Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages 9783110805284, 9783110161588

Citation preview

Evidential

w DE

G

Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 24

Editors

Georg Bossong Bernard Comrie

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Evidentials Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages

edited by Lars Johanson Bo Utas

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

2000

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

® Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Libraty of Congress — Catalogìng-in-Publicatìon-Data Evidentials : Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages / edited by Lars Johanson, Bo Utas: p. cm. - (Empirical approaches to language typology ; 24) In English with one article in French. Based on papers presented at a colloquium held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, April 1997. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-0161583 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Turkic languages - Grammatical categories. 2. Iranian Languages — Grammatical categories. I. Johanson, Lars, 1936II. Utas, Bo, 1938III. Series. PL29 .E85 2000 415-dc21 00-045249

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publicaríon-Data Evidentials : Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages / ed. by Lars Johanson ; Bo Utas. - Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 2000 (Empirical approaches to language typology ; 24) ISBN 3-11-016158-3

© Copyright 2000 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing: Werner Hildebrand, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer-GmbH, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Preface

The present volume deals with evidential categories found in the verbal systems of Turkic and Iranian languages as well as in some of their contact languages, e.g. Slavic, Finno-Ugric, Tungusic, Caucasian and Armenian. The common meaning of these frequently misinterpreted grammaticalised categories is taken here to be the expression of subjective 'experience', more specifically the presentation of a situation "by reference to its reception by a conscious subject". The articles are written by specialists in the respective fields, and much of the data presented has not been subjected to close linguistic analysis before. The book aims at placing language-specific data in a more general framework as a contribution to the typological discussion on evidential categories in the languages of the world. The volume is ultimately the outcome of work carried out within two linguistic projects: (i) "Changes in linguistic structure as a result of Iranian-Turkic contacts", a joint project of the Institute for Oriental Studies, University of Mainz, and the Institute for African and Asian languages, Uppsala University, supported by Svenska Institutet, Stockholm, and Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, Bonn. (ii) "Turkic dialects in contact areas of South Anatolia and West Iran", a Turcological project in the framework of the Special Research Area 295 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft at the University of Mainz. All articles included in the volume go back to papers presented at the colloquium "Types of Evidentiality in Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages" held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul in April 1997. The editors are grateful to Professor Georg Bossong for his valuable advice on editorial matters.

vi

Preface

Our sincere thanks are due to the Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences and to the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul for financial support of the publication of this volume. w

/

/

Finally, we thank Sevgi Agcagiil, Eva A. Csató, Vanessa Locke, and John Wilkinson for most helpful editorial and technical assistance. Lars Johanson

Bo Utas

Contents

Preface

ν

Comrie, Bernard Evidentials: semantics and history

1

Turkic languages Aksu-Koç, Ayhan Some aspects of the acquisition of evidentials in Turkish

15

Csató, Èva Ágnes Turkish Mi§- and iMi§-items. Dimensions of a functional analysis

29

Dwyer, Arienne Direct and indirect experience in Salar

45

Johanson, Lars Turkic indirectives

61

Kiral, Filiz Reflections on -mis in Khalaj

89

Menz, Astrid Indirectivity in Gagauz

103

Schroeder, Christoph Between resultative, historical and inferential: non-finite -mis forms in Turkish

115

vili

Iranian languages Bulut, Christiane Indirectivity in Kurmanji

147

Jahani, Carina Expressions of indirectivity in spoken Modern Persian

185

Lazard, Gilbert Le médiatif: considérations théoriques et application à l'iranien . 209 Perry, John R. Epistemic verb forms in Persian of Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan

229

Utas, Bo Traces of evidentiality in Classical New Persian

259

Other language areas Boeder, Winfried Evidentiality in Georgian

275

Friedman, Victor A. Confirmative/nonconfirmative in Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance, and Albanian with additional observations on Turkish, Romani, Georgian, and Lak

329

Gren-Eklund, Gunilla Evidentiality and typology: grammatical functions of particles in Burmese and the early stages of Indo-European languages

367

Isaksson, Bo Expressions of evidentiality in two Semitic languages Hebrew and Arabic

383

Kozintseva, Natalia Perfect forms as a means of expressing evidentiality in Modern Eastern Armenian

401

Leinonen, Marja Evidentiality in Komi Zyryan

419

Malchukov, Andrej L. Perfect, evidentiality and related categories in Tungusic languages

441

Saxena, Anju Evidentiality in Kinnauri

471

Index of terms

483

Evidentials: semantics and history Bernard Comrie The study of evidentials, which we can take to mean the presentation of a situation "by reference to its reception by a conscious subject" (Johanson, this volume), has undergone a veritable renaissance in recent years. The previous swell in interest in evidentiality occurred in the mid to late 1980s, and was marked most clearly by the appearance of the collective volume Chafe and Nichols (1986), covering evidentiality in a wide range of languages from across the globe, though also by such survey articles as Willett (1988). Now, in the mid to late 1990s, we see a resurgence of interest, marked by the recent appearance of another collective monograph, Guentchéva (1996)—with a second volume currently under preparation—and also by articles in major journals like DeLancey (1997). It is therefore entirely fitting that the present volume, devoted to evidentiality in Turkic and neighbouring languages, should see the light of day.1 The present volume differs from the two earlier collective monographs in that its coverage is restricted to a particular part of the world, albeit somewhat vaguely defined, though with clear preponderance of material from the area encompassing Turkic languages, Tungusic languages, Iranian languages, eastern Uralic languages, languages of the Balkans, and languages of the Caucasus. This volume therefore differs somewhat from its predecessors in two ways. First, the range of phenomena is necessarily restricted to those that are found within the chosen area, and some phenomena are simply not represented within this area, for instance distinctions according to the source of the speaker's information (e.g. visual versus auditory information), as found in some indigenous languages of the Americas. However, the restriction in the range of phenomena means that careful attention can be paid to the precise semantics and use of formal oppositions in the individual languages, something that is often given short shrift in surveys that cover a wider range of languages. Indeed, as the title of my own contribution indicates, I consider fine-tuning the definitions of particular evidential

2

Bernard Comrie

categories to be one of the major contributions of this volume. Secondly, since we are dealing with an area within which languages have been in contact, direct or indirect, with one another, we can, at least in principle, tease apart the varying roles played by internal and external factors in the development of evidential systems in the various languages, in particular the extent to which one language might have borrowed, or "copied" in Johanson's felicitous terminology, from other languages. The inclusion of languages from the same general area that lack grammaticalized evidential systems can then serve to delimit the boundaries of the area.

1. Semantics The general characterization of evidentiality given above can be realized in a number of different specific ways in different languages, and one of the main results of the present volume is to make more explicit the precise semantic ranges of the relevant categories in the different languages under consideration. Some generalizations cover the area as a whole, for instance the already noted absence of differences within the evidential systems relating to different sources of information, of a type that is known to occur in other parts of the world. Equally worthy of note is the fact that the evidential systems as such do not necessarily involve any casting of doubt on the reliability of the information conveyed, although a form that indicates an indirect source for information may, in a particular context, receive such an interpretation, but crucially not as its invariant meaning. This does not exclude the possibility that the languages might have other means, perhaps also grammaticalized, of indicating doubt, such as the presumptive forms found in some varieties of Tajik (Lazard, this volume; Perry, this volume). But there are also important differences. A major distinction in semantic value emerges between the Balkan languages, in particular Balkan Slavic, as described by Friedman (this volume), and the Turkic languages, as summarized by Johanson (this volume, to which one can add the contributions in this volume by Csató, Menz, and Schroeder—but Khalaj, as described by Kiral, ap-

Semantics and history

3

pears to lack a grammatical category of indirectivity). In Bulgarian and Macedonian the basic opposition seems to be between a marked form that is confirmative, i.e. explicitly indicates that the speaker unequivocally and directly makes an assertion, and an unmarked form that does not convey this, although in particular contexts it may receive interpretations typical of evidentiality (or indirectivity, to use Johanson's term). By contrast, in Turkic languages, the basic contrast is between a marked evidential (with a number of more particular interpretations, such as reported information, inferred information, perceived information) and a form that is unmarked with respect to evidentiality. If this is indeed a valid distinction between the two systems, it is clearly an important difference, one that in the past has been neglected by approaches that have emphasized the similarities at the expense of the differences. If the systems do differ in this way, one might also ask whether the traditional assumption is tenable that the two systems are somehow related through areal contact, a question to which I return in section 2. In most if not all languages of the area that have an evidentiality distinction, the indirect member of the opposition is related at least historically to the semantic notion of resultativity. Indeed, even in Turkic languages, arguably the core of the area as far as evidentiality is concerned, this relation is still transparent. In Turkish, as shown by Csató, Johanson, and Schroeder (this volume), the -mlξ form is evidential only as a finite verb form, where it also has past time reference, whereas in nonfinite usages it is primarily a marker of resultativity; note that both usages thus involve, in Johanson's terminology, postterminality, and contrast with the deceptively similar clitic -Iml§, which expresses indirectivity without postterminality. Georgian (Boeder, this volume) shows similar interaction of evidentiality and resultativity, although the details are different. The so-called Perfect of Modern Georgian is clearly either a perfect or an indirective in affirmative statements, although interestingly its Old Georgian etymon was just as clearly a resultative without specific indirective meaning, so that historically evidentiality has been added as a possible meaning; in the negative and interrogative, however, the Modern Georgian Perfect loses its indirective nature and becomes an unmarked past, contrasting

4

Bernard Comrie

with the Aorist, which in the negative and interrogative suggests a prior expectation that the event would take place. In yet other languages, the disentangling of evidential and resultative is more difficult, since one and the same form seems now to convey resultativity, now indirectivity, making hard to decide which is the basic meaning and which is conveyed contextually. This is shown particularly clearly in the contributions on Komi Zyryan (Leinonen, this volume) and on Modern Eastern Armenian (Kozintseva, this volume). In Komi Zyryan, for instance, the so-called Second Past has both resultati ve and evidential, more specifically indirective, functions. What justifies making this claim is that some instances of the Second Past are resultative but not indirective, while other instances are indirective but not resultative, a useful criterion being the restriction of the resultative interpretation to telic verbs. Thus, it is neither possible to say that the general meaning is resultative with indirective as a contextually determined interpretation, nor vice versa, i.e. one and the same form has to be assigned two contextually independent meanings. Of course, "independence" of meaning is often a relative concept, and several contributors note the close conceptual link between resultative and indirective, both relying on the evidence for a situation rather than on the situation itself; compare the "mental map" of Anderson (1986). This brings us to the vexed question of whether Persian, taken together with Tajik and Dari, has the category of evidentiality, a question addressed by Jahani, Lazard, Perry, and Utas in this volume. Perry and, especially, Lazard make the boldest positive claim, with Lazard explicitly identifying a set II of tense-aspect forms, all with past time reference, with specifically indirective meaning, contrasting with a set I unmarked for this opposition. Three of the four forms in set II have, according to Lazard, only indirective meaning. The fourth, the so-called Perfect with the form (in standard written Persian of Iran) karde(-ast), is more complex, since somewhat like the forms discussed in the previous paragraph it can function both as a perfect devoid of indirective connotations and as an indirective. Given that some set II forms, all of which incidentally end in -e(-ast), are indirective, Lazard judges that indirectivity should be recognized as a pervasive opposition within the past tense forms, with karde(-ast) being ambiguous,

Semantics and history

5

rather than indirectivity being one of several interpretations assignable to a basically resultative form, or vice versa. Perry supplements this line of argument with rich empirical material from natural spoken discourse in different varieties of contemporary Persian in its wide sense. Jahani adopts a different approach to testing the indirectivity of set II (in her terminology, set B), by presenting educated speakers of Tehran Persian with situations and asking questions that favour indirective or non-indirective responses. Her results show that the indirective is indeed possible where the expected response is notionally indirective, but that the non-indirective is not excluded from such contexts; by contrast, the indirective is generally excluded from contexts that are notionally non-indirective. This can be reconciled with Lazard's analysis, given that the indirective is the marked member of the opposition, so that the unmarked non-indirective does not exclude notional indirectivity. But Jahani also introduces an added dimension, hinted at in some of the other contributions, namely register variation: her educated informants felt that use of the indirective in notionally indirective contexts was more "correct", indeed one even cited a prescriptive rule; a similar test carried out with speakers having less formal education revealed no uses of the three unequivocally indirective members of set II/B. Utas suggests that in Classical New Persian there was no grammatical category of indirectivity, with the etyma of the three unequivocally indirective forms of the contemporary language being rare and not necessarily indirective in interpretation, so that if one accepts indirectivity for the contemporary language it must be an innovation. Another Iranian language, Kurmanji, presents similar problems, and Bulut (this volume) suggests that at least mainstream Kurmanji has inferentiality only as a derivative of the meaning of the perfect: the perfect does not on its own indicate evidentiality, but is often used with particles, adverbials, etc. that explicitly indicate evidentiality. There are many other instances of fine semantic distinctions relating to evidentiality that are noted in individual contributions. For instance, the mirative interpretation of the indirective, whereby the speaker describes a situation as just having reached his or her perception—as Perry (this volume) notes, this includes the case where the situation was already known but its importance to the present situation

6

Bernard Comrie

not realized—is readily obtained in Turkic languages, in Balkan languages, and also in Komi Zyryan, is restricted to stative verbs like 'be' and 'know' in Georgian (Boeder, this volume), but is missing from Persian of Iran, though it is found again in Tajik. To some extent, this correlates with time reference restrictions on the indirective: for instance, in Persian of Iran the indirective is restricted to past time reference, while in Tajik the category characterizes all time references (Perry, this volume). There are also differences in conventionalized usage of indirectivity, with some, but not all languages using the indirective as the basic narrative form in fairy-tales (Friedman, this volume). Dwyer's study of Salar (this volume) is a nice illustration of the way in which discourse-pragmatic factors can also intervene in the choice of forms distinguished by evidentiality. Her discussion of the interaction of genre and gender is particularly instructive of the subtle investigations that are needed here: certain genres favour evidentials, women tend to use evidentials more than men; it turns out that the genres associated more with women also favour evidentials; however, it turns out that even keeping genre constant, women use more evidentials than men, so that both sets of factors need to be included. Given the differences, of varying degrees, found among the languages whose evidential systems have been studied in greatest detail, we should not be surprised if future research turns up systems whose semantics departs from those already attested in the area, while nonetheless sharing overall similarities, in much the same way that the Balkan and Turkic systems share similarities despite some clear disparities. For instance, in work that Maria Polinsky and I have been carrying out on Tsez, a language of the Nakh-Daghestanian (Northeast Caucasian) family spoken in the west of the Daghestan Republic, the distinction between the two past tenses, witnessed in -s(i) and unwitnessed in -n(o), seems in general to reflect what the labels suggest. Thus, in an autobiographical story where the narrator assigns a task to an acquaintance and the acquaintance then fails to carry out the task but runs away, the parts of the action that are directly witnessed by the narrator appear in the witnessed past, whereas those that occur in the narrator's absence appear in the unwitnessed past. Thus, in example (1), the narrator did not witness his acquaintance's disappearing, run-

Semantics and history

7

ning off home, and sleeping peacefully, but he did witness when, later in the story, he (the narrator) frightened his acquaintance. (1)

t'afìzi-n

0-oq-no

disappear-and

I-become-ANTCVB I-run-ANTCVB home-and

0-oxi-n

paraq'at

kec-xo

zow-no. ...

relax

sleep-siMCVB

be-PSTUNW

dahamaq'aw

uyno

little

also

idur-no

0-ik'i-n I-go-ANTCVB

0-!uK'-er-si. I-fear-CAUS-PSTWiT

'He disappeared and ran off home and slept peacefully. ... I frightened him a little.'

