Please get in touch if you don't have access to any of those.
2026
- A novel perspective on negative bias in polar questions: The view from RussianNatasha KorotkovaIn The Oxford Handbook of Noncanonical Questions, 2026
In contrast to well-researched wh-questions, the semantics and pragmatics of polar, and especially biased, questions in Slavic languages have not received much attention within formal approaches to meaning (Šimík forth.). This chapter addresses this gap through a focused investigation of two Russian question particles, razve and neuzheli, which, I argue, serve as a window on the nature of question bias. Previous literature characterizes razve and neuzheli as markers of negative speaker bias and positive contextual bias, roughly corresponding to English really (Geist and Repp 2023; Repp and Geist forth.). Zooming in on subtle differences in their conventional meaning and conversational dynamics (cf. Baranov 1986; Bulygina and Shmelev 1997), I show that such characterization is incomplete and use the present case study to highlight the limitations of current approaches to question bias as a whole. My goals are fourfold: (i) to provide an in-depth description of razve and neuzheli in isolation, demonstrating that they do not fit the extant typology; (ii) to propose, building on Korotkova (2023), that negative speaker bias in questions tracks the belief revision potential of a situation, which explains the behavior of razve and neuzheli in a principled way; (iii) to make a case for viewing contextual bias as an evidential notion; and (iv) to endorse the idea that discourse effects associated with question bias needn’t be hard-wired to the semantics of expressions that give rise to those effects.
@incollection{korotkova-forth-ncq, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Noncanonical Questions}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, title = {A novel perspective on negative bias in polar questions: {The} view from {Russian}}, year = {2026}, address = {Oxford}, editor = {Eckardt, Regine and Deh\'{e}, Nicole and Walkden, George}, category = {B} }
2025
- Nothing to claim: Claim reports and non-endorsementNatasha Korotkova and Pranav AnandIn Festschrift in Honour of Regine Eckardt, 2025
While there has been much research on the typology of speech reports, the variety of communicative predicates has remained largely understudied. In line with the growing body of work on the fine-grained semantics of clause-taking predicates, we explore possible distinctions within the communicative group by zooming in on the behavior of the English verb claim. Our main focus is what we call the NON-ENDORSEMENT PUZZLE: a distinct sense that the speaker is not fully on board with the content of a claim report. We ruminate on possible sources of this effect, such as the speaker’s doxastic state or insufficient evidence, and conclude that non-endorsement is not conventionally encoded, but arises due to the properties of discourses described by claim. We argue that it reports assertions that have not been accepted (yet) and that the gap between the proposal and its possible acceptance is responsible for the sense that claim reports something less than an ideal Gricean assertion.
@incollection{korotkova&anand2025-claim, author = {Korotkova, Natasha and Anand, Pranav}, booktitle = {Festschrift in Honour of {Regine} {Eckardt}}, publisher = {Humboldt-Universit\"{a}t zu Berlin}, title = {Nothing to claim: Claim reports and non-endorsement}, year = {2025}, address = {Berlin}, editor = {Csipak, Eva and David, Johanna and Liu, Mingya}, pages = {139-148}, doi = {10.18452/33384}, category = {B} } - The notional category of evidentialityNatasha Korotkova2025Submitted to: Arregui, A., V. Hacquard and M. Ippolito (Eds.), The Cambirdge Handbook of Modality
This paper is a focused investigation of analytical options proposed for evidentiality in recent formal literature (world-based, commitment-based, event-based) as well as the empirical motivation behind those options. Much work has been devoted to the ontological relationship between evidentiality and modality, and the paper pays special attention to the types of data that motivate the analysis of evidentials as intensional operators. My ultimate goal is to scrutinize the dialectic. While various arguments have been used to adjudicate between the existing theories, I (i) highlight that many of these arguments don’t in fact settle the debate, and (ii) bring to the fore new types of diagnostics that might, if applied consistently. My hope is for the reader to emerge with a better understanding of evidentiality as a semantic category—and with many directions for future work, if they are so inclined.
