Definition of Linguistic Area Research Essay

The primary goal of this essay

The primary goal of this essay is to critically evaluate Caucasus linguistic, which highlights a number of minor difficulties that linguists have long battled to resolve. The specific areal characteristics that the Caucasus region represents include genetic phylogeny and typological odds. (Hickey 23). The Caucasus predominates in an area with one of the most extensive historical records and is primarily the subject of many international research projects in terms of archeological records.

Distinctiveness of the Caucasian groups

It is widely recognized that the three main indigenous Caucasian groups are Nakh-Daghestanian, Abkhaz-Adyghean, and Kartvelian. (Hickey 23). These Caucasus families are incredibly distinct when compared with all neighboring vast language families. In particular, their unique, distinctive trait is observed in their phonological profiles, which include phonemically pharyngealized vowels and Lara like lateral affricates. However, much of their distinctiveness is observable in their glottalization (Hickey 29).

The challenge of establishing genetic relations

However, in spite of the best research efforts made by historically and highly talented comparativists such as Sergel Starostin and Arnold Chikobava, there has never been anyone else who developed convincing cases that the Caucasus families are essentially related, including the three predominant families (Hickey 33). For instance, in Starostin’s argumentative case study, which received a lot of criticism regarding the North Caucasus’ Etymological Dictionary, he failed to include significant families such as the Karvelian (Hickey 33). Nonetheless, it is imperative to note that that much of these families’ similarities did not result from genetic retention. In particular, as noted by Everett, much of their similarities emanated from other means such as convergent evolution, contact and possibly, by way of pure chance (Zelkina 56).

Reasons why the Region is considered a Linguistic Area

Academic that seeks an interest in generalization does not, however, get appealed by chance. Several individuals have made efforts to argue that the Caucasus families do not institute a language phylum that is deep (Zelkina 66). In essence, it means that the region inhabited by the Caucasus families may still be constituting a somewhat Sprachbund kind of language (Zelkina 66). Undoubted, several features have been adopted across language boundaries that include, glottalization in particular. The origin of Ossetian as the last central remnant of the Steppe Iranian language that was once primarily spoken is well known. However, it was under the influence of Svan and Georgian (Zelkina 67).

Adoption of features by Ossetian

Ossetian has indicated that not only did they adopt hundreds of words from Kartvelian languages but they have remodeled its case-morphology system (Zelkina 71). This is a Georgian model that eventually lost its fusional Indo-European case system, which was inherited. In particular, they replaced the case system with an agglutinating plural suffix plus case suffix (Zelkina 76). The Ossetian had borrowed Kartvelian language that contained or missed glottalized consonants such as cross, mushroom, cross as well as a sanctuary (Zelkina 76).

Adoption of features by other languages in the region

Ossetian has also adopted several other features that have been found typical of Kartvelian language and which, have not been identified to be related to IE languages (Matras, Yaron, et al. 42). For instance, the restriction of complementizers to a less or more preverbal state. The dialect of Armenian that is spoken in Georgia is yet another non-indigenous language, which has been found to borrow glottalized realization. This is for its series characterized by voiceless stops in at least one possible realization (Matras, Yaron, et al. 42).

Criterions for a Caucasian Sprachbund

The most important fact that has been identifies in both the Armenian and Ossetian, including many other languages existing in the region is that Klimov utilized the presence of glottalized obstruents (Matras, Yaron, et al. 42). This is one of the main five criterions identified for a Caucasian Sprachbund, accompanied with an epiglottal or pharyngeal position of articulation, objects, and subjects of ergativity and agglutinative morphology (Matras, Yaron, et al. 52). Kilimov’s thesis received a lot of criticism and controversy mainly because of he tended to couch the view that specifically focused on the Caucasus in his great theory regarding stadialism. In this specific theory, Kilimov claimed that languages tend to evolve from one alignment to another in a unidirectional manner (Matras, Yaron, et al. 53). For instance, his theory indicated that languages evolve from active to accusative and towards ergative.

Criticism of Kilimov’s perspective

However, almost all linguists who existed during his time (Bulut 86) have mainly discredited Kilimov’s specific perspective. The notion of Caucasian Sprachbund spelled out in his precis claimed that Kilimov had primarily abstracted away mainly from several essential details (Bulut 86). These crucial details might have attracted significant criticism coupled with skepticism regarding this specific notion. For instance, Kilimov supposed that Kartvelian language is essentially ergative, which is a perspective that is rejected by most kartvelologists. This is mainly because Svan and Georgian are seen to be much closer to active languages such as Hidatsa and Guarani (Bulut 88). Other arguments presented by Tuite claims that the Caucasus might be assumed be a phonological sprachbund, however, not more than that (Bulut 89).