Thus, it may well be that in Tsez the basic semantic distinction really is that between witnessed and unwitnessed. In longer traditional tales, it is not unusual for the story to start in the unwitnessed past but then shift to the witnessed past, even though there is no apparent shift in whether or not the narrator witnessed the events in question, and this might seem to throw doubt on this basic characterization.2 When asked about such shifts, native speakers sometimes respond that they serve to present the event as if the narrator were witnessing it. At first, this might seem to be a post hoc rationalization, one moreover incapable of empirical testing. However, we have found texts where the narrator will, for instance, in mid-narration, shift from using the witnessed past for events taking place out of doors to the unwitnessed past for events taking place in the privacy of the home, just as if the narrator were indeed standing outside the house, able to witness what goes on outside but not what happens inside.3

2. History Under the rubric "history" I wish to discuss two more specific problems. First, what do we learn about the history of evidential forms from the various contributions to the present volume? Second, to what extent can we claim that evidentiality, in particular indirectivity, is an areal feature of the area under consideration, i.e. that indirectivity categories in the individual languages are related to one another through direct or indirect language contact.

8

Bernard Comrie

One of the most significant issues in the historical development of indirectives has already been discussed in section 1, namely the relation between resultative and indirective, with the resultative frequently, indeed perhaps universally in the area under consideration, serving as the origin of the indirective. Another issue in the historical development is how, or indeed whether, the differences, great and small, between the various evidential systems within the area can be related to a single historical prototype. While indications occur throughout the volume, it is perhaps Malchukov's contribution on Tungusic languages that most clearly addresses this issue, perhaps in part because the variation within Tungusic is a microcosm of the variation found within the area as a whole. In particular, the semantic distinction alluded to in section 1 between the Balkan system (marked confirmative) and the Turkic system (marked indirective) can be reduced to a single prototype with markedness inversion, i.e. one of the systems, almost certainly the Balkan one, has undergone a shift whereby an old indirective was reinterpreted as unmarked, with the originally unmarked non-indirective then becoming a marked confirmative. Precisely this development is posited by Malchukov for Nanai. While some of the individual stages posited in some of Malchukov's reconstructed historical developments are speculative, acknowledged not to correspond to any attested dialect of the language in question, all are plausible given our general knowledge of semantic change in morphological categories, and they add up to an acceptable historical interpretation of the variation that is found among Tungusic languages, whence by extrapolation to the variation found within our area as a whole. An aspect of Malchukov's historical reconstruction that deserves further attention is his claim that a major factor in the development of evidential meaning was the intrusion of participial forms—I would say of nonfinite forms more generally—into the verbal paradigm. The explanations advocated by the other contributors are primarily semantic, and while this would also be my own bias, it does leave open the question why evidentiality in several languages of the area, perhaps most clearly Turkic and Tungusic languages, is restricted to finite forms. The same phenomenon is, incidentally, found in Tsez. The text from which example (1) is taken ends with example (2), in which the nar-

Semantics and history

9

rator, who happens to be a poet and songsmith, takes appropriate revenge on his unreliable acquaintance. (2)

di

sis

me

one notebook pen-and

nesi-1-äy

tetrad

rucka-n

kec'-no

he-CNT-ABL song-and

r-is-no IIpl-take-ANTCVB

b-oy-si. III-make-psTWiT

Ί took a notebook and pen and composed a song about him.'

As expected given the sense of the sentence, the sentence as a whole is in the witnessed past (boysi). However, the first, nonfinite clause ends with a verbal form in -n(o) (risno) identical to the unwitnessed past, although here its function is purely as the semantically most neutral anterior converb, and the opposition of evidentiality is neutralized.4 For now, alas, I can only suggest that Malchukov's proposal is something worth pursuing, since Malchukov himself does not develop the idea further in this paper. With respect to the areal question, I can only make suggestions, which I hope will inspire others to carry out the necessary detailed work in order to test in rigorous detail hypotheses of areal influence in the spread of evidentiality. There are some factors that might seem to mitigate against too generous an areal interpretation. Some of the proposed historical changes are inherently very plausible, of the kind some historical linguists have called "natural", and might therefore be expected to have occurred independently in more than one language. But against this we must set the fact that there are other languages bordering on the area in question that have not undergone these changes. Obviously, one of the questions that must be answered in defining an areal phenomenon is to mark off its boundaries, and we have some contributions that address precisely this issue. Isaksson (this volume) shows that Semitic languages—illustrated by Arabic and Hebrew—lack a grammatical category of indirectivity, preferring other means, such as particles, to express the notion of evidentiality. Extensive use of particles also characterizes the ancient Indo-European languages prose Vedic, Ancient Greek, and Hittite, all of which make extensive use of particles to mark evidentiality, with some of these particles reconstructible to Proto-

10

Bernard Comrie

Indo-European, as is shown by Gren-Eklund (this volume). The study of the Tibeto-Burman language Kinnauri by Saxena (this volume) shows a system from outside the area that differs, appropriately, both in form and meaning: the only formal distinction is the choice of copula, and the semantic distinction is that one copula requires that the subject of the sentence be near to or associated with the speaker; evidentiality is here at best an implicature of this relation between speaker and subject. Then again there are clear semantic differences between some of the languages within the area, and this might seem to mitigate against too close an areal interpretation: if language X copied from language Y, why didn't it copy more accurately? But here we have to take into account the full range of possible historical transformations that can occur within each of the individual languages. Forms that are clearly etymologically related may have rather different values in related languages. For instance, Turkish finite -ml§ is an indirective, whereas its formal equivalent in Khalaj is a pure resultative; Khalaj expresses the notion of indirectivity by means of particles (Kiral, this volume). Conversely, the same semantic value can be expressed by different forms in closely related languages, so that, for instance, the semantic equivalent of -ml§ in many other Turkic languages is -(I)ptlr (Johanson, this volume). As I suggested above in my reference to Malchukov's account of variation within Tungusic, it is certainly possible to reduce the variation within the area to a single prototype, accounting for the variation by means of natural historical changes affecting that prototype and its later developments in individual languages. This does not, of course, amount to a proof that this is what happened historically. But at least the possibility of a single areal phenomenon is not excluded, and future work can be directed towards testing some of the details against the historical record. Finally, in terms of language contact, there are clear instances where indirective constructions have been copied by another language, perhaps the most striking example being that cited by Friedman (this volume) of the Frasheriote dialect of Aromanian, spoken in southwestern Macedonia, which has copied not only the function of the Albanian so-called Admirative, but also its form, in the marker -ka. And there

Semantics and history

11

are many other instances where geographical distribution strongly suggests a contact explanation, as when evidentiality is more widespread in those parts of Georgia, the south and west, that were most subject to Turkic influence (Boeder, this volume), or when evidentiality is more widespread in the western dialects of Even, precisely those dialects that are in closest contact with Yakut, a Turkic language that has an inherited evidentiality opposition.

3. Conclusions In these remarks I hope to have shown that this volume succeeds on two fronts. First, it achieves considerable progress in our understanding of the semantics of evidentiality in the "Central Eurasian" area. Secondly, it provides a wealth of information that can be used in assessing claims about historical developments, including in particular the effects of language contact and thus the issue of whether evidentiality is indeed an areal phenomenon. But like every good piece of scholarship, this volume also points forward to the future. Further work needs to be done to refine the semantic characterizations for at least a significant number of languages in the area, and Friedman (this volume), at the end of his contribution, sets out a useful framework for pursuing this endeavor. When it comes to the historical dimension, the present work succeeds in pointing to a number of lines that need to be investigated, involving the detailed historical analysis of individual languages and of language contact; but most of the work on this exciting topic remains to be done.

Notes 1. I am grateful to the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, which made possible my participation in the Colloquium "Types of Evidentiality in Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages" in Istanbul in April of 1997 and thus enabled me to familiarize myself with the earliest stages of the contributions that form the present volume. The Tsez material cited in this article is based in part on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant SBR-9220219. 2. This includes a correction to the remarks I made at the Istanbul Workshop.

12

Bernard

Comrie

3. Maria Polinsky and I are currently preparing a more extensive account of Tsez evidentiality, including a discussion of shifts in narrative, for a second volume on evidentiality to be edited by Ζ. Guentchéva. 4. As an additional, perhaps relevant fact, note that -n(o) is also the usual Tsez translation of the conjunction 'and'.

References Anderson, Lloyd 1986 "Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps. Typologically regular asymmetries", in: Wallace Chafe—Johanna Nichols (ed.), 273-312. Chafe, Wallace—Johanna Nichols (eds.) 1986 Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. DeLancey, Scott 1997 "Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information", Linguistic Typology 1: 33-52. Guentchéva, Zlatka (ed.) 1996 L'énonciation médiatisée. Louvain/Paris: Peeters. Willett, Thomas 1988 "A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality", Studies in Language 12:51-97.

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in Tsez example sentences: ABL—ablative, ANTCVB—anterior converb, CAUS—causative, CNT—contentive (a locative series), PL—plural, PSTUNW—past unwitnessed, PSTWIT—past witnessed, SIMCVB—simultaneous converb; Roman numerals indicate class agreement prefixes, and to avoid confusion with Roman Ί ' the first person singular pronoun is glossed ' m e ' .

Turkic languages

Some aspects of the acquisition of evidential in Turkish Ayhan Aksu-Koç "There are many ways in which language sheds light on the nature of the mind, and conversely, ways in which an understanding of mental phenomena can further our understanding of language." Wallace Chafe, 1995: 349

1. Introduction Languages offer different options for the expression of the speaker's mental attitude towards what she asserts in speech. Attitudes towards the truth value or factuality of the content of the proposition involve epistemic modality, a subdomain of which is evidentiality. Evidentiality has to do with the expression in language of the awareness that truth is relative. There are things we are sure of either because we have reliable evidence for them or because we have unquestionable faith in their truth. There are things we are less sure of either because we have partial evidence or because we have evidence only from previous situations on the basis of which we make deductions. Finally there are things which we think are only in the realm of possibility (Chafe—Nichols 1986; Givón 1982). Languages vary in the degree to which they grammaticize the means for conveying such different attitudes towards knowledge by using inflections, auxiliaries or adverbs. Turkish functionally differentiates various epistemic categories that can be subsumed under evidentiality, marking distinctly direct vs. indirect experience. Within the latter category a further distinction is observed between knowledge based on inference from available physical or linguistic evidence vs. knowledge arrived at by judgment or logical deduction. These distinctions are marked formally, and are simultaneously relevant to: (i) the epistemic status of the in-

16 Ayhan Aksu-Koç formation asserted, (ii) the source of evidence for what is asserted, and (iii) the degree of certainty with which it is asserted. In the following sections, I first present the modal suffixes functional in the expression of these categories, and then summarize the data showing their course of acquisition.1 2. Expression of evidentiality in Turkish Turkish expresses modality both by means of suffixes that mark tense—aspect and by predicate-final clitics. The functions of the two types of suffixes relevant to the present discussion are summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that the inflections under 1A are multifunctional, whereas the predicate-final clitics are mainly modal in nature, except for -IDI which preserves its tense function. There is close formal and semantic correspondence between the tense-aspect-modality inflections in 1A and the predicate-final clitics in IB: The clitics can be appended to nonverbal predicates (existentials and substantives) as well as to verbal predicates inflected for tense-aspect-modality. In example (1) below, the verb stem is followed by a tense-aspect marker, which may further be followed by a predicate-final modal clitic depending on context, as in example (2). (1) Verb morphology: Stem -Tense/Aspect/Modality

Ali Ankara-dan ayril-iyor(-DI/-ml?/-lr...) Ali Ankara-ABL leave-IPFV 'Ali is leaving Ankara.' (2) Verb morphology: Stem -Tense/Aspect/Modality - predicate final clitic

Ali Ankara-dan ayril-iyor-mus (-IDI/-Dir...) Ali Ankara-ABL leave-IPFV-MODAL CLITIC 'Ali is evidently leaving Ankara.'

Amongst these suffixes -mis and -Dir deserve special attention because they function as speech act level modal operators indicating epistemic distinctions which concern the speaker's knowledge status regarding the content of the utterance. They qualify an assertion as belonging to some point on a continuum which has realis/factual and ir-

Acquisition of evidential

in Turkish

17

Table 1. Tense-aspect-modality inflections and predicate-final clitics with epistemic meanings in Turkish (those relevant to early acquisition) Form

Meaning

A. Tense-aspect-modality inflections -DI -lyor -ml?

-Ir

direct experience; certainty of proposition; past tense (perfective aspect) direct experience; certainty of proposition; present tense/imperfective aspect newly perceived information/surprise; indirect experience, inferential past/perfect aspect; reported speech; certainty of proposition (with disclaiming of responsibility) assimilated information; habitual/generic aspect; deontic/epistemic possibility; less than perfect certainty of proposition

B. Predicate-final clitics -IDI -Imi$ -Dir

direct experience/assimilated information; certainty of proposition; past tense indirect experience; newly perceived information/surprise; reported speech, story-telling, pretense mode (a) informal language: logical deduction based on assimilated information about habitual states of affairs; less than perfect certainty of proposition (b) formal language: assertion based on generic/factual knowledge; certainty of proposition

realis/nonfactual as the anchoring points. The suffix -mis (Aksu-Koç 1988; Aksu-Koç—S lobin 1986) expresses a set of meanings on a scale of objective evidence ranging between 'direct evidence' and 'nonevidence'. Depending on context, the presence of -mis indicates that the information is novel for the speaker's consciousness, that the assertion is based on partial evidence which is either physical or linguistic, or that it belongs totally to the realm of the imaginary. Hence it has the functions of marking surprise, inference, reported speech, pretense and story-telling. The suffix -Dir, on the other hand, is used in the absence of any physical or linguistic evidence, in evaluative statements. It expresses various gradations of speaker commitment along a scale of subjective confidence between 'certain' and 'noncertain' (Tura

18 Ayhan Aksu-Koç 1986). -Dir informs the listener that there is no currently available evidence for the „speaker's assertion except for previous knowledge about habitual states of affairs or generic truths. Hence, it is the form for categorical assertion, logical deduction/inference, prediction, supposition and hypothetical statement, or in Palmer's terms (1986), judgments in general. Both forms thus allow the speaker to explicitly mark an assertion as objectively or subjectively true or factual. In the case of assertions qualified with -mis the anchoring point for factuality is perceptual, whereas in the case of -Dir, it is conceptual. In summary, the core meaning of -mis is "information new for unprepared minds" (Slobin—Aksu 1982) whereas -Dir expresses "information well assimilated in knowing minds" (Aksu-Koç 1995). Both forms thus function as data-source markers (Hardman 1986) and indicate the speaker's psychological stance towards the experience talked about at the time of utterance: While an utterance with the modal suffix -mis can be read as "on the basis of what I have just found out, I assert that ..." an utterance with -Dir says "on the basis of my long standing knowledge I assert that...". An utterance without these markers is the default case whereby the speaker's assertion can be taken to be based on direct experience that allows for full confidence in its truth. 3. Development of the expression of evidentiality 3.1. Data The data come from four monolingual children within the age range of 1 ;3-2;6 studied longitudinally over a span of six months to a year each, and consist of mother-child or researcher-child interactions. 3.2. Findings All four children first acquire the markers of direct experience -DI and -Iyor, using them in statements about situations in the here-and-now. At the same time, they use the imperative and the optative for expressing requests and intentions (Aksu-Koç 1988). Thus the first distinction they make is in terms of mood.