@unpublished{korotkova2025-evi, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, note = {Submitted to: Arregui, A., V. Hacquard and M. Ippolito (Eds.), The Cambirdge Handbook of Modality}, title = {The notional category of evidentiality}, year = {2025}, url = {https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/009373}, category = {C} }
2024
- Facts, intentions, questions: English “come-to-know” predicates in deliberative environmentsPranav Anand and Natasha KorotkovaIn Proceedings of the 24th Amsterdam Colloquium, 2024
This paper explores a distributional interaction in English between (i) deliberative environments, e.g., intend; (ii) ‘come-to-know’ verbs (CtKs): factive change-of-belief verbs, e.g., discover and find out; and (iii) complement selection. We show that deliberative environments permit CtKs only when they embed questions. We derive this constraint from a clash between two presuppositions of CtKs, their factivity and change-of-state requirements, that emerges due to the projection properties of deliberative environments. We show that when the factivity presupposition is either absent (as with non-factive change-of-belief predicates) or accommodated locally, CtKs in deliberative environments permit declarative complements.
@inproceedings{anand&korotkova2024-ac24, author = {Anand, Pranav and Korotkova, Natasha}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 24th Amsterdam Colloquium}, title = {Facts, intentions, questions: {English} ``come-to-know'' predicates in deliberative environments}, year = {2024}, address = {Amsterdam}, editor = {Carcassi, Fausto and Johnson, Tamar and Knudstorp, Soren Brinck and Parrado, Sabina Domínguez and Robledo, Pablo Rivas and Sbardolini, Giorgio}, pages = {15-21}, publisher = {ILLC}, category = {A} }
2023
- Vanilla rules: The “no ice cream” constructionFelix Frühauf, Hadil Karawani, Todor Koev, and 3 more authorsIn Sinn und Bedeutung 27, 2023
This paper is about what we call Deontically-flavored Nominal Constructions (DNCs) in English, such as No ice cream or Dogs on leash only. DNCs are often perceived as commands and have been argued to be a type of non-canonical imperative, much like root infinitives in German or Russian. We argue instead that DNCs at their core are declaratives that cite a rule but can be used performatively in the right context. We propose that DNCs contain an elided deontic modal, i.e., allowed, whose presence explains their distributional restrictions and interpretational properties. Among other things, we speculate on the licensing conditions of DNCs (the presence of only or the negative determiner no), suggesting that these are tied to the properties of discourses in which rules can be used naturally.
@inproceedings{fruhaufetal2023-sub27, author = {Fr\"{u}hauf, Felix and Karawani, Hadil and Koev, Todor and Korotkova, Natasha and Penka, Doris and Skibra, Daniel}, booktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung 27}, title = {Vanilla rules: {The} ``no ice cream'' construction}, year = {2023}, address = {Prague}, editor = {Onoeva, Maria and Sta\v{n}kov\'{a}, Anna and \v{S}im\'{i}k, Radek}, publisher = {Charles University}, pages = {209-227}, doi = {10.18148/sub/2023.v27.1065}, category = {A} } - Expressing evidenceCorien Bary and Natasha KorotkovaJournal of Pragmatics, 2023
@article{bary&korotkova2023, author = {Bary, Corien and Korotkova, Natasha}, journal = {Journal of Pragmatics}, title = {Expressing evidence}, year = {2023}, volume = {218}, pages = {1-5}, doi = {10.1016/j.pragma.2023.07.014}, category = {A} } - Conversational dynamics of razve-questions in RussianNatasha KorotkovaIn Sinn und Bedeutung 27, 2023
Russian questions with the particle razve appear to convey negative bias in conflictingevidence scenarios, thus bearing superficial resemblance to English questions with really (cf. Repp and Geist forth.). I argue that razve-questions convey a novel type of bias and signal that the speaker is in a situation with belief revision potential, facing a conflict between a prior belief and a current abductive inference. Depending on context, such questions receive (i) an information-seeking interpretation or (ii) what I will call a ‘point-making’ interpretation. I propose a unified semantics for razve, while also showcasing the limitations of current approaches to question bias and making a case for sensitivity to abduction in a novel empirical domain.