Research on diffusion of features within the language families

The most recent research attempts were carried by talented linguists such as Chirikba, which sought to advocate for a Caucasian Sprachbund (Bulayeva, Kazima, et al. 22). Through his research article, he argued that there are at least three dozen differing features that purportedly characterize the families of Caucasus as a unit. He claimed that this particular group is distinct as compared to other surrounding regions. Other linguistics have attempted to test the relevance of such claims by taking his criteria by setting it against several languages emanating from significant branches of every indigenous families such as Svan, Georgian, Kabardian, Abkhaz, Lezgian, Chechen, Isakhur, Khwarshi as well as the Batsbi (Bulayeva, Kazima, et al 22). Through such analysis, it was identified that available grammars were frequently ambiguous or silent as far as specific questions were concerned.

Problems with identifying specific features

This tends to demonstrate that indeed there are large or broad similarities identified across Caucasus three powerful families (Bulayeva, Kazima, et al. 24). However, it might be because Chirikba vaguely recognized several features or that there are significant similarities regarding several features across various languages cross-linguistically. For instance, it has not been understood how he defined sibilant or rich, meaning that one may be able to identify multiple sorts of rich sibilant systems in any place in the world such that at least some Caucasus languages may be seen to qualify fully. There are some cases where Chirikba works were faulted as they presented false data such as the arguments, which claimed that the Georgian is a probable form meaning ’I cannot eat’ whereas in reality, it means that ’I don’t feel like eating’ (Bulayeva, Kazima, et al. 27).

Problems with correlating with topography

If the question of identifying specific features that seek to identify the Caucasus is seen to be problematic, particular reasons indicate that the other side of this particular correlation with mountains is weak (Bulayeva, Kazima, et al. 32). Mainly, history regarding several Caucus families leads to the understanding that at least some of these families may not have originated in their present mountainous environment or locations as indicated by popular linguists such as Everett. For instance, within Kartvellian’s Ajari there are toponyms along the settings of Black Sea Coast, which is not close to the territories of the Abkhaz-Adyghean that are mainly attested or the mountainous (Bulayeva, Kazima, et al. 32).

The dominance of the Kartvelian family

This suggested that several types of Abkhaz-Adyghean substrate in extremely remote antiquity (Bulayeva, Kazima, et al. 34). Therefore, if claims indicated by Diakonov that suggest the ancient Anatolian language such as the Hattic, which is only attested sparsely in records from Hittite Empire’s imperial libraries are linked to Abkhaz-Adyghean has proven to be true. Such a fact would have carried a much stronger resonance. Specialists emanating from Nakh-Daghestanian such as Victor Friedman and Wolfgang Schulze have indicated that the two branches of this family used in the South of the Greater Caucasus mountainous ranges (Bulayeva, Kazima, et al. 35). This is where is currently known as the lowlands of Armenia, Azerbaijan or the Northern Iran. Moreover, it is suggested that one or some of Caucasus families eventually decided to move towards the mountains during some unidentified date (Small Nations and Great Powers 94). At a much later unknown period, another branch followed this suit and moved towards the north. This specific movement resulted in a significant cleft between the two groups or branches. This essentially means that the Nakh-Daghestanian languages are double. However, they are separately residual (Small Nations and Great Powers 95).

The most dominant language family

Considering carefully the Caucasus three leading families, it has been identified that the Kartvelian is most probably to be rightly autochthonous in the region (Czerewawacz- Filipowicz 66). Nonetheless, it tends to suggest a tremendous dialectal diversity that appears in Georgia’s western lowlands, where Megrelian, Svan as well as Georgian all interceded. In this context, a more easterly origin has been identified, which seeks to explain a substrate phenomenon in Iranian and Kurdish languages (Czerewawacz- Filipowicz 68). Although it has been established that none of these suggested facts are beyond a reasonable doubt, they tend to highlight the dangers of supposing that a specific language family obtained its unique characteristics from near mountain, one geographical location of any other suggested topographical feature (Czerewawacz- Filipowicz 69).

Works Cited

Bulayeva, Kazima, et al. Genomic Architecture of Schizophrenia Across Diverse Genetic Isolates: A Study of Dagestan Populations. 2016.

BULUT, CHRISTIANE. Linguistic Minorities in Turkey and Turkic Speaking Minorities of the Peripheries. EISENBRAUNS, 2017.

CZEREWACZ-FILIPOWICZ, KATARZYNA. Regional Integration Processes in the Commonwealth of Independent States: Economic and Political ... Factors. SPRINGER, 2017.

Hickey, Raymond. The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. 2017.

Matras, Yaron, et al. Linguistic Areas: Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. Taylor & Francis, 2000.

Zelkina, Anna. In Quest for God and Freedom: The Sufi Response to the Russian Advance in the North Caucasus. New York UP, 2000.