Acquisition

of evidential

in Turkish

19

-DI emerges before -Iyor, and is used almost exclusively with change of state verbs, in contexts of completed action as in (3); -Iyor is used about a month later, with activity and stative verbs to refer to ongoing events as in (4), or states, as in (5). This restricted use of the two inflections reflects the determining role of lexical aspect as well as direct experience in this very early stage of acquisition. (3)

D P (1 ;5) /upon fitting a piece of puzzle in place/ DP: o(l)-du be-PA:DE

'It fit.' (4)

(DP, 1 ;7) /while making a puzzle; ongoing activity/ DP: Ben de badia yap-iyo(ru)m I

too

puzzle

make-iPFV-1SG

'I'm making a puzzle too.' (5)

(DP, 1 ;7) DP:

/commenting on an object which reminds her of a stick/

uug-a

benn-iyo (çubuga

stick-DAT

look:like-iPFv

benziyor)

'It looks like a stick.'

Children are exposed to the semantic and pragmatic functions of these suffixes in discourse with adults who talk about habitual behaviors of self, familiar people or objects, asking for information they assume the child possesses as in example (6), or building up shared information as in (7). (6)

(ES, 1 ; 10) /Investigator asks about her sister/ Inv: Eda ne rede? 'Where is Eda?' ES: Anneanneye git-ti Eda grandma-DAT

go-PA:DE

Eda

'Eda went to grandma.' (7)

(DP, 1 ;7.8) MOT: Deniz D.

DP:

/normative use, building up of shared information/ lambalar elle-n-iyor mu? lamp-PL

touch-pv-iPFV Q

'D., are lamps touched?' en-n-iyo( r) tOUCh-JPFV

'(are) touched.'

20

Ayhan

Aksu-Koç

-DI and -Iyor utterances thus function in the integration of information into a growing knowledge repertoire. Gradually, -DI is extended to remote past, in conversational routines about behavior of familiar people and -Iyor generalizes to comments on typical behaviors of objects or people. At this point in development, adults use -mis in situations where they know the child has no prior knowledge but is encountering new information. This is illustrated in example (8) where the child who has not yet learned -mis is unresponsive, and uses -DI: (8)

(ES, 1 ; 11) /Investigator comments on bottle of bubble liquid she brought in/ INV: aa, ak-mis bu oh, spill-EVD this O h this got spilled (evidently).' ES: ak-ti spill-PAIDE

INV:

'got spilled' bit-mi$ finish-EVD

mi? Q

'Is it all gone?' ES:

bit-ti finish-PA:DE

'all gone'

After this period of about two months, two new forms -mis and -Ir which have aspectual/modal functions in the adult language enter the children's speech expressing distinctions relevant to epistemic modality. -mis is used first with nonverbal predicates in stative contexts which constitute novel experience for the child. Stock phrases such as (9), (10) and (11) are most characteristic of child directed as well as child speech: (9)

MOT:

nerede-y-mis? where-EVD

'Where is it (evidently)?' (10) (SO, 2;0) SO: bak-ay-im look-OPT-lsG

surada

ne

there-LOC

what

var-miç? exist-EVD

'Let me see what is over there (evidently).'

Acquisition of evidentials

in Turkish

21

(11) (DP, 1;7) DP: buyda-mis here-EVD

'Here it is (evidently).'

These examples illustrate that this inflection is also at first limited to contexts of direct experience and constrained by the lexical aspect of the predicate it is used with. Such comments on present states mark the first registry in consciousness of new information and embody both the aspectual and modal functions of the form. At this point -mis behaves as a perfect aspect and a surprise marker. Other specifics contexts where children use -mis are those of story-telling and pretense activity. These situations typically involve description of pictures in books, reproduction of story-telling formulas heard from adults, and pretense talk about the physical or emotional states of third parties. The narrative and pretense functions of the form in fact overlap in these contexts, as in example (12) below: (12) (DP:1;8.11) /describing a story character in picture book/ DP: yemek yi-yo( r)-mus f o o d eat-iPFV-EVD

'(Say/pretend) it is eating.'

Such use foreshadows later functions of the form to mark pretend play. The shared characteristics of story-telling and play are twofold: they both rely on the creative powers of the imagination rather than being based on reality, and as such, they both refer to a world constructed in speech rather than experience. At first -mis refers to all kinds of states including those resultant from directly experienced past processes. Later, states resultant from a nonwitnessed process are differentiated from others and referred to with -mis as a first step towards the inferential function which incorporates source of evidence as well as past reference. In example (13) below, the child comments on the state of the object she just noticed with -mis, but refers to the sore on her hand, a result of direct experience, with -DI.

22

Ayhan

Aksu-Koç

( 13) (SO, 2; 1,15) /discovers that her toy is broken/2 SO: *Salincak çik-ii-miç swing come:out-pv-EVD 'swing came out (evidently)' MOT: Ne ol-du eline? what be-PA:DE hand-P0Ss:2sG-DAT 'What happened to your hand?' SO: Uf ol-du, sik-is-ti ouch be-PA:DE get:stuck-RC-PA:DE 'got hurt, got caught'

At 2;6, -(I)DI is used for marking past information well integrated into the child's knowledge system, and contrasts with -mis in contexts of new information inferred from evidence. In example (14) the child is asking about the scarf of a doll she remembers playing with two weeks ago, and -(I)DI qualifies the statement as one asserted with full certainty, presupposing shared knowledge with the interlocutor. Example (15), on the other hand, shows that the features 'information new for consciousness' and 'inferred process' have finally become integrated. (14) (SO, 2;6) SO: bunun mendili this-GEN handkerchief-poss 'This had a scarf.'

var-di exist-PA:DE

(15) (SO, 2;6) /notices the doll which fell behind her/ SO: aaa, bu düs-mü$ ooh, this fall-EVD 'Ooh, this fell.'

In the second half of the third year, then, children start using -DI vs. -mis contrastively to express the distinction between well assimilated vs. novel information in terms of epistemic status, and between direct vs. indirect experience, in terms of evidentiary source. In its reportative function, -mis conveys the information that the content of the proposition is being asserted on the basis of linguistic evidence. This use which involves the reporting of indirect experience pertaining to third parties is the last to be acquired, and is not observed until 2;6 in the present data. A possible course of development for this

Acquisition

of evidentials

in Turkish

23

function is its differentiation out of the story-telling/pretense uses during the second half of the third year. The second form acquired at the same time as -mis is the habitual/ generic -Ir, which also indicates possibility depending on context. In children's speech -Ir is first used deontically to express immediate intention, as in example (16).3 (16) (DP, 1;7) DP: Ye-r-im, ço(r)badan yi-yce-m eat-AOR-lSG soup-ABL eat-FUT-lsG Ί will eat, I am going to eat soup.'

Next, epistemic meanings emerge, first possibility (example 17), and then normativity/habituality (example 18), following closely the patterns of use in child-directed speech. Such assertions are based on knowledge derived from prior experience. (17) (DP, 1;9) DP: el-in sik-is-ir hand-POSs:2sG get:stuck-RC-AOR 'Your hand m a y get stuck.' (18) (DP, 1 ; 10) DP: bebek gerek-ir mi? doll require-AOR Q 'Is a doll needed?'

Parallel epistemic notions are encoded by the clitic -Dir which, as noted above, qualifies an assertion in terms of degree of factuality/certainty. Habitual behaviors which have a high likelihood of occurrence are experienced frequently enough to result in well-assimilated knowledge, hence, constitute the basis for assertions with high degree of certainty (Aksu-Koç 1995). In situations where the speaker lacks any kind of evidence, but has sufficient previous experience to rely on, -Dir appended to a verb already inflected for tense-aspect informs the listener that the assertion has been arrived at by logical inference from wellintegrated knowledge. With nonverbal predicates, -Dir similarly functions to indicate noncertainty/nonfactuality, unless the proposition is a generic or an authoritative statement.

24

Ayhan Aksu-Koç

-Dir first appears in the children's data between 1;9 and 2;3 years. There are only two instances in DP's and 16 instances in MD's speech during this period. Almost all the mother and all the child examples occur in contexts of naming, in question form, to elicit factual information. (19) (DP, 1;9) /looking at a book and pointing to picture of a kite/ DP: bu ne-di(y)? this

what-DiR?

'What is this?'

Although these questions have the effect of switching the discourse mode to a didactic one about facts, they merely call for an unmarked noun as an answer, since -Dir is not required in the context of a perceptually available referent, unless one were making a generic statement. The sequence in example (20) illustrates the mother's use in a deductive statement followed by an information question to which the child responds appropriately. (20) (DP, 1;10.3) MOT: bayatlamistir onlar, liitfen go : stale-PERF-DiR those, please Those must have gone stale, please (don't eat them).' DP: bak, yi-y-ce-m look, eat-FUT-LSG 'Look, I'll eat.' MOT: ne-dir? what-DiR

DP:

'What is it?' ekmek 'Bread.'

Utterances with this suffix are next observed in contexts where the speaker does not have access to factual evidence but is expressing what she expects to be the case on the basis of previous experience, and -Dir functions to qualify the assertion for less than full certainty, as a prediction at best. (21) (MD, 2;1) /in response to mother asking the location of a toy/ MD: yatag-in-da-dir bed-poss : 2SG-LOC-DIR 'must be in your bed'

Acquisition of evidential

in Turkish

25

-Dir, thus, first functions to elicit well-assimilated information, presumed to be possessed by the interlocutor, parallel to the first function of -mis to indicate information presumed to be novel for the interlocutor. Next, it is used as a nonfactuality/noncertainty marker expressing deductions/predictions based on well-assimilated information. Its use to mark factuality is not observed in the data and presumably awaits didactic discourse contexts where categorical assertions are the rule rather than the exception.

4. Concluding remarks The route followed by the Turkish child into the evidential system was observed to be one which first capitalizes on the acquisition of direct experience markers -DI and -Iyor. These suffixes are used to indicate, respectively, completed vs. ongoing action in the here and now. The acquisition of -mis, -Ir, and -Dir follow subsequently, encoding information which partakes of the irrealis in different ways, -mis is first used with stative predicates, to comment on locative and physical states which are presented as "novel experience" in discourse, whereas -Ir functions to talk about possible or normative states of affairs. The emergence of -Dir which encodes a perspective of less than full certainty regarding the factuality of the proposition is later and appears largely determined by pragmatic factors related to use in context. In all cases the semantic and pragmatic patterns of use observed in adult speech to children, which in turn is colored by modifications made to adjust to the child interlocutor, play a determining role (Aksu-Koç

1998). Of the two discourse level operators, -mis, which marks assertions based on indirect physical or linguistic evidence emerges earlier than -Dir, which is called for in contexts where one has no perceptual evidence but a body of well-assimilated information to rely on. The use of -Dir in categorical assertions is also conceptually more demanding since such predications require a higher level of abstraction. The later emergence of -Dir, can thus be explained by the fact that it calls upon more complex cognitive processes.

26

Ayhan

Aksu-Koç

Finally, direct experience goes hand in hand with certainty of information, and children at first talk about what constitutes certain information for them. Qualification of an assertion for less than perfect certainty appears subsequently, as the relevant forms are acquired first for different functions. This sequence of development, which appears consistent across children, suggests that the first evidential distinction marked by the Turkish child is relevant to the epistemic status of the information for the speaker, and thereby to its evidentiary or data-source, and only later to the degree of certainty it is asserted with. Acquiring the forms relevant to epistemic modality in general and evidentiality in particular, the child learns to adopt the different kinds of psychological stance embodied in his/her language.

Notes The research reported here was supported by a grant from the Bogaziçi University Research Fund, Project Number 96 S 0017. 1. Vowel harmony operates throughout all words of native origin and for all grammatical sufixes, which harmonize with the last vowel of the noun or verb stem. Capital letters are used in referring to individual morphemes to represent vowel and consonant alternations. In the examples the clitics are also represented as bound morphemes since they behave as such in the spoken language. For the same reason the two forms -mlsZ-DI and -ImI$/-IDI are represented with the same tokens -mI$/-DI. 1. The ungrammatically derives from the passivization of the intransive çik- 'come out'. This over-marking for defocusing of agency in an utterance further marked with -mis supports the interpretation that the child is using the form as a marker of indirect experience. 3. The immediate repetition of the same verb -EcEK which expresses a higher degree of certainty supports this interpretation.

References Aksu-Koç, Ayhan 1988 The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Acquisition of evidentials in Turkish 1995

27

"Some connections between aspect and modality in Turkish", in: Pier M. Bertinetto—Valentina Bianchi—Osten Dahl—Mario Squartini (eds.), 271-287. 1998 "The role of input versus universal predispositions in the emergence of tense-aspect morphology: evidence from Turkish", First Language 18/3: 255-280. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan—Slobin, Dan I. 1986 "A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish", in: Wallace Chafe - Johanna Nichols (eds.), 159-167. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan—Eser Erguvanli-Taylan (eds.) 1984 Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference. Istanbul: Bogaziçi University Press. Bertinetto, Pier M.—Valentina Bianchi—Osten Dahl—Mario Squartini (eds.) 1995 Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, Vol. 2. Typological Perspectives. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. Bybee, Joan—Suzanne Fleischman (eds.) 1995 Modality in grammar and discourse. (Typological Studies in Language 32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Co. Chafe, Wallace 1995 "The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages and English", in: Joan Bybee - Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), 349-365. Chafe, Wallace - Johanna Nichols (eds.) 1986 "Introduction", in: Wallace Chafe—Johanna Nichols (eds.). 1986 Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Givón, Talmy 1982 "Evidentiality and epistemic space", Studies in Language 6: 23-49. Hardman, Martha James 1986 "Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages", in: Wallace Chafe—Johanna Nichols (eds.), 113-136. Hopper, Paul (ed.) 1982 Tense-aspect: between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Palmer, Frank 1986 Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slobin, Dan. I.—Aksu, Ayhan 1982 "Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential", in: Paul Hopper (ed.), 185-200.

28

Ayhan

Aksu-Koç

Tura, S. Sabahat 1986 "Dir in modem Turkish", in: Ayhan Aksu-Koç—Eser Erguvanli-Taylan (eds.), 145-158.

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: ABL-ablative, AOR—aorist, DAT—dative, EVD—evidential, FUT—future, GEN—genitive, IPFV—imperfective, Loc—locative, OPT—oplative, PA:DE—past definitive, PERF—perfect, POSS—possessive, PL—plural, PV—passive voice, Q—question, RC—reciprocai, SG—singular.

Turkish Mi§- and iMi§-items.

