions to the Festival of Languages [Diversitas Linguarum 35], Hitomi Otsuka, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze (eds), 121–131. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Dahl, Östen & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (eds). 2001. The Circum-Baltic Languages: Their Typology and Contacts, 2 Vols. [Studies in Language Companion Series 54-55] Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heller, Daphna & Wolter, Lynsey 2008. That is Rosa. Identificational sentences as intensional predication. In Proceedings of SuB12, Atle Grønn (ed.), 226–240. Oslo: ILOS (Institutt for litteratur, områdestudier og europeiske språk).
Kalėdaitė, Violeta 2000. Existential sentences. A contrastive study of English and Lithuanian. PhD dissertation, University of Bergen.
Karakoç, Birsel 2011. A new analysis of non-past copular markers and copular clauses in Karakhanid Turkic. Turkic Languages 15: 171–193.
Rothstein, Robert A. 1993. Polish. In Comrie& Corbett (eds), 686–758.
Stassen, Leon 2001. Nonverbal predication in the Circum-Baltic languages. In Dahl& Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), Vol.2, 569–590.
Timberlake, Alan 1993. Russian. In Comrie & Corbett (eds), 827–886.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Ragagnin, Elisabetta
Karakoç, Birsel
2019. Predicative possession in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages. In Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia [Studies in Language Companion Series, 206], ► pp. 125 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.