@incollection{korotkova2023-sub27, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, booktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung 27}, publisher = {Charles University}, title = {Conversational dynamics of razve-questions in {Russian}}, year = {2023}, address = {Prague}, editor = {Onoeva, Maria and Sta\v{n}kov\'{a}, Anna and \v{S}im\'{i}k, Radek}, pages = {328-346}, doi = {10.18148/sub/2023.v27.1073}, category = {A} }
2022
- How to theorize about subjective meaning: A lesson from ‘de re’Pranav Anand and Natasha KorotkovaLinguistics and Philosophy, 2022
Subjective language has attracted substantial attention in the recent literature in formal semantics and philosophy of language (see overviews in MacFarlane 2014; van Wijnbergen-Huitink 2016; Lasersohn 2017; Vardomskaya 2018; Zakkou 2019b). Most current theories argue that Subjective Predicates (SPs), which express matters of opinion, semantically differ from ordinary predicates, which express matters of fact. We will call this view “SP exceptionalism”. This paper addresses SP exceptionalism by scrutinizing the behavior of SPs in attitude reports, which, as we will argue, significantly constrains the space of analytical options and rules out some of the existing theories. As first noticed by Stephenson (2007a,b), the most prominent reading of embedded SPs is one where they talk about the attitude holder’s subjective judgment. As is remarked sometimes (Sæbø 2009; Pearson 2013a), this reading is not the only one: embedded SPs may also talk about someone else’s, non-local, judgment. We concentrate specifically on such cases and show that nonlocal judgment is possible if and only if SPs are used within a DP that is outside main predicate position and that entire DP is read de re. We demonstrate that the behavior of SPs in attitude reports does not differ from that of ordinary predicates: it follows from general constraints on intersective modification and intensional quantification (Farkas 1997; Musan 1997; Percus 2000; Keshet 2008). We argue that this unexceptional behavior of SPs in fact has unexpected consequences for SP exceptionalism. Precisely because SPs have been argued to be semantically different from ordinary predicates, not all theories correctly predict these less-studied data: some overgenerate (e.g. Stephenson 2007a,b; Stojanovic 2007; Sæbø 2009) and some undergenerate (e.g. McCready 2007; Pearson 2013a). Out of the currently available theories, only relativist accounts (Lasersohn 2005; MacFarlane 2014; Bylinina 2017; Coppock 2018) predict the right interpretation, and only that interpretation. We thus present a novel empirical argument for relativism, and, more generally, formulate a constraint that has to be taken into consideration by any view that advocates SP exceptionalism.
@article{anand&korotkova2022-l&p, author = {Anand, Pranav and Korotkova, Natasha}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, title = {How to theorize about subjective meaning: {A} lesson from `de re'}, year = {2022}, number = {3}, pages = {619-681}, volume = {45}, doi = {10.1007/s10988-021-09331-0}, category = {A} }
2021
- The embedding puzzle: Constraints on evidentials in complement clausesNatasha KorotkovaLinguistic Inquiry, 2021
@article{korotkova2021-li, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, journal = {Linguistic Inquiry}, title = {The embedding puzzle: {Constraints} on evidentials in complement clauses}, year = {2021}, number = {1}, pages = {210-226}, volume = {52}, doi = {doi.org/10.1162/ling a 00363}, category = {A} } - Find, must and conflicting evidenceNatasha Korotkova and Pranav AnandIn Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 25, 2021
Find-verbs — English find, German finden, French trouver and their counterparts in other languages — have figured prominently in the literature on subjective language, as they only allow complements that are about matters of opinion, rather than fact. This paper focuses on a lesser-studied property of find-verbs: the ban on must-modals in their complements and their interaction with epistemics and evidentials at large. The find-must ban has been attributed to a clash in subjectivity, with must-modals assumed to not be of the right type. We argue instead that the find-must ban is of evidential nature: find-verbs convey directness, must-modals convey indirectness, and their combination is a semantic contradiction. We couch our proposal in terms of von Fintel and Gillies’s (2010) kernels, modal bases responsible for direct knowledge. We show that find-verbs ban a variety of indirect markers across languages and further argue that find-verbs can embed epistemic modals, but only those that do not semantically encode indirectness, and thus draw a line between semantic vs. pragmatic evidential effects.
@inproceedings{korotkova&anand2021-sub25, author = {Korotkova, Natasha and Anand, Pranav}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 25}, title = {Find, must and conflicting evidence}, year = {2021}, editor = {Grosz, Patrick Georg and Mart\'{i}, Luisa and Pearson, Hazel and Sudo, Yasutada and Zobel, Sarah}, pages = {515-532}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2021.v25i0.951}, category = {A} }
2020
- Interrogative flip and indexical shift are distinct phenomenaNatasha KorotkovaSnippets, 2020
@article{korotkova2020-snippets, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, journal = {Snippets}, pages = {3-5}, title = {Interrogative flip and indexical shift are distinct phenomena}, volume = {39}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.7358/snip-2020-039-koro}, category = {A} } - Evidential meaning and (not-)at-issuenessNatasha KorotkovaSemantics & Pragmatics, 2020
Recent years have seen a lot of research on evidentiality within formal semantics and pragmatics. The near-consensus in the literature is that the type of evidence signalled by the evidential marker, which I will refer to as the Evidential Requirement (ER), is not asserted and should be analyzed as a conventional trigger of Not-At-Issue (NAI) content. By scrutinizing empirical diagnostics previously used to support the ER-as-NAI view, the paper aims at disentangling how different notions of (not-)at-issueness can be applied to evidentiality, and develops objections to the idea that evidentials always conventionally encode NAI content.