Dimensions of a functional analysis Éva Ágnes Csató 1. Introduction This article accompanies the discussion of Turkic indirectives presented by Johanson (this volume). It is to be treated as an adaptation of Johanson's analysis to modern Turkish material. The reader is referred to Johanson's paper regarding the definitions of the technical terms used here. A further aim of this contribution is to illustrate what distinctions are to be made when analysing the meanings of the numerous verb forms containing MI§ and IMI§ in Turkish, i.e. to outline some dimensions of their functional analysis. The discussion is based on ideas developed by Johanson (see the references in Johanson, this volume). Not all the possible Turkish forms based on MI§ and IMI§ will be dealt with here. The presentation will be confined to the most important items and those that are particularly suitable to illustrating the theoretical and methodological points to be made. The following dimensions of analysis will be discussed: (i) How is a verb form used in a particular discourse type? Historical versus diagnostic uses will be distinguished. (ii) How does the semantics of a verb form depend on its syntactic function and word order properties? Finite versus non-finite syntactic functions and sentence-final versus embedded positions will be distinguished. (iii) How do MI§-items differ from IMI§-items? The difference between these two items is morphological; the first item is a suffix, whereas the second one is a copula particle, which is normally cliticised. The semantic features of these two categories will be defined. (iv) How have combinations of MI§ with other suffixes resulted in suffix types whose meaning is not synchronically derivable from the

30

Èva Ágnes Csató

meaning of the components? The semantics of forms based on MI§TI and MI§TIR will be discussed. The viewpoint and tense categories involved in the definition of the items to be treated here interact with other semantic, pragmatic and discourse properties of a given context. The actionality properties of actional phrases constitute the semantic core on which the types of meanings denoted by viewpoint and tense categories operate. Thus, the actual reading of a form based on the suffix MI§ is always dependent on the actional meaning of the given phrase. The actional phrase in question can be transformative or not, and if transformative, then it can be finitransformative or intiotransformative. Furthermore, for instance, serialising expressions or time adverbials can further modify the actional value of the phrase. All these very important aspects will be dispensed with here. For detailed treatment of these issues, see Johanson (1971), (2000), and Csató (1999). The context is, ultimately, always decisive for the specific reading assigned to an item; thus an account like the present one can refer only to the most usual interpretations.

2. Historic versus diagnostic uses of items denoting anteriority The two most important finite items denoting anteriority in Turkish are those based on the suffixes DI and MI§ respectively. Both forms typically indicate that the event referred to is localised at a point of time preceding the speech act. The localisation point temporally precedes the orientation point, i.e. the speech act-time. However, there is an important difference between the two items. The DI-items, as a rule, refer to events historically. For instance, the Di-form in example (1) is applied to point to the event as an unanalysed whole at the historical moment of its occurrence. Consequently, it can be used to narrate sequences of events, implying that event A took place, then event Β and then event C. Thus, Di-items usually have propulsive function in narratives, i.e. they produce progression in the narrative chain, as illustrated in (2).

Turkish Mi§- and iMi§-items (1)

31

Di-Past Dü§tü. fall-Di.PST

' I t / ( s ) h e fell.' (2)

Β ir

ta§

aldim,

yilana

attim

one

stone

take-Di.PST-lsG

snake-DAT

throw-Di.PST-lsG

ve

onu

and

it-ACC

öldürdüm. kill-Di.PST-lSG

Ί took a stone, threw it at the snake and killed it. ' (EUROTYP Questionnaire)

Diagnostic use is typical of postterminal items such as finite verb forms based on the suffix Mi§. The viewpoint value of postterminality directs the attention towards a point at which the relevant limit of the event has already been transgressed, i.e. where the decisive moment of the event is regarded as having taken place. The phrase can be nontransformative, designating an event without a natural turning point. In this case, the Mi§-form implies that the event has at least begun. The only relevant limit designated by a nontransformative verb is the beginning of the event; thus the postterminal view expressed by the Mi§-form directs the attention to a time after the beginning of the event. For instance, Okumu§ [read:Mi§] means '(S)he has obviously / apparently begun to read and may or may not still be reading'. A transformative phrase, on the other hand, designates an event that includes a crucial turning point. Thus, the Mi§-form of a transformative phrase directs the attention to the situation after the transformation has taken place. The crucial limit may be the final or initial limit of the event. In the first case, the verb is called finitransformative, e.g. Ölmü§ [die:Mi§] '(S)he has obviously died / obviously died'. The other type of transformative phrase is called initiotransformative, e.g. Oturmu§ [sit:Mi§] '(S)he has obviously sat down and may still be sitting'. Example (3) contains a finitransformative verb and is typically used when the speaker does not speak about the event of 'falling down' but refers, for instance, to the situation which arose after the event took place. (3)

Mi§-Past Dii§mii§. fall-Mi§.PST

'It / (s)he obviously fell / has obviously fallen down.'

32

Eva Agnes

Csató

An item used diagnostically interrupts the chain of narration based on another verb form, such as one based on i y o r or di. See (4), in which the narrative chain of Di-forms is interrupted by a Mi§-item. Diagnostic items are often employed to denote events that constitute a temporal or causal background of the narrated event. (4)

Kuliibiin

idarecilerine

club-3poss-GEN

manager-PL-3P0SS-DAT

geldiler

ama... Mektubumuzu

come-DI.PST-PL

but

letter-IPL.POSS-ACC

haber

uçuruldu,

message carry-PASS-DI.PST

almami§lar. receive-NEG.Mi§.psT-PL

'The message was carried in a hurry to the managers, they came, but... (We understood that) they have not received our letter.'

Di-items are typically used historically, i.e. refer directly to the occurrence of an event, whereas Ml§-items are often diagnostic, i.e. refer to an event after its completion, i.e. after its relevant limit has been transgressed. Nevertheless, a Di-item may also be employed to refer to events with 'current relevance', as in (5), or to cover the situation type called 'hot news', as in (6). (5)

(Context: A question asked at 9 a.m.: Why do you look so tired?) Answer: I NOT SLEEP well during the night. Bu gece iyi uyumadim. this

night

good Sleep-DI.PST-ISG

'I didn't sleep well last night.' (6)

Otobiis bus

(EUROTYP Questionnaire)

geldi! arrive-Di.PST

'The bus has arrived! '

(EUROTYP Questionnaire)

Similarly, under specific conditions Mi§-items can be used historically, i.e. to refer to sequential events in a chain of narrative. This use is dependent on the inventory of past items employed in the given discourse type. If the inventory does not include any competing Di-forms, Mi§-forms may be used historically to designate a sequence of events. Such a discourse type is, for instance, to be observed in fairy tales. See example (7).

Turkish (7)

Mi§- and iMij-íVewí 33

Her hazirligim

kendi tamamlami§,

all

herself complete-Miç.PST cart-DAT

preparation-3poss-ACC

arabaya

bindirmi§, mount-CAUS-Mi§.PST

kendi de girmi§ yanina oturmu§. herself also enter-Miç.PST side-3poss-DAT sit down-Mi§.psT 'She completed all the necessary preparations, made her get on the cart, then she also got on it and sat down by her side.'

3. Non-finite versus finite items Even in cases where finite and non-finite forms are morphologically identical, they often differ significantly regarding their semantic content. This is especially true of forms containing the suffix MI§. Part of the differences may be set into relation to the syntactic position occupied by finite and non-finite forms respectively. Finite forms in Turkish typically occupy a sentence-final position, whereas non-finite ones are typically embedded and, therefore, usually take a non-final position. In verb-final languages such as Turkic and Japanese, sentence-final elements may be used to comment on the proposition encoded in the sentence. Such a commenting element may, for instance, be a sentence adverbial indicating the speaker's attitude towards the validity of the proposition; see (8) for the use of herhalde 'it must be that', 'surely', 'undoubtedly', or (9) for the use of sentence negation. (8)

Yagmur yagacak rain

rain-PROSP

herhalde. surely

'It will surely rain.' (9)

HaticeHamm ak$am namazim kdiyor degil. Hatice Mrs evening prayer-3poss-ACC do-iYOR.PRS not 'It is not the case that Mrs Hatice is performing the evening prayer.'

A negation of the content of the verb would be expressed by attaching a negative suffix to the verb, see (10). (10) HaticeHamm ak§am namazim kdmiyor. Hatice Mrs evening prayer-3poss-ACC d0-NEG-iY0R.PRS 'Mrs Hatice is not performing the evening prayer.'

34

Èva Ágnes Csató

The semantic notion of indirectivity is also an epistemic modal category, expressing, as it were, a comment on the propositional content of the utterance. Indirective marking only applies to asserted and interrogative sentences (see Johanson, this volume). Thus the fact that only finite items may carry the notion of indirectivity seems to be correlated with the sentence-find position of sentential operators in Turkish. Non-finite, embedded items based on mi§ do not express indirectivity (see Schroeder, this volume, for a detailed discussion). The semantic notion conveyed by them is postterminality. There is a semantic opposition between postterminal and non-postterminal participles in Turkish; see (11a) and ( l i b ) , respectively; furthermore, between prospective and non-prospective participles. See (12a) and (12b), respectively. ( 1 1 ) a. gelmi§ otobiis come-Mi§.PRT bus 'a / the bus which (has) arrived' b. gelen otobiis come-AN.PRT bus 'a/the coming bus' ( 1 2 ) a. pullanmi§ zarflar stamp-Mi§.PRT envelope-PL 'stamped envelopes' b. pullanacak zarflar stamp-ACAK.PRT envelope-PL 'envelopes to be stamped'

A particular non-finite use of Mi§ and the copula particle imi§ is represented by the construction Mi§ / iMi§+g/¿>/ 'as if'. The original indirective meaning of these forms triggered a special grammaticalisation process. The forms have been grammaticalised as expressions of counterfactuality, as illustrated in (13) and (14). In contrast to Schroeder (see this volume), we are of the opinion that the synchronic meaning of these forms is not indirective but counterfactual. Note that indirective categories are ambiguous between inferential, perceptive and reportive meanings. The items based on mi§ / imi ξ+gibi 'as i f , on the other hand, convey a counterfactual meaning, which is semantically related to indirective nuances but does not convey the readings of genuine indirective categories.

Turkish MI§- and IMI§-items (13) Olmami§

¡eyler

become-NEG-Mi§.PRT

olmu§

35

gibi,

thing-PL become-Miç.PRT

olmu§

§eyler

become-Miç.PRT

thing-PL become-NEG-Mi§.PRT

olmami§

like

gibi like.posTP

anlatilacak. explain-PASS-PROSP

'The things which have not happened should be explained as if they were things which have happened and the ones which have happened as ones which have not happened.' (14) Adam karisinin man

kaçtigi

wife-3poss.GEN

kigiyi

run away-DiK.PART:3P0SS

bilemiyormu§

gibi

knOW-NEG.POT-IYOR.PRES-IMIÇ

like.POSTP

person-ACC

yapsin. DO-IMP

'One should behave (pretend) as if one didn't know (couldn't know) with whom one's wife has run away.'

Non-finite MI§-items can be used as embedded elements of periphrastic forms, their common characteristic being that they express postterminality but not indirectivity. See (15), illustrating the use of MI§items in a periphrastic verb form of a relative clause, and (16), which illustrates its corresponding use in a complement clause. (15) Çok much

oturulmu§

olan

iskemlenin

yiizii

sit-PASS-Miç.PRT

become-AN.PRT

chair-GEN

covering-3poss

eskimig. w e a r out-Miç.PST

'The covering of the chair which has been used a lot is worn out.' (16) Dede'nin grandfather-GEN

bu

sözü

neden

söylemi§

this

word-ACC

why

say-Mi§.PRT

olabilecegini

merak etmi§ti.

be:P0T-ACAK.PRT-3P0ss-ACC

wonder-MijTi.PLUPERF

'He had wondered for what reason the grandfather could have uttered this word.'

Periphrastic forms based on a non-finite MI§-form and the auxiliary olor bulun- denote the meaning: 'With the accomplishment of event A, event Β has taken place' (see the ipso facto function discussed in Johanson 1971: 312-314).

36

Eva Agnes

Csató

(17) Ben çimdi iki kere kontrat imzalami§ oldum. I now two times contract sign-Miç.PRT become-Di.PST-lSG 'Herewith, I have now become one who has signed two contracts.'

Non-finite Mi§-items can be combined with sentence operators such as the negation particle degil 'not' (18) or with a necessitative form of the auxiliary verb ol (19). In all these cases, the meaning conveyed by the Mi§-item is postterminality, whereas no indirective meaning is designated. (18) Ölmü§

degil.

die-Mi§.PRT

not

'It is not the case that he has died / died.' (19) Gelmiç

olmali.

come-Miç.PRT

be-NEC

'He must have come.'

Postterminal non-finite Mi§-items can function as embedded predicatives, see (20) (cf. Drimba 1976). The Mi§-item in this function can be rendered by a gerund in the English translation. This use has therefore sometimes been characterised as 'converbial'. See Schroeder this volume for more about this absolute adverbial use. (20) Rüstern pabuçlarim Rüstern

slippers-PL-3P0SS-ACC

kurmug Set-MI§.PRT

çikarip

bagda¡

take off-iP.coNV

cross-legged

oturuyordu. Sit-IYOR.DI.PST

'Rüstern had taken off his slippers and was sitting cross-legged.'

The postterminal meaning of Mi§-participles may be lexicalised in nominal forms, for instance, dolmu§ 'filled' meaning 'taxi or boat which only departs when it is filled up with passengers'.

4. The suffix MI§ and the copula particle

IMI§

If the predicate of a sentence is a nominal category, copula particles may be attached to it to mark different viewpoint, tense and modal values. The copula particle IMI§ occurring with nominal predicates (in-

Turkish Mi§- and iMij-z'/ems

37

eluding predicates based on non-finite, extended verb forms such as participles and verbal nouns) has become a grammaticalised marker of indirectivity. Although it can be cliticised to a predicate in the harmonic form -(y)ml§, it is significantly different from finite MI§-forms of lexical verbs, which are formed by attaching the -ml§ suffix immediately to the primary stem of the lexical verb. Note also that a cliticised IMI§ is unaccentable, i.e. cannot carry high pitch, whereas the suffix MI§ is accentable. Thus, the main morphological difference between MI§ and the copula particle IMI§ is that the former, but not the latter, can be attached to primary verb stems as, for instance, anla- 'understand' + ml§ = anlami§ 'has (apparently) understood' (cf. *anla- + imi§ = *anlaymi§). The copula particle can only be added to nominal stems as, for example, baba 'father' + imi§ = babaymi§ 'is apparently the father' or the lexicalised verbal noun anlam 'meaning' + imi§ = anlammi§ 'is apparently the meaning'. As stated above, each verbal stem can be extended by suffixes indicating viewpoint and modal values. The extended stems may further serve as nominal stems. The copula particle may be added to such extended stems of nominal character, e.g. anhyor [understand-IYOR.PRES'] + imi§ = anliyormu§ 'apparently / obviously understands'. The main semantic differences between MI§ and IMI§ concern temporality, postterminality and indirectivity. Compare example (21), containing a nominal predicate and the copula particle IMI§, and example (22), containing a verbal predicate based on a finite Μΐξ-item. (21) Ali

hastaymig.

Ali

ill-IMI§.PART

'Ali is / was / has (apparently) been ill.' (22) Ali hastalanmig. Ali become Í11-MI§.PST 'Ali has (apparently) become / became ill.'

The IMI§-item in (21) can be interpreted both with present tense and past tense reference, since the copula particle IMI§ does not indicate any particular temporal value nor expresses any postterminal viewpoint value. The MI§-item in example (22), on the other hand, neces-

38

Èva Ágnes

Csató

sarily indicates anteriority. The event of 'his becoming ill' is viewed in a postterminal perspective, which means that the form indicates that the event of 'becoming ill' is regarded as having been completed before the speech event. The differing properties of MI§ and IMI§ can be summed up as shown in the following table. Table 1. Properties Attachable to primary verbal stems

Accentable (able to carry high pitch) Viewpoint meaning Temporal meaning Indirective meaning

Finite forms of lexical verbs based on MI§ yes

yes postterminality anteriority can express indirectivity

The copula particle

IMI§

no (IMI§ can only be added to nominal stems and extended deverbal nominal stems) no no viewpoint meaning no temporal meaning grammaticalised marker of indirectivity

Both MI§- and IML§-items express indirectivity. For details on the notion of indirectivity, see Johanson (this volume). Whereas the copula particle denotes indirectivity in all its occurrences, MI§-items convey this semantic notion only when they are used as finite verbs. Indirectivity designated by finite MI§-items and the copula particle I M I § conveys reportive, inferential or perceptive meanings (see Johanson, this volume). For instance, example (21) may be interpreted as reportive (21a), inferential (21b), or perceptive (21c). The actual reading is always context-dependent. (21) a. Ali is / was / has been ill (as I have heard). b. Ali is ill (I infer from the fact that he has not come to work today). c. Ali is ill (I took his temperature and saw that he has a fever).