@article{korotkova2020-s&p, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, doi = {doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.4}, journal = {Semantics \& Pragmatics}, number = {4}, pages = {1-24}, title = {Evidential meaning and (not-)at-issueness}, volume = {13}, year = {2020}, category = {A} }
2019
- Preference for single events guides perception in Russian: A phoneme restoration studyJesse Harris and Natasha KorotkovaIn Proceedings of the Fifty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 2019
@inproceedings{harris&korotkova2019-cls54, author = {Harris, Jesse and Korotkova, Natasha}, title = {Preference for single events guides perception in {Russian}: {A} phoneme restoration study}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Fifty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society}, editor = {Ronai, Eszter and Stigliano, Laura and Sun, Yenan}, pages = {149–164}, publisher = {CLS}, address = {Chicago, IL}, year = {2019}, category = {A} } - The subjective heart of evidentialityNatasha Korotkova2019Ms., University of Konstanz
@unpublished{korotkova2019, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, title = {The subjective heart of evidentiality}, year = {2019}, note = {Ms., University of Konstanz}, category = {C} }
2018
- Acquaintance content and obviationPranav Anand and Natasha KorotkovaIn Sinn und Bedeutung 22, 2018
This paper is about what Ninan (2014) calls the Acquaintance Inference (AI): a firsthand experience requirement imposed by subjective expressions such as Predicates of Personal Taste (PPTs) (delicious). Typically, one is entitled to call something delicious only after trying it. This requirement can be lifted, disappearing in the scope of what we will call obviators. The paper investigates the patterns of AI obviation for PPTs and similar constructions (e.g., psych predicates and subjective attitudes). We show that the cross-constructional variation in when acquaintance requirements can be obviated presents challenges for previous accounts of the AI (Pearson, 2013; Ninan, 2014). In place of these, we argue for the existence of two kinds of acquaintance content: (i) that of ‘bare’ PPTs; and (ii) that of psych predicates, subjective attitudes and overt experiencer PPTs. For (i), we propose that the AI arises from an evidential restriction that is dependent on a parameter of interpretation which obviators update. For (ii), we argue that the AI is a classic presupposition. We model both (i) and (ii) using von Fintel and Gillies’s (2010) framework for directness and thus connect two strands of research: that on PPTs and that on epistemic modals. Both phenomena are sensitive to a broad direct-indirect distinction, and analyzing them along similar lines helps shed light on how natural language conceptualizes evidence.
@inproceedings{anand&korotkova2018-sub22, address = {Berlin}, author = {Anand, Pranav and Korotkova, Natasha}, booktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung 22}, editor = {Sauerland, Uli and Solt, Stephanie}, pages = {161-173}, publisher = {ZAS}, title = {Acquaintance content and obviation}, year = {2018}, doi = {10.18148/sub/2018.v22i1.65}, category = {A} }
2017
- Evidentials and (relayed) speech acts: Hearsay as quotationNatasha KorotkovaIn Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25, 2017
This paper is devoted to what I will call quotative uses of hearsay evidentials, which report a speech act made by a third party. Occasionally mentioned in the typological literature, quotative uses were first given a formal semantic account by Faller (2002) and have received little attention since. The goal of this paper is to put the spotlight on them. An ongoing debate in the literature is on the semantic status of evidentials and the place of evidentiality among other categories (see Matthewson 2012 and references therein). For Faller (2002, 2007), quotative uses are among the empirical tests that diagnose illocutionary evidentials, ones that deal with the structure of speech acts. In this paper, I re-implement Faller’s (2002) original proposal within Krifka’s (2014) framework that provides an explicit syntax-pragmatics interface. I then argue that quotative readings may be the only true cases of illocutionary evidentials. I conclude by discussing quotative uses within the broader context of reported speech strategies.