These readings may, of course, be further specified by different interpretative nuances such as 'admirative'; see Slobin—Aksu (1982). Note again that the copula particle may combine with a high num-

Turkish Mi§- and mi§-items

39

ber of different verb forms based on nominal forms of lexical stems, e . g . -(I)yormu§ mAktAymI§

[YOR.PRESENT+IMI§], -(V)rml§

[MAKTA.PRESENT+IMI§], -(y)AcAkmI§

[AORIST.PRESENT+IMI§], [PROSPECTIVE+IMI§].

All these forms share the basic semantic properties of the IMI§-items and express indirectivity. The temporal reading of the complex forms may be defined by a preceding suffix. See, for instance (23), in which IMI§ is cliticised to the prospective participle based on -(y)AcAK and a possible temporal reading is future-time reference. In (24), on the other hand, IMI§ is cliticised to a postterminal MI§-form, and the form is therefore interpreted as anterior. The copula particle IMI§ itself, however, does not mark any temporal idea, but only adds the notion of indirectivity. (23) Siz de göreceksiniz, çiinkû ayrti yerde you also See-PR0SP-2PL because same place-Loc kalacakmiçsiniz. Stay-PROSP-IMIÇ.PART-2PL 'You will also see it, because (as I have been told) you will stay at the same place.' (24) Çok para kazanmi§mi§. much money earn-Mi§.PRT-iMi$.PART 'He has (reportedly) earned much money.'

5. The suffixes MI§TI and

MI§TIR

5.1. MI§TI-items

Finite MI§-items can, as we have seen, indicate both postterminality and indirectivity. Some complex finite suffixes based on MI§ have become grammaticalised with a function that cannot be described as the sum of the functions of the simple suffixes. Such complex forms are MI§TI a n d MI§TIR.

MI§TI-items are based on the simple MI§-suffix and the copula particle idi 'was', which expresses anteriority. The function of this complex item is to denote anteriority in the anteriority with a built-in secondary orientation point in the past, similarly to the English pluperfect; see (25).

40

Eva Ágnes

Csató

(25) Ben geldigim zaman, sen gitmigtin. I arrive-DiK.PRT-lsGPOSS time you leave-Mi§Ti.PLUPERF-2sG 'When I arrived, you had (already) left.'

Turkish Mi§Ti-items, unlike English pluperfects, can also be used to emphasize the actual or psychological 'remoteness' of the event. In (26), the speaker uses the Mi§Ti-pluperfect in order to emphasise that 'her taking a Japanese course' took place such a long time ago that she cannot be expected to know Japanese at the utterance time. (26) Ben bundan 4-5 yil önce Türkiye'de bir yil I this-ABL 4-5 year ago Turkey-LOC one year Japonca dersi almi§tim. Japanese class-3poss take-Mi§Ti.PLUPERF-1 so Ί took a course in Japanese for one year in Turkey four or five years ago.'

Whereas the Mi§Ti-item in (25) can be interpreted postterminally, the Mi§Ti-form in example (26) does not necessarily convey a postterminal viewpoint. Mi§-items, on the other hand, always denote a postterminal viewpoint. Another important difference between mi§ti- and Mi§-items involves the category of indirectivity. Mi§Ti-items never indicate any indirective meaning.

5.2. Mi§TiR-items Complex Turkish Mi§TiR-forms are based on the combination of the suffix mi§ with the suffix -Dir (< auxiliary verb *turur). Mi§TiR-items are used to refer to events in the past, i.e. they are items indicating anteriority. The function of Mi§TiR-forms also varies depending on the discourse type they are used in. In non-fiction, Mi§TiR-forms are often used as unmarked past forms which do not convey any specific modal meaning; see example (27). (27) Anadolu dogu Anatolia East iilkelerin country-PL-GEN

ile batí and West yolu road-3poss

arasinda ticaret yapan between.POSTP commerce do-AN.PRT oldugu için be-DiK.PRT-3P0SS because.POSTP

Turkish dogu ve East and Örnegin

batidan birçok istilâlara West-ABL several invasion-PL-DAT tiiccar, zanaatçi, i§çilerden

for example

merchant

artisan

ve

memurlarin

and

administrator-PL-GEN

olmu§tur. become-Mi$TiR.PST egemen olan sovereign

yerle§me

also

settle down-iNF

I§te bin thus thousand Türkler bu

be-AN.PRT

Turk-PL

ugramtyir. undergo-MiçnR.PST ba§ka asker

worker-PL-ABL

da

this

Ml§- and lMl§-i>ewi 41

other

soldier

merkezleri centre-3POSS

yildan year-ABL yoldan

beri Anadolu'ya since Anatolia-DAT gelmi§tir.

road-ABL

come-Mi§TiR.PST

'Anatolia underwent several invasions from the East and West, because it was the road of peoples who were trading between the East and West. For instance, centres of settlements came into existence here not only for merchants, artisans and workers, but also for soldiers and administrators. The Turks, who have had sovereignty in Anatolia for a thousand years, came on this road.'

In spoken varieties, the assertive value of Mi§TiR-forms may vary between assertion and presumption (I assert that...; I presume that...); see (28). This semantic 'devaluation' is also typical of adverbial expressions such as 'surely, certainly'. (28) Magazin weekly

yazari

sor du:

writer-3poss

ask-Di.PST

Halamz

evde

aunt-2PL.POSS

house-Loo stay-Miç.PRT a

Hiç

kalmi§

evlenmemigtir",

not at all get married-NEG-MIÇTIR.PST

birkadin woman

miydi ? Q-COPULA.PART.DI.PST

dedi. say-Di.PST.

'The journalist asked: ' "Was your aunt a spinster?" "I am sure she never married", he said.'

The readings may also vary according to the person of the speaker. When used in the first person, a Mi§TiR-item sums up in a diagnostic way events which took place, often discontinuously. There is mostly an adverbial expression in the same clause meaning 'always' (daima, hep, her zaman, etc.), 'several years' (yillarca), 'in my life' (hayatimda, ömrümde), 'until now' {§imdiye kadar), 'each time' (her defa) (Johanson 1971: 299). See example (29) and (30). In the latter, Β makes an inference about himself on the basis of the observation of A.

42

Eva Agnes

(29) O that

Csató

balkonlu

odaya

rüyalarimda

hep

balcony

room-DAT

dream-PL-lsG.POSS-LOC

always

girmi§

çikmi§imdir.

enter-Mi!) [TIR.PST- 1 SG]

leave-Mi§HR.PST-1 SG

'In my dreams, I have entered and left again and again that room with a balcony.' (30) A.

"Diin

çok

yesterday

very pensive

dü§ünceli

duruyordun.

Ne

Stand-IYORDI.PST

what become-Di.PST

oldu?"

B: "Yorulmu§umdur. " get tired-Mi§TiR-lsG

Ά : "You were very pensive yesterday. What happened?" B: "I must have gotten tired.'"

In the second person, MI§TIR is often used to convey a presumptive reading; see example (31). (31)

Herhalde duymu§sundur. surely hear-Mi$TiR.PST-2sG 'You have surely heard it.'

6. Summary Languages differ from each other by presenting descriptive problems at different levels of the language structure. The high degree of regularity in Turkish morphology does not exclude intricate difficulties in accounting for the function of the forms. The unusual regularity of Turkish morphology has often led to simplifications in the description of other levels. The present paper has aimed at pointing out that there is no justification for assuming a one-to-one relation of one Turkish 'Ml§-form' to one semantic notion. Functions are to be described along several autonomous dimensions of discourse and grammar. References See also references in Aksu-Koç, Johanson and Schroeder (this volume). Csató, Eva Agnes 1999

"Zur Phasenstruktur ungarischer Aktionalphrasen", in: Walter Breu

Turkish Mi§- and m\§-items

43

(ed.) Probleme der Interaktion von Lexik und Aspekt (ILA). Tübingen: Niemeyer, 75-89. Drimba, Vladimir 1976

"La détermination predicative en turc de Turquie", Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 48: 49-64. E U R O T Y P Questionnaire 2000 "The Perfect (PRF) Questionnaire. Eurotyp Project. European Science Foundation", in: Osten Dahl (ed.) Tense and aspect in European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Johanson, Lars 1971 Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems. (Studia Turcica Upsaliensia 1.) Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Johanson, Lars 2000 "Viewpoint operators in European languages", in: Osten Dahl (ed.) Tense and aspect in European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Johanson, Lars this volume "Turkic indirectives". Schroeder, Christoph this volume "Between resultative, historical, inferential: non-finite -mAy-forms in Turkish." Slobin, Dan—Ayhan Aksu 1982 "Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential", in: Paul J. Hopper (ed.) Tense-aspect between semantics & pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 185-199.

Abbreviations ABL—Ablative, ACAK.PRT—Participle based on the suffix -(Y)ACAK, ACC—Accusative, AN.PRT—Participle based on the suffix -(Y)AN, CAUS—Causative, DAT—Dative, DI.PST—Past form based on the suffix -DI, DIK.PRT—Participle based on the suffix -DIK, GEN—Genitive, IMP—Imperative, IP.CONV—Converb based on the suffix -(Y)IP, IYOR.DI.PST—Past form based on the complex suffix -IYORDU, I Y O R . N O M — Nominal form (extended verb stem) based on the suffix -IYOR, IYOR.PRÈS—Present form based on the suffix -IYOR, LOC—Locative, MI§.PRT—Participle based on the suffix -MI§, MI§.PST—Past form based on the suffix -MI§, MI§TI.PLUPERF—Pluperfect based on the complex suffix -MI§TI, MI§TIR.PST—Past based on the complex suffix -MI§TIR, NEC—Necessitative, NEG—Negation, PART—Particle, PASS—Passive, PL— Plural, PLUPERF—Pluperfect, POSS—Possessive, POST—Postterminal, POSTP—Postposition, POT—Potential, PRÈS—Present, PROSP—Prospective, PRT—Participle, SG— Singular.

Direct and indirect experience in Salar Arienne Dwyer 1. Introduction Evidentiality fundamentally concerns interaction: it is first and foremost a speaker's evaluation of the source of information about a particular event. It also concerns the other participants: the degree of their acceptance of speaker assertions, and the speaker's anticipation of this response. The source of information may be direct ( Ί see/hear/taste/ smell/feel/do') or indirect ( Ί hear it reported / 1 infer / 1 discover; it happened'), may be more or less certain, or may rank subjectively higher or lower in reliability. How this evaluation is grammatically articulated is in turn affected by discourse-pragmatic factors (degree of politeness, register/genre, foregrounding, and intentionality). If the hearer challenges evidence presented, or if the speaker anticipates such a response, speakers may choose indirect/less-certain means of coding this information even though the evidence is direct/more-certain. Evidentiality is thus both a morphosyntactic issue (how and whether a language codes indirect experience), and a pragmatic one (how participants use these markers). Here I begin with the morphosyntactic axes before considering the pragmatic ones. Salar is a language of Turkic origin with Northwest Chinese and Amdo Tibetan adstrata, spoken primarily in northern Tibet.1 As a rule, it requires speakers to code most utterances for (indirectness via verb suffixes (which also mark tense/aspect). Utterance-final particles contribute to the expression of participant expectations and intentionality; as such particles are only tangentially relevant for indirectivity, they will not be treated in depth here. Direct experience is the often the default experience, sometimes unmarked (though generally only so when Salar utterances include shifted Chinese structures); indirect experience is semantically and syntactically marked. Though indirectivity is a modal phenomenon, it intersects semantically with the realis-irrealis distinction (see 3.3. below).

46

Arienne Dwyer

Indirectivity marking is associated with realis rather than irrealis\ it can be considered to be the speaker's assessment of the degree of irrealis within realis. As one step along the road to irrealis, indirective markers keeps company with conditionals, imperatives, yes-no questions, non-implicative modal ('wanted to...') and manipulative complements ('jc told y to..'.), and non-factive complements of cognition ('* thought that...'). 2 Salar rigorously distinguishes direct from indirect experience: if experience is perceived as indirect, utterances must be so marked. Predictably, indirect forms co-occur with third-person subjects, and in narratives, while direct forms are most commonly (but not exclusively) associated with first-person subjects, and in direct quotations. This reflects a cross-linguistic hierarchy of evidentiary reliability in personal deixis: speaker > hearer > third party (Givón 1984: 307). The correlation with personal deixis and evidential forms is so high that early studies of the language assumed that the indirect verb suffixes were third-person personal suffixes, and that the direct verb suffixes were first- and second-personal personal suffixes. Indirective markers in Salar do not, however, always mark any action by a third person as indirect, nor do they mark only unwitnessed action by the third person. Such marking is also context-sensitive.

2. Direct/Indirect marking by suffixation Salar codes direct and indirect experience for anterior experience (Anterior I, II, III) and copular and existential imperfectives.3 The durative imperfective employs the existential indirective jox-a in the negative. The scant material available on "premodern Salar"4 shows the same oppositions were present 100-200 years ago: direct -Di and -GAn vs. indirect -mis; direct (er)dir (>(i)di'r) and ermes vs. indirect eme s ar i. (No affirmative indirect form is attested in these three texts, but one can extrapolate ar (i).)

Direct and indirect experience

in Salar

47

Table /. Salar verb suffixes/clitics with indirective oppositions affirmative

Direct negative

Indirect affirmative

negative

Anterior I: preterite Anterior II: terminal Anterior ΙΠ:

-Φ"

-mA-cfei

-mis

-mA-mis

-GAn

-mA-GAn

-mis

-mA-mis

experiential Copula Existential Imperfective I: pres.-dur.

-GAn var

-GAn jox-tïr ernes, emes-t'ir jox, jox-tïr

-GAn var-a (ir)-a var-a

-GAn jox-a

( i)-di'r var

emes-a jox-a

-Ba( r)

jox-tïr

-Ba( r)

jox-a

(G=g/ï/G/g; B=b/p; A=a/ä)

2.1. Anterior 2.1.1. Anteriors I, II cfei : -mis; -GAn : -mis Salar preserves the Old Turkic indirectivity distinctions for anterior events: events are marked as directly experienced with - φ (< Turkic -DI) and Middle Turkic -GAn, and as indirectly-experienced with -mis (< Turkic -mis). In historical narratives, where the events related are [+realis] for the speaker, - φ and -GAn mark assertions within the speaker's direct experience, while -mis marks those events experienced indirectly by the speaker, and are thus associated with first-person subjects, as in the following example of an elderly man relating his wartime experiences: ( 1)

piser kucara bardai, kucara barsa, u gasolin digän maxuo säijlär anda Gasmis ta, ular da kucara gelmis. [152.31.33] 5 W e went to Kucha. When we went to Kucha, he hid the gasoline there around Maxuo county, and they also came to Kucha.'

However, in fictional narratives, events are assumed to be [-realis] and completely outside of the realm of the speaker's experience; predictably, the default markers are indirective -mis and a, as in the following typical story opening:

48 (2)

Arienne Dwyer nenosur vara, bowusur varar a. ... indji awucuxnigi abasi vursen adpunigi helli bicfoa ocile apparmis. [56.1,2,6] 'There was an old woman and an old man. (...) So the boy's father borrowed some of Uncle Vursen's money.'

Yet the consistent use of indirectives in such fictional narratives is interrupted by dialogue, which is marked by directives: (3)

icfyanigi

jahtuguni

gün ana

apparcki.

mother-GEN

pillow-3poss.ACC

sun girl

take-go-ANT.DiR

'The sun maidens took your mother's pillow.'

[3.101]

The presence of Old Turkic perfect/evidential -mis as an indirective marker in Salar is a conservative feature shared with Oghuz Turkic. It does not occur in Salar's geographically closest Turkic neighbor, Sarïgh Yoghur; although in modern standard Uyghur evidential -mis has largely supplanted by ikän,6 in many southern Uyghur dialects -mis is still used as an evidential. 2.1.2. Anterior III: Composed past /Experiential The indirective opposition for the existential (var : var-a) forms the basis for the Salar experiential past: direct -GAn var (neg. -GAn joxtïr) < Turkic experiential past -GAn + existential bar, indirect -GAn vara (neg. -GAn joxa) < -GAn + bar + indirective clitic a (see 2.2 below). (4)

a. men b. u c. u

becfcina vargan var becfyina vargan var a becfcina vargan joxtir/joxa

Ί have been to Beijing' 'S/he has been to Beijing' 'S/he hasn't been to Beijing' (direct/indirect)

When the reportative is emphasized, an embedded construction is used, with indirective marking on the matrix verb (as in 5a) or on the main verb (as in 5b). The western dialect of Salar, spoken in a largely Uyghur/Qazaq-Turkic area, appears to favor such complex constructions over -GAn var/vara compositae: (5)

a.

men ani becfcina I (s)he-ACC Beijing-DAT Ί heard s/he went to Beijing'

varmis

de

go-ANT.iND

CNJR

ìstecfyi hear-ANT.DIR

Direct and indirect experience b.

men istisem u beduina I hear-coND-lsG (s)he Beijing-DAT Ί hear/heard (s)he went to Beijing.'

in Salar

49

varmis go-ANT.IND

2.2. Imperfective The three imperfectives relevant to indirective oppositions are copular and existential constructions, and the present-durative. All are based on the opposition {-(0-DIr : -a}\ zero marking or -Dir for the directive, and the clitic a in the indirective.

2.2.1. Copular and existential

constructions

In direct declaratives, the explicit marking of the copula with (i)dïr (< Turkic är-dur) is usual (unlike Turkic languages such as modern Uyghur, in which zero marking in copular constructions is neutral, and the use of dur is emphatic). In connected speech in Salar, however, explicit copular marking in the declarative is not obligatory; this may be related to the shift of Chinese and Tibetan structures into Salar (see 3.3 below). (6)

(7)

u minigi tiut suxum (s)he my-GEN Tibetan friend-I.POSS '(S)he's my Tibetan friend.' idir

i

dir be-DIR

'Is that so?'

[Hán 1983] [53.183]

Indirect declaratives are marked with the clitic a: (8)

asmanda neccäjultus

(9)

ren xe ren bir ira bele.

vara?

(10) ajso, sen futan ira mu?

'How many stars are in the sky?'

[Hán 1983]

'People are all the same. '

[53.198]

'Ayso, are you well off?'

[53.199]

The origin of the indirective clitic a can only be hypothesized. Given that the Salar verb paradigm contains many Chaghatay elements, one can consider the that Salar a might be the result of severe phonological

50

Arienne Dwyer

erosion of the Chaghatay indirective är-kän\ Chag. ärkän > ä:kä > ä: gä > ä: > a? The shift from front to back vowel is obviously problematic, until we consider that Salar has borrowed the back-vocalic Chinese exclamatory particle a, which also occurs utterance-finally. The Salar indirective marker may have become back by analogy with the exclamatory particle.8 Sari'gh Yoghur, Salar's geographically closest Turkic neighbor, has a superficially similar form er (< likely Turkic är 'be'), but it is semantically and structurally different from Salar α; Sarïgh Yoghur er is an emphatic ('certainly'), is associated with certain verb forms (mostly the future-Ga^' ), and can be negated with the Turkic negative infix -m(A)-, as in -Gd§-mer)\ (11) a. duhtG9§-er b. duhtGas-mer

'will certainly do [it]' 'will certainly not do [it]'

( 12) ser an namorcfcal kun sen saGds satda ciige gelej dro ( ~gelgd§ dro ), bug an nege gelmegen er? [Chén—Lèi 1985] 'Seren Namerjal comes every day to the district at eight, why hasn't he come today?'

Although it is likely that both Salar α and Sari'gh Yoghur er derive from the Middle Turkic copula är, they have been grammaticalized to such different functions that their only commonality is that they both indicate markedness. Salar a has become specialized as an indirective marker; in the following, a speaker relates the legend of the Salars' settlement in Amdo Tibet, using indirective forms throughout to indicate that it is indeed legend: (13) eh, bupisernigi §ΐ, gelgänni §l cfcaqi ira, otirgu jära. indp amgi susini cänpin a. piser ddijziga vursa, andagi su mundagi su bir zänzini daijziga vursa, agirhgi bir a. [5.28-31] 'Yeah, [in] our coming [here], all around were places to settle. And so the water was the real thing. When we weighed it, weighed a bowl of water from there and one of water from here, they were the same.'

Direct and indirect experience

in Salar

51

2.2.2. Imperfective I: present/durative In the affirmative, the present-durative (marked by -Ba(r)) is irrelevant to indirectivity. Its negated forms, however, have converged with negative existentials, and therefore display the {-Dir : -a} opposition: direct = V + joxdir, indirect = V + joxa. a. b. c.

cuxur

pitibar

now

write-DUR

men I men I u

piti

ioxtir

write

not-DiR

piti

joxa

(s)he

write

nOt-INDIR

Ί am writing now' Ί am not writing' '(S)he is not writing'

3. Discourse-pragmatic factors Speakers choose socially meaningful speech styles based on the situation and its participants. The social and pragmatic intentions of the participants and the type of communication mode ("genre") to a large extent determine the choice of indirective markers. These factors may result in indirective marking that is at odds with some of above examples of "textbook indirectivity" (i.e. the information is reported/inferred/ discovered/uncertain). Social factors such as deference, pragmatic factors such as foregrounding, and structural factors such as the required collocations associated with certain genres can all contribute to the choice of indirective markers. 3.1. Intentionality The intentions of the participants vis-à-vis the conversational topic and each other can result in the choice of indirectives to mark what is clearly direct experience. In one conversation, a ninety-year-old woman is being interviewed by a much younger Salar man she has not met previously, who asks her about veiling practices long ago: (15) a.

b.

se 1er kici vogando you-PL small when 'When you were young, did daxan ixua wear

not-iNDiR

getu daxanbar head.covering wear-IMP you cover your heads?' 'No, we didn't.'

o INT [83.72-73]

52

Arienne Dwyer

Although it is clearly part of her direct experience, the interviewee has marked her response as indirect in order to distance herself from that event, likely because most Salar women regard it as shameful not to cover one's head. The many uses of indirectives to convey participant intentionality is a topic beyond the scope of this paper. Aside from marking the speaker's subjective distance from the topic, indirectives are also used to convey elements of the participant relationship, e.g. politeness or deference, a topic touched on in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. 3.2. Genre Salar oral texts can be categorized on thematic and structural grounds into the following major text types: conversations, narratives (historical narrative, narrative descriptions, and fictional narratives), speeches, songs, and sayings (proverbs and riddles). Each genre reflects certain tendencies with regard to indirectivity; of these, conversations, speeches, and narratives reveal most clearly how speakers make context-sensitive choices in marking an event as (in)direct. In speech acts with highly codified stylistic structures (greetings and leavetakings, prayers, and wedding speeches), the speaker has less or even no free choice in indirectivity marking. He or she may be bound to specific collocations ( O h o l d a . . . 'Once upon a time... ' , . . . s i u z bu da '...and so be it.'). In these kinds of speech acts, the speaker is more detached from active participation in the discourse process. The less codified the speech act (e.g. in conversations or even fairy tales), the more involved the speaker can be in marking indirectivity.

3.2.1.

Conversations

The presence of multiple active participants means that intentionality comes to the fore. Conversations have the highest degree of flexibility in combining verbal with sentential markers; the latter are employed extensively. In addition to the verbal markers of indirectivity, certain discourse particles optionally serve to reinforce the (in)directness of an

Direct and indirect experience in Salar

53

utterance. The degree of certainty of assertion is very important in dialogic discourse. Examples (16)—(18) are excerpts from a conversation between a father, his adult son, and his son's friend. In (16), the friend asserts his own age indirectly (with a comparative construction, and a confirmative particle ba 'must be...'), and the father deduces his age. Both the assertion and conclusion drawn represent information from an indirect source, and the degree of certainty is low, hence the indirective marking of the first two utterances. However, the father's conclusion is wrong; the son's friend corrects him using an unmarked directive, for he is certain in his knowledge, as it refers to himself: (16) Friend: men jusuga vaxsa, bir cfoadaxiraba. Father: si§ijia. Friend: san§ivu [0],

'I'm a year older than Yusuf.' 'Forty-one (, I take it).' 'Thirty-five.' [53.90-92]

Unlike in narrative quotations (cf. (3) above), in conversations the speaker apparently has the option of coding a quoted assertion as an indirective or directive. Compare the first and fourth utterances in (17): (17) Friend: senigi aban seni sißi volmis debar. Your dad said you're forty. Son: à:? Father: u sängisi volbar debar. Friend: pin si§iiramu? Son: euvara, sangla.

pini tag sipl ira mu ? Are you really forty?' 'Huh?' 'He says you're thirty-four.' 'Are you really forty?' 'Eh right; I'm thirty-four.' [53.102-107]

Except for the father's statement above, the dialogue is consistently indirect, reflecting the uncertainty of the information, or a sudden realization ('Eh right...'). Direct forms are used in the negative; for the affirmative answer, the speaker uses the indirective -mis, even though he is certain of the information: (18) Father: senigi aba be, vucar¡ volganda liu§i girmacki ba? 'Your father, he wasn't yet sixty-nine when he passed away, was he?' Friend: liußisi volmis. 'He was sixty-four.' [53.119-121]

54

Arienne Dwyer

Indirectivity marking in conversations is thus very topic- and speakerdependent. Those conversations which involve the deferential negotiation of information (such as the above) strongly favor indirect forms. Where the certainty or source of information is not being negotiated and the participants' intentions are focussed elsewhere, direct forms are more common. The confirmative particle ba, indicating the speaker's expectation of listener agreement, co-occurs with both direct and indirect markers; with the latter (as in 16), it nudges the assertion in the direction of directivity and thus partially neutralizes the indirective marking. 3.2.2. Speeches Formal speeches such as those at weddings are among the most highly codified speech acts in Salar. Wedding speeches are presented largely in a question-and-answer format; when directivity is marked at all (questions are often conditionals, and answers often imperatives), direct forms are overwhelmingly favored. These timeless truths constitute information of unquestionable certainty, even if the source of information is nebulous, and even if the assertion is counterfactual: (19) mundan gelgäsi, kimni alguz ulug algusa disa? ikki sodfina alguz ulug algusa dir i. narjnigi jolina disa? asmando bulut joxmasa, rahmät joxtur dir i. ziminda socfoi joxmasa, urux ioxtur dir i. [1.44—48] 'Continuing on, who [else] is respected? It is the matchmakers. In which way are they respected? Without clouds in the sky, there would be no rain (lit. 'favor'). Without matchmakers on earth, there would be no family.'

The indirective a(r) intrudes, rarely, into an otherwise directive discourse, generally under two circumstances. The first is in utterances with second-person referents, out of deference; note how second-person sän is associated with indirective ar i while first person minigi is associated with directive adir i: (20) ulli etse, qulax sän Gonaxnigi ari. lombä §ι minigi ojcinigi adir i. [2.113-114] 'If you accord them respect, the ears are those of you guests; the gifts are those of us hosts.'

Direct and indirect experience

in Salar

55

The second structure in which indirectives appear is in a question- answer; an indirective question requires an answer with parallel marking, on stylistic grounds: (21) §iba tciän ma mexelugu isinde, cfyjgue (higa §ι naq aril ejco adam ar i. 'Of the 18,000 living beings, which is the most precious? It is man.'[1.64-65]

The emphatic particle i, which indicates the speaker expects the proposition to be factive, neutralizes the indirective sense of ar. Pragmatically, i serves in both (20) and (21) to reinforce the authority, certainty, and factivity of the information presented. The entire speech never strays from direct discourse; such particles therefore contribute to the overall coherence of a given speech act. 3.2.3. Narratives These are bounded events strongly associated with past tense and indirect forms. Narratives may be punctuated by direct forms (-GAn, -Ar) in sudden change of state. These interruptions in the narrative sequence tend to be marked unbounded experiences (hence the experiential -GAn). The evidential system in narratives often simplified. Unlike in other genres such as conversations, the indirect forms are default. The predictable alternations between direct and indirect forms is largely related to foregrounding and backgrounding.

3.3. Foregrounding/backgrounding Hopper and Thompson (1980) showed a probabalistic correlation between realis and foreground, and irrealis and background. Salar discourse data suggests that this correlation can be extended to indirectivity (demonstrating the semantic link between irrealis and indirectivity): foregrounded information correlates with directivity (and often unmarked); backgrounded information correlates with marked indirectives, at least in narrative discourse. In the following historical narrative presented overwhelmingly with indirect forms, direct forms appear occasionally to foreground currently relevant information:

56

Arienne Dwyer

(22) sufala cix gelcänä asm jigua tamamis. wu jyä isinda oraxni orgur orgur bogdajni orgur. wu jig a §idziända, jigua su tarjnacfyinän jogan etmis a — as. 'Water came up out of the ground and flowed all over the fields. By May [we] would be scything and scything (lit., 'will scythe'), scything the wheat. At that time, water flowed everywhere and they grew well ('big'), the fields.' [5.83-85]

Foregrounded information is often completely unmarked. 9 In Salar, the Chinese copula shi [§i] has been grammaticalized as a topic-marker. When such utterances are non- copular in Salar, one inevitably finds a directive verb suffix, even in a historical narrative where one would expect indirectives: (23) pisernigi aretina jiraxni gelgännigi §ι si§l g a sejxej gelgön. [5.11-12] 'The ones who came from afar after us were (lit., 'came') the forty learned men'.

When utterances topicalized with §i have a copular sense in Salar, the expected utterance-final Turkic copula (idïr/ira) is almost always absent: §i appears to have retained its copular sense from Chinese: (24) u jedpsi ¡n axman xa Garamannigi ogli. 'Those seven were the sons of Aqman and Qaraman.'

[5.42]

As a non-topicalized utterance, the above would likely be rendered as: ular axman xa Garamannigi jedji ogli idir/ira. 'They were the seven sons of Aqman and Qaraman.' Yet even when a Turkic foregrounding topicalizer is used, the copula is also absent. In the first utterance below, sänbai djia 'thirty households' is marked off as a topic by deefoinän 'saying' ; the second utterance uses the Chinese topicalizer §v, neither have the expected Turkic copula utterance-finally: (25) sänbai cfcia deckinän, beligiji gorj [0J. piser §1 ba gorjmgi isinda §]_jiga goij [0_]. 'As for the thirty households, they constitute one gong. Ours is one of the eight gong.'

[5.92]

The necessity for marking indirectivity in Salar has been rendered irrelevant by the foregrounding of the utterance through topicalization.