@inproceedings{korotkova2017-salt25, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, booktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25}, doi = {10.3765/salt.v25i0.3969}, editor = {D'Antonio, Sarah and Moroney, Mary and Little, Carol Rose}, pages = {676-694}, publisher = {LSA Open Journal Systems}, title = {Evidentials and (relayed) speech acts: {Hearsay} as quotation}, year = {2017}, category = {A} }
2016
- Heterogeneity and Universality in the Evidential DomainNatasha KorotkovaUniversity of California, Los Angeles, 2016
The dissertation is devoted to the formal mechanisms that govern the use of evidentials, expressions of natural language that denote the source of information for the proposition conveyed by a sentence. Specifically, I am concerned with putative cases of semantic variation in evidentiality and with its previously unnoticed semantic uniformity. An ongoing debate in this area concerns the relation between evidentiality and epistemic modality. According to one line of research, all evidentials are garden variety epistemic modals. According to another, evidentials across languages fall into two semantic classes: (i) modal evidentials; and (ii) illocutionary evidentials, which deal with the structure of speech acts. The dissertation provides a long-overdue discussion of analytical options proposed for evidentials, and shows that the debate is lacking formally-explicit tools that would differentiate between the two classes. Current theories, even though motivated by superficially different data, make in fact very similar predictions. I reduce the cases of apparent semantic variation to factors independent from evidentiality, such as the syntax of clausal complementation, and show that these cases do not resolve the modal-illocutionary debate. I further propose novel empirical diagnostics that would identify modal-hood and speech-act-hood. I then turn to the many traits that evidentials within and across languages have in common. I argue that evidentials belong to the class of subjective expressions, along with first-person pain and attitude reports, and attribute to them a unified semantics of first-person mental states. The subjectivity of evidentials is contributed by two components: (i) the first-person component that is part of the conventional meaning of evidentials, analyzed as indexicality; and (ii) the ii mental state component that is rooted in the properties of cognitive processes described by evidentials (and other subjective expressions), such as perception and introspection. I show that the subjectivity of evidentials restricts their behavior across a range of environments in a uniform way. In dialogues, subjectivity accounts for the resistance to direct denials, a property known as non-challengeability and previously seen as supporting the not-at-issue analysis of evidentiality. In attitude reports, subjectivity disallows ascribing evidence to a third party and bans evidentials from amnesiac scenarios, used in the literature on attitudes as a litmus test for ‘de se’. In information-seeking questions, subjectivity creates an effect of obligatory shift to the addressee because it is incompatible with speaker-oriented interpretations wherein the speaker does not have access to their own epistemic state. I further show that evidentials may be speaker-oriented in non-canonical questions. That evidentials shift has been previously hardwired to their syntax and/or semantics, which fails to explain the lack of shift in non-canonical questions. If language is in some ways a window on the mind, evidentiality is a natural meeting point for several areas, including at least linguistics, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, and epistemology. But so far, expressions of evidentiality have been studied in-depth almost exclusively within formal semantics. Current linguistic theories of evidentiality are disconnected from theories of knowledge and models of reasoning. By deriving the linguistic behavior of evidentials from non-linguistic properties of experiences they describe, this dissertation makes a necessary first step towards filling this gap.
@phdthesis{korotkova2016-diss, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, school = {University of California, Los Angeles}, title = {Heterogeneity and Universality in the Evidential Domain}, year = {2016}, url = {https://escholarship.org/uc/item/40m5f2f1}, category = {A} } - Disagreement with evidentials: A call for subjectivityNatasha KorotkovaIn JerSem: The 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, 2016
Across languages, grammatical evidentials (linguistic expressions of information source) exhibit the property of non-challengeability: they resist direct denial in dialogues. The literature attributes this property to the notat-issue status of the information contributed by evidentials. I argue against this view and show that with respect to disagreement, evidentials pattern with subjective expressions such as first-person belief and pain reports. Like other subjective expressions and unlike e.g. appositives, evidentials ban all kinds of disagreement about content and not just explicit denial. This novel observation has no account in the literature. It falls out naturally once a theory of evidentiality incorporates subjectivity. It is thus unnecessary to appeal to a special discourse status of evidentials to explain their behavior in conversations.