Direct and indirect experience in Salar

57

3.4. Gender of participants The frequency of direct forms may be correlated with gender. Female speakers of Salar tend to use more indirect forms. Even direct quotations embedded in narratives related by females are often entirely in -mis. Narratives related by males tend to favor the directive -GAn form. This could also be due to the choice and perception of subject matter: men often choose to talk about history and legends, which they may have perceived as relatively factual, direct, and based on reliable information. It is mostly women who tell tales of fantasy, which they in turn may have perceived as so far beyond immediate experience that they have to be couched in indirectives. But when men tell epics and fairy tales, and when women relate their local history, the gender correlation appears to hold. A broader textual survey is clearly needed.

4. Summary Ultimately direct/indirect marking is both a syntactic and a pragmatic constraint. Indirectivity markers are often used as expected for reported/inferred/new information, and are thus often associated with thirdperson referents in discourse. However, utterances referring to the first person may be marked as indirect to indicate speaker distance from the topic or other speaker intentions; those referring to the second person may be indirect out of politeness or deference. The relationship between the speaker, the topic, and other participants thus mediates the choice of indirectivity marking. The genre of speech act itself partially determines the flexibility a speaker has in such marking. Utterancefinal particles play a tangential but important role in maintaining overall textual coherence by partially neutralizing the sense of those indirectivity markers required by morphosyntax but that are otherwise out of place.

Notes 1. The Salars are most likely Oguz-Turkic speakers who migrated from Transoxiana to Amdo Tibet in the 13th century. Settling on the banks of the Yellow River in

58

2. 3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

Arienne

Dwyer

what is today Qinghai province, they intermarried with Tibetans and later Muslim Chinese, incorporating many elements of these groups into their culture and language. Today the Salars number over 90,000, but their unwritten language is rapidly giving way to the dominant languages, particularly to Chinese. On Salar language and history, Dwyer (forthcoming). Givón (1984: 286, 318). Manipulative complements are those which have an impact on self ('want, intend, try,...') or others ('order, tell, ask...'). Liu and Lin (1980) assert that Salar marks "definiteness" (indirectivity) in the durative (def. -bar, indef. -ba) and the future (def. -Gur, indef. -Gar). My data suggests these "indefinite" forms are semantically unrelated to indirectivity and are simply phonologically variant forms of -BA(r) and -Gur~Gar, respectively. To date, only three text fragments in "premodern Salar" have been studied (Tenisev 1976, Hán 1988, Hán 1989). This material must be treated with extreme caution, since the texts themselves have not been made public (except in Tenisev 1976), and background information has not been provided; it is as yet unclear if these texts are in fact related to modern Salar. The Salar data in this paper are from my field research in China during 19911993, unless otherwise noted. Numbers in brackets refer to text and utterance number(s). The supplanting of the Old Turkic perfective/evidential -mif by Chagatay ikän has resulted in a narrowed semantic scope of the former as a dubitative marker. All but the last stage are typical Salar weakening processes: preconsonantal r > 0 (cf. qut < qurt 'worm, bug'); intervocalic k > g > 0 (cf. genitive -ni ~ -nigi < -ni + ki); final nasal deletion, nasality spreads onto previous vowel Vn > V (cf. sequential -djinen—(feine). Another possible origin of modern Salar indirective a is the Written Mongolian copular auxiliary a-. (Liu—Lin 1980: 26). Although the Salars had extensive contact with Mongolian speakers during the 13-16th centuries, morphosyntactic loan features from Mongolian are otherwise entirely absent in modern Salar, rendering this hypothesis unlikely. Salar's geographically closest modern Mongolie neighbor, Baonan, has, however, direct/indirect distinctions for anterior, imperfective, and existential constructions, based (at least for the latter two) on an i : a distinction, e.g. tara malGa manga mbi/mba 'That hat is mine (direct/indirect).' (In Salar: vu zorax minigi dir/ira 'id.') (Liu—Lin 1980). As tempting as it might be to derive Salar a from the Baonan indirective a, there is no parallel evidence of other Mongolie structures or morphemes elsewhere in Salar grammar to warrant such a claim. Although unmarked foregrounded information is typical of creole languages, Salar cannot be considered a creole, for it is not a grammatically reduced or pragmatically/socially restricted language variety. Salar is a Turkic language with massive Chinese and Tibetan adstrata at all levels of language. What Salar has in common with many creole languages are socio-historical features (e.g. the dis-

Direct and indirect experience

in Salar

59

placement of the ancestral Salar population from their Central Asian homeland, and the current low prestige of the language).

References Chén Zòngzhèn—Lèi Xuänchün 1985 Xïbù Yùgùyû jiänzhi [A concise grammar of Western Yugu [= Sarigh Yoghur]]. Bëijïng: Mínzú. Dwyer, Arienne M. 1988 The Turkic strata of Salar: An Oghuz in Chaghatay clothes? Turkic Languages 2: 49-83. forthSalar: A study in Inner Asian areal contact pocesses. Part I: Phoncoming ology. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Givón, Talmy 1984 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hán Jiànyè 1983 "Sâlâyù jùz! fenlèi" [A classification of Salar sentences], Qlnghäi mínzú xuéyuàn xuébào 1: 68-76. 1988 "Tän Tùérkèwén" [On written Turki]. [Unpublished MS.] 1989 "Cóng wénxiàn ziliào kàn Säläyü de fäzhän biànxuà" [Observing changes in the development of Salar from documentary material]. Xïbëi mínzú yánjiü 2: 173-182. Hopper, Paul J.—Sandra A. Thompson 1980 "Transitivity in grammar and discourse", Language 56: 251-299. Liu Zhàoxiông—Lin Liányún 1980 "Bäoänyü hé Sâlâyùll de quèdìng yû fêiquèding yüqi" [Definite and indefinite mood in Baonan and Salar], Mínzú yüwén 1: 23-28. Tenisev, É. R. 1976 "Otryvok iz Istorii salarov" [A fragment from The History of the Salars], Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 48: 237-248.

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in the example sentences: ACC—Accusative, ANT—anterior, CNJR—conjunctor, COND—conditional, DAT—dative, DIR—directive, DUR—durative, GEN—genitive, IMP—imperfect, INDIR—indirective, INT—interrogative, PL—plural, POSS—possessive.

Turkic indirectives Lars Johanson 1. Indirectives in Turkic The aim of the present paper is to give a brief general survey of Turkic indirectives. All older and more recent Turkic languages known to us display indirective categories expressed by specific grammatical items opposed to non-indirective items. 'Indirectivity' will be used as a cover term—instead of 'inferentiality' used in previous work—for various shades of meaning traditionally referred to as 'hearsay', 'inferential', 'admirative', etc. Turkic indirective marking only applies to asserted sentences, i.e. those with a contradictable content. It also has a marginal use in certain interrogative sentences. It does not occur in embedded clauses that are integrated into sentences and thus not asserted as such. It will be argued that indirectivity is the linguistic expression of Έ" appears to P \ This means that a narrated event En is not stated directly, but in an indirect way: by reference to its reception by a conscious subject P. English translation equivalents include apparently, evidently, it appears/ appeared that, it turns!turned out that, etc. The source of knowledge— the way in which the event is acknowledged by the conscious subject in question—is not criterial; it is unessential whether the reception is realized through hearsay, logical conclusion or direct perception. The receiver Ρ is not necessarily the speaker, Ps, but may also be a participant of the narrated event, Pn. Consequently, markers of indirectivity do not fit into narrow evidential schemes primarily distinguishing between the speaker's non-first-hand and first-hand information. Indirectivity represents a cognitive category firmly integrated into the grammar of Turkic languages. In many other languages, e.g. English, it is expressed optionally by means of modal words. The indirective items are the marked members of their respective oppositions, which means that the unmarked items also display relatively neutral uses. Turkic languages are strikingly similar with respect to the encod-

62

Lars Johanson

ing of indirectivity, though the conventions of formal marking may vary in the individual languages.

2. The situation in East Old Turkic 2.1. The postterminal indirective marker -mis The first known example of an indirective Turkic verbal item is the frequently used East Old Turkic finite item in -mis, negated -madoq. It is opposed to the non-indirective simple past in -Di, and the competition resulting from this opposition is decisive for its semantics. The finite -mis must be sharply distinguished from the nonfinite (participial suffix) -mis, which shares its basic quality of postterminality, but does not display any indirective uses, since it does not take part in a corresponding opposition. The uses of the finite -mis ultimately derive from its aspectual value of postterminality. This statement requires some explanation. Turkic languages exhibit two kinds of viewpoint operators expressing the view of a narrated event with respect to its limits. The intraterminal perspective envisages an event within its limits, in its course, 'be doing'. The postterminal perspective, which is typical of -mis, envisages an event at a point where its relevant limit is transgressed, 'having done'. The relevant limit, however, varies according to the types of actional phrases operated on. If the actional content does not imply any transformation, it is the initial limit. If the actional content implies a transformation, either the final or the initial limit is the so-called crucial limit. In the postterminal aspect, finitransformatives such as öl- 'die', express the transgression of the crucial last limit, e.g. ölmis 'having died'. Initiotransformatives such as oltur- 'sit down' + 'sit' express the transgression of the crucial initial limit, e.g. olturmis 'having sat down' = 'be sitting'. Envisaged in the postterminal perspective at a given point of observation, an event may thus present itself as totally or partially by-gone, though still of some current relevance. What appears to the view may be a partially past event, or, in the case of finitransformatives, only re-

Turkic indirectives

63

maining effects or traces. Resultati ve interpretations—in the sense that the postterminally envisaged event leaves results after the transgression of the crucial limit—presuppose transformative actional phrases. By virtue of their viewpoint value, postterminals signal anteriority, thus representing a kind of 'past'. Past items may in principle be more or less event-oriented. They may be predominantly historically oriented, in which case the psychological interest concerns the event as such at its localization interval. They may also be more diagnostically oriented, in which case the interest rather concerns the event in its relation to a subsequent orientation point (Johanson 1971: 67). Postterminals per definition represent the second kind of orientation, capturing what is 'visible' at a certain postterminal point of orientation. The state obtaining at this point may be more or less focussed on. According to the focus on the postterminal state, postterminals exhibit various degrees of focality. Focal postterminals are 'diagnostic', whereas less focal ones are more event-oriented, 'historical', fit to serve as propulsive ("plot-advancing") basic items in narrative discourse types and combining freely with time expressions specifying the interval of localization. Postterminals tend to decrease their degree of focality over time, but this defocalisation has led to the renewal of high focality in most Turkic languages (Johanson 1999).

2.1.1. Postterminality

and indirectivity

Postterminality and indirectivity are closely interconnected (Johanson 1971: 280-292), and the semantic link between them is a general typological one. Indirective readings easily emerge from the view of an event at a vantage point that is posterior to the transgression of the relevant limit. A connection between the postterminal state and the event itself may be established by way of inference: the situation is such that it may be concluded that the relevant limit of the event has already passed. The indirect perspective on the event view creates an element of distance and may even suggest uncertainty concerning the actual realization of the narrated event. The source of information, the basis on which the conclusions regarding a past or partly past event are drawn, may vary: inference from perception of traces and other consequences

64

Lars Johanson

or other forms of present knowledge including hearsay. Such latent properties of postterminals are occasionally activated in order to convey indirective nuances. So-called perfects, expressing past events with present relevance and typically not used for narrative purposes, often tend towards readings of inferentiality or indirectivity (Comrie 1976: 108-110; Johanson 1971: Chapter 8). This tendency is common in various Indo-European languages, from Sanskrit down to modern languages such as Persian, Armenian, English and Scandinavian. Generally, however, the indirective semantics is unstable and elusive, suggested by categories that have rather different central meanings. Thus, the indirective capacities of Scandinavian perfects are far more modest than sometimes stated in the literature (e.g. Haugen 1972). Another example is the Persian type karde (ast) 'has done', which has more or less vague indirective shades of meaning and which, according to Lazard, represents two categories, both a present perfect and an indirective ("mediative"); see Lazard (1985, 1996); cf. Windfuhr (1982). In Turkic, however, the situation is different, the postterminal items generally being more stable markers of indirectivity. General tendencies of postterminals to convey indirective shades of meaning are not sufficient to account for the existence of the Turkic indirective systems, which are the results of special developments in which the indirect aspectual value of postterminality is reinterpreted and grammaticalized as indirective meaning. Indirectivity is expressed much more systematically by certain Turkic postterminals than by perfects in other languages. A postterminal view is signalled, but not always with a subsequent confirmation of the postterminally envisaged event. As members of oppositions with competing 'indicative' items, the postterminal items are mostly used to signal indirectivity in a systematic way, i.e. for past events whose occurrence is inferred from information available at some later orientation point (posterior observation; "nachträgliche Feststellung"). In competition with -Di, the item -mis does not contain any subsequent confirmation of the postterminally envisaged event.

Turkic indirectives

65

2.1.2. The functions of -mis The functions of East Old Turkic -mis are frequently misunderstood. Its central meaning is mostly incorrectly taken to be 'hearsay' or 'assumption'. It is wrong to define it as a marker of a 'personally not perceived event' (Pritsak 1963: 46), to claim that it always expresses non-testimony, that it expresses the result of an unobserved process, that the speaker has not been present at the course of the event and not witnessed its accomplishment, that the speaker is not the conscious originator of the event, that the event has occurred without the speaker's conscious participation (Kononov 1980: 188), etc. In spite of its indirect way of presentation, -mis does not always express nonconsciously experienced events. In East Old Turkic, as in all other older and later Turkic languages known to us, the simple past in -Di is the unmarked member of the opposition and, as such, both negates the notion of indirectivity and displays uses that are neutral to this notion. It is important to understand this asymmetry. The widespread opinion that it consistently signals 'direct experience', 'visual evidence' etc. is incorrect. It is wrong to claim that the use of -Di is always testimonial, signalling that the speaker considers the event to be certain. East Old Turkic -mis is used both as a pure postterminal and as an indirective, the uses being very closely interconnected. Thus, -mis is used for totally or partially past events acknowledged by means of information available at some postterminal orientation point. The basic indirective meaning is the reception of an impression that creates awareness of a situation. No information concerning P's mental preparation or preceding expectation is conveyed. With respect to the source of knowledge, three types of uses may be distinguished: • Perceptive uses: 'En or its effect is perceived by P'. The basis is first-hand knowledge, direct perception of the event or indirect perception on the basis of effects, traces, consequences. The consequences may still be perceptible. Note that, with initiotransformatives, Ρ may also bear witness of direct observation of the part of the event that follows upon the transformation, e.g. olturmis (i) 'has sat down' = (ii) 'is sitting' (simultaneously with the point of observation).

66

Lars Johanson

• Inferential uses: Έ η is inferred by Ρ'. The basis of knowledge is pure reflection, logical conclusion. • Reportive uses: Έ" is reported to P \ The basis of knowledge is a foreign source, reported speech, hearsay. The meaning of 'something established postterminally' may often be interpreted as 'something acknowledged postterminally', in which case the relevant shades of meaning can be translated as 'evidently', 'obviously', 'so far as can be judged', 'to all appearances', etc. Though the indirective shades of meaning are more or less perceptible and highly variable according to the context, they are not presumptive or dubitative in the sense of reducing the facticity of the statement. Neither doubt nor confirmation is expressed by East Old Turkic -mis. East Old Turkic -mis is often used as a diagnostically oriented past with stative, perfect and complexive readings. With transformative actional phrases, it may denote qualities acquired as a result of the transgression of the crucial limit. A typical way of stressing the diagnostic dimension and not envisaging the event directly is observed in the complexive use, i.e. in subsequently summarizing general statements referring to events, often complex and discontinuous ones, outside a narrative chain; cf. Comrie's 'experiential perfect' (1976: 58-59). Some Old Uyghur examples: (1)

Èlig ètmis men realm-ACC organize-Mis I Ί have organized the realm.'

(2)

Icyinmis men kencimin lose-Mis I young-POSslsG-ACC Ί have lost my child.'

(3)

Bu yörügüg belgülüg φίγαΐϊ this explanation-ACC manifest make-coNV tiiziin yavas èligler qanlar nom noble gentle king-PL ruler- PL doctrine nomlayu yarlïqamis preach-coNV deign-Mis 'Noble and gentle rulers have deigned to preach in order to make this interpretation clear. '

Turkic indirectives

67

In examples such as these, the item -mis does not only signal 'past tense' (Gabain 1950: 114), for which -Di would be sufficient. It is a postterminal expressing that the narrated event is not envisaged directly, but with respect to its relevance to a subsequent observation point. This complexive way of accounting for events belongs to the typical potential of postterminals. The reasons for using it may include modesty, cautiousness, etc., but it does not involve any evidential meaning concerning the source of information.

2.2. The indirective copula particle ermis East Old Turkic also possesses a special indirective copula particle as a stable marker of indirectivity: ermis, derived from er- 'be'. Unlike -mis, it is not a postterminal item but expresses indirectivity in the sense of Έ" appears to P' in an unequivocal way. It has an ambiguous temporal value allowing both past and present interpretations. It is added to non-verbal stems of the sentence predicate. Combinations with participles include indirective intraterminals (presents, imperfects) of the type -(V)r ermis 'appeared/appears to be doing' and indirective postterminals (perfects, pluperfects) of the type -mis ermis 'appeared/appears to have done'. All other known Turkic languages exhibit indirective copula particles of this kind. Many other languages such as Mongolie, Finno-Ugric, Caucasian languages, Nuristan languages, and Tibetan possess similar particles ('reportive' particles, 'distance' particles, etc.), which form indirective counterparts to various aspectotemporal items. The indirective copula ermis consistently expresses the reception of an impression creating awareness of a situation. Again, no information concerning P's mental preparation or preceding expectation is conveyed. Surprise, mental unpreparedness are possible, but not necessary elements. It does not seem essential whether or not the event is contrary to P's expectations. An important difference in comparison with the simple -mis is that the event is not envisaged postterminally. The copula ermis may also be used systematically to convey the perceptive impression of events that are going on at the point of orientation. The source of information can thus be first-hand knowledge based on direct

68

Lars

Johanson

perception. The event may be apprehended through the senses, e.g., Ρ may be an eyewitness of it. With respect to the source of knowledge in the scheme Έ η appears to P', three types of uses of ermis may be distinguished: • Perceptive: Έ" is perceived by P'. • Inferential: Έ" is inferred by P \ • Reportive: Έ" is reported to P \ The perceptive use cannot be derived from the reportive or inferential use. What is more important, it cannot possibly be subsumed under 'evidentiality', if this term is used for non-first-hand knowledge, since it is clearly contradictory to that notion. The traditional dogma implying that '-mis forms' express nontestimonial content has often led scholars to overlook the perceptive uses. Most grammatical accounts of ermis favour non-testimonial interpretations and disregard the perceptive ones. Consider cases such as the following in the East Old Turkic inscriptions: (4)

Siisi üc big ermis. army-POSs3sG three thousand be-Mis Biz iki big erdimiz we two thousand be-PAST-lPL

In Turcological analyses of such examples, the ermis form normally gets reportive translations, e.g. 'Their army is reported to have amounted to three thousand. We were two thousand' ("soli ... gewesen sein"; Gabain 1950: 114). However a more natural interpretation of ermis would be 'was [as we saw]', 'turned out to be', 'appeared to be'. There is no need to translate the content as reportive evidence. A perceptive meaning ('as we experience') is also found in Old Uyghur sentences such as: (5)

Bu yèr emgeklig yèr ermis this earth painful earth be-Mis 'This earth is [= appears to us to be] a painful earth.'

Particularly in combinations such as ~(V)r ermis 'appeared / appears to be doing' and -mis ermis 'appeared / appears to have done', ermis is used to represent contents of perception.

Turkic indirectives

69

The copula particle ermis is not a normal paradigmatic form of the postterminal in -mis, but represents a special development. How can this development be explained? As we have noted, it may regularly express direct observation from a simultaneous—not only from a posterior—orientation point. This is a property regularly found with initiotransformatives, which express two phases of an action, (i) one initial dynamic phase and (ii) one subsequent stative phase as the natural result of the first one, e.g. oltur- (i) 'sit down', (ii) 'sit'. In the postterminal aspect, initiotransformatives may, as mentioned above, express an event that is still going on at the point of observation, e.g. olturmis 'has sat down' = 'is sitting'. The same situation is found with tur- (i) 'stand up, stop', (ii) 'stand', which has, like er-, developed into an existential copula ('stand' > 'dwell' > 'be') in most Turkic languages. Its postterminal form turmis implies 'has stood up, has stopped' = 'stands'. If er was originally an initiotransformative verb, this would explain the meaning of simultaneity (2.1.2) observed in ermis, i.e. erti) 'appear' = 'become visible', (ii) 'appear' = 'be visible', postterminal ermis 'has become visible' = 'is visible'. Note that English verbs of this type may display a similar ambiguity: something which has (already) appeared may (still) appear.

2.3. Other epistemic markers Turkic indirectivity markers do not express the speaker's attitude to the truth of the propositional content, to the degree of correctness or reliability of the statement. Their use does not indicate that the speaker, on the basis on the evidence in question, concludes whether the information is true or not. English expressions such as maybe, probably and possibly are not adequate translation equivalents. On the other hand, indirectives may display various peripheral uses and pragmatic extensions of their central meaning, in particular different kinds of dissociation from the narrated event, cognitive or emotional distance to it such as irony. If one does not speak directly about the event itself, but rather about the reception of it, some kind of distance is always involved. The indirect manner of representation may occasionally create some uncertainty and also be interpreted as

70

Lars Johanson

non-testimonial reference in a sense of assumption or doubt, e.g. 'judging from the appearance'. It is natural that perceptive uses involve less reservation regarding the facticity than reportive and inferential ones. The indirective copula particle ermis must be carefully distinguished from the modal word erinc, which is also derived from er- 'be' and occurs in older East Turkic varieties. It expresses doubt or uncertainty and can be translated as 'presumably', 'supposedly','likely', 'probably', 'indeed', 'possibly', 'perhaps', e.g. Karakhanid Turkic Ol keldi erinc '(S)he has perhaps come'. However, the main meaning of this dubitative particle is sometimes also claimed to be 'apparently'. At the same time, grammars often indicate 'supposition' or 'probability' as the main meaning of indirectives. It is a general problem in Turcological linguistic literature that few authors make efforts to distinguish between different modal meanings and tend to render both dubitatives and indirectives in an undifferentiated way as evidently, allegedly. A favourite German translation is wohl, a particle which displays a wide range of evidential and dubitative uses. Old Uyghur and Karakhanid erki, likewise derived from er-, is another modal particle which is commonly rendered as wohl in German, though it must be distinguished from both ermis and erinc. It is mostly used in a detensive way to tone down questions, to give them a meditative, sceptical, timid, rhetorical connotation, often to indicate that they are not asking for explicit information ( Ί wonder'), e.g. Karakhanid Ol kèlir mü erki Ί wonder whether he will come?'. Compare the Tuvan politeness particle irgi used in questions, e.g. ... bar irgi be? Ί wonder if there is ...?' (Isxakov—Pal'mbax 1961: 433). For similar forms such as erkin, see under 5.2 below. 3. The notion of indirectivity What has so far been stated concerning the use of indirective markers in East Old Turkic proves to be valid for later stages of Turkic as well. Turkic indirectives are propositional operators in another sense than evidentials of the canonical type expressing the speaker's attitude towards the proposition expressed in the sentence. As we have seen, in-

Turkic indirectives

71

directives often express a participant's own perception. For a unified characterization of the reportive, inferential and perceptive uses, the broader notion of indirectivity is required. As noted above, it is criterial for Turkic indirectives that En is stated indirectly, by reference to its reception by a conscious participant. The basic function is to express the establishment of the event through the awareness of a conscious mind. What is signalled is the impression or reception of a content introduced from outside: the very fact that it becomes obvious to P. The result is two-layered information in the sense of a predication over a proposition: 'it is stated that En is acknowledged by P \ The indirectivity may not only concern the experience of the speaker, but may also be grounded in the subjective world of a participant of the narrated event. Some person referred to in the discourse may be the subjective ego that establishes the fact, e.g. Turkish Ali bakiyor ki e§ek ölüyormu§ / ölmü§ 'Ali looks [and sees that]: the donkey is dying/has died'. What is characterized is thus the relation between a participant of the speech event (Ps) or of the narrated event (Pn) on the one hand, and the narrated event (En) on the other hand, i.e. Ps ~Pn/E". This establishment may be interpreted contextually in various ways. However, reference is not made to the way in which E" is acknowledged. Translation equivalents for this very broad notion include English evidently, obviously, it appears that; French évidemment, comme Ρ constate, German offensichtlich, wie Ρ feststellt, Russian vyjasnjaetsja, okazyvaetsja, etc. Since the use of indirective markers does not presuppose that the subject referent is unaware of the event, there is nothing odd about using them in sentences with first-person subjects. Not even indirectives of the postterminal type necessarily imply unawareness due to sleep, inattention, etc., but may be used even if the speaker has actually witnessed the event. Perceptive uses of indirective copula markers in sentences with first-person subjects may be compared to English expressions such as Ί find / found myself .. .ing'. The use of indirectives may often be interpreted in terms of sudden discovery, unexpectedness, surprise, relative novelty, new knowledge without proper psychological preparation, perception contrary to P's

72

Lars Johanson

expectations. But such semantic nuances are not decisive factors; they do not manifest a "central meaning" of indirectivity from which other meanings derive.

4. Finite indirectives in later Turkic languages Most later Turkic languages display postterminal items which are relatively stable markers of indirectivity. The type -mis is today preserved in the languages of the south-western group. It is also present in Yakut, namely as -Bit. In most languages, the type -GAn(dur) has come to be used instead of -mis. It goes back to the periphrastic type -GAn turur, created to renew focal posterminality, e.g. Υαζγαη turur (lit. 'stands having written') '(S)he is in the state of having written = has written', Ölgen turur ('stands having died') '(S)he is in the state of having died = is dead = has died', Yatqan turur ('stands having lain down') '(S)he is in the state of having lain down, is lying'. -GAn turur was originally a focal postterminal item with diagnostic ("stative", "resultative") uses, but later on developed into a perfect type used for both diagnostic and historical purposes. It is also susceptible to indirectivity, though it does not signal it consistently. This is thus another postterminal item interpretable as perfect and/or indirective. It signals a postterminal view without a subsequent confirmation of the postterminally envisaged event. The simple postterminal item -GAn has a very wide distribution in modern languages. Its formal Yakut counterpart is -An turar, which has, however, retained a high degree of focality (Johanson 1993: 122; Buder 1989: 80-83). A third and later type is represented by -(I)ptlr, which goes back to the periphrastic type -(V)p turur, e.g. Yazïp turur (lit. 'stands having written') '(S)he has written', Ölüp turur ('stands having died') '(S)he has died', Yatïp turur ('stands having lain down') '(S)he is lying'. This postterminal item (Johanson 1988, 1990, 1993) generally exhibits a higher degree of focality than -GAn(dur), being more closely oriented to the postterminal state. The formal type -(I)ptlr has vanished in Turkish, but it is present in more or less reduced shapes in almost all other modern Turkic languages.

Turkic indirectives

73

The distribution and functions of these three markers in modern Turkic languages are rather different. Two basic types of synchronic situations may be distinguished: (i) there are competing postterminals in the system; (ii) there is only one postterminal in the system. 4.1. -GAn in competition with -(I)ptlr Where the types -GAn turur and -(V)p turur occur together in one system, the former tends to be a pure postterminal, whereas the latter has indirective meanings. Chaghatay -GAndur is a perfect-like item covering both diagnostic and more historical functions and with possible contextual indirective shades of meaning, which do not belong to its pertinent properties (Schönig 1997: 255). Chaghatay -btur is a high-focal postterminal that does not envisage the events directly, but in a stativic or complexive way (Schönig 1997: 175). In modern languages, -GAn items are mostly pure postterminal pasts with perfect-like meanings, e.g. Kumyk Baryanman Ί have gone', Karachay Aytyansa 'You have said', Crimean Tatar Alyanmïz 'We have taken it', Kumyk Barmayanman Ί have not gone', Tu van kelgen sen 'You have come'. On the other hand, competing items of the type -(I)pdl(r) are relatively stable indirective and complexive pasts, e.g. Turkmen Gidipdir '(S)he has obviously gone', Uyghur Yeziptu '(S)he has obviously written', Salar Geldu '(S)he has evidently come', Tuvan Këptir bis 'We have obviously arrived'. There are counterparts with similar uses in Kazakh, Kirghiz and several other languages. All these indirectives signal the reception of information on the basis of perceptive, inferential or reportive evidence. Typical English translation equivalents are perfects or preterites plus adsententials such as 'apparently', 'evidently', 'obviously', 'as it turns out', 'as it looks', 'as it seems', 'as I guess', 'reportedly', 'as they say'. 4.2. The type -mis without a competing item Certain Turkic systems display only one finite postterminal. This item corresponds functionally to two items of more elaborated systems, and consequently occurs more frequently than they do.

74

Lars Johanson

Yakut -Bit is in many respects similar to East Old Turkic -mis and to Turkish -ml§. It is a past item capable of expressing indirectivity by virtue of its postterminality (Buder 1989: 68-79), e.g. Min manna kelbitim Ί have [obviously] come here', but it is not a non-testimonial item signalling that Ρ was unaware of the event (Buder 1989: 69-70). In Azerbaijanian, -mis and -(I)p(tlr) mostly form a common mixed paradigm tending towards purely postterminal meanings, e.g. Yarïmï itirmisem Ί have lost my beloved one'. This type is similar to the Persian perfect type mentioned above (yapmïs = karde (ast) 'has done') and has probably developed due to Persian influence. The Turkish finite item -ml§ is a past with rather stable indirective and complexive meanings. It is the marked member of an opposition whose asymmetry has often been misunderstood. It has thus been claimed that -DI signals that the speaker considers the event certain, whereas -ml§ expresses that the speaker has not witnessed the event directly. This incorrect definition of the relation has caused much confusion. The definition of -ml§ as 'parfait de non-constatation' expressing "le résultat acquis d'un procès non constaté" has the consequence that the frequent use of -DI for unseen events must be considered a stylistic device "pour rendre plus vivant un récit d'imagination" (Bazin 1966: 272-273; cf. Bazin—Feuillet 1980; Johanson 1971: 63, 281). The Turkish finite postterminal -ml§ has developed into an indirective that may also be used historically, in an event-oriented way. It covers both perfect and preterite functions, e.g. Gitmi§ '(S)he has gone / went'+ 'apparently'. In narratives accounting for unwitnessed past events, it may serve as the propulsive ("plot-advancing") basic item of the discourse. Unlike items of higher focality it can also combine freely with specific time expressions. The item -DI, lacking a pure postterminal competitor within the same system, has a correspondingly wide range of use, covering both perfect and preterite functions, e.g. Gitti