@incollection{korotkova2016-semdial20, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, booktitle = {JerSem: The 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue}, editor = {Hunter, Julie and Simons, Mandy and Stone, Matthew}, pages = {65-75}, title = {Disagreement with evidentials: {A} call for subjectivity}, url = {http://events.illc.uva.nl/semdial/proceedings/semdial2016_jersem_proceedings.pdf}, year = {2016}, category = {A} }
2015
- Evidentials in attitudes: Do’s and dont’sNatasha KorotkovaIn Sinn und Bedeutung 19, 2015
This paper is devoted to evidentials in attitudinal complements. I start with two empirical observations. A. Some logically possible interpretations are systematically not attested for evidentials-in-attitudes. This new observation has no straightforward account in the current literature. B. Languages vary with respect to whether or not evidentials-in-attitudes shift, i.e. whether they are speaker-oriented (as in root declaratives) or not. The variation has been previously attributed to the semantic non-uniformity of evidentials. I argue against this view. To account for A, I propose that evidentials are self-ascriptions, which is additionally motivated by their behavior in matrix clauses. To account for B, I propose that evidential shift is an instance of indexical shift driven by a monster operator a‘ la Anand and Nevins (2004), which explains previously unnoticed similarities in restrictions on both kinds of shift. Understanding what happens in attitude reports has often been key to the semantics of many phenomena, e.g. pronouns and modals. Offering the first systematic examination of evidentials-in-attitudes across languages, the paper makes a case for evidentials and broadens our understanding of perspective-sensitivity in general.
@inproceedings{korotkova2015-sub19, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, booktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung 19}, editor = {Csipak, Eva and Zeijlstra, Hedde}, pages = {340-357}, title = {Evidentials in attitudes: {Do's} and dont's}, year = {2015}, category = {A} }
2012
- On alleged wh-scope marking in RussianNatasha KorotkovaIn Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 30, 2012
The paper explores a Russian two-clausal construction that was previously argued to instantiate wh-scope marking. I examine a range of syntactic and semantic properties of this construction and show that it is far from canonical scope marking, though it might look similar. I refute the scope marking analysis as it fails to predict and explain certain restrictions and propose an alternative approach, wherein the construction in question is a parenthetical that triggers a Pottsian conventional implicature. This proposal helps to explain restrictions intrinsic to Russian and broadens the typology of scope marking and similar looking phenomena.
@inproceedings{korotkova2012-wccfl30, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, booktitle = {Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 30}, pages = {205-215}, editor = {Arnett, Nathan and Benett, Ryan}, title = {On alleged wh-scope marking in {Russian}}, year = {2012}, publisher = {Cascadilla Proceedings Project}, address = {Somerville, MA}, category = {A} }
2010
- Deriving affix ordering in polysynthesis: Evidence from AdygheNatasha Korotkova and Yury LanderMorphology, 2010
This article deals with the order of verbal suffixes in Adyghe, a polysynthetic language of the Caucasus. Traditionally the structure of the Adyghe word form and the order of its affixes were described in terms of template morphology. However, we present new data demanding another, substantially different approach. We demonstrate that for the most part suffix ordering within the Adyghe verb follows strictly compositional rules. This feature is a manifestation of the polysynthetic nature of the language.
@article{korotkova&lander2010, author = {Korotkova, Natasha and Lander, Yury}, journal = {Morphology}, title = {Deriving affix ordering in polysynthesis: {Evidence} from {Adyghe}}, year = {2010}, number = {2}, pages = {299-319}, volume = {20}, doi = {10.1007/s11525-010-9185-y}, category = {A} }
2009
- Proshloe i “sverxproshloe” v adygejskom jazyke [The past and the “superpast” in Adyghe. In Russian]Natasha KorotkovaIn Aspects of Polysynthesis: Essays on the Adyghe Grammar, 2009
@incollection{korotkova2009, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, title = {Proshloe i ``sverxproshloe'' v adygejskom jazyke [The past and the ``superpast'' in Adyghe. In Russian]}, booktitle = {Aspects of Polysynthesis: Essays on the Adyghe Grammar}, editor = {Testelets, Yakov G.}, pages = {262–286}, publisher = {RGGU}, address = {Moscow}, year = {2009}, category = {A} }
2006
- O pokazatele refaktiva -ze- v adygejskom jazyke [On the refactive marker -Z’@- in Adyghe. In Russian]Natasha KorotkovaField Studies of RGGU students. Ethnological, Folklore, and Linguistic Studies, 2006
@article{korotkova2006, author = {Korotkova, Natasha}, journal = {Field Studies of RGGU students. Ethnological, Folklore, and Linguistic Studies}, title = {O pokazatele refaktiva -ze- v adygejskom jazyke [On the refactive marker -Z’@- in Adyghe. In Russian]}, year = {2006}, volume = {1}, pages = {180-183}, category = {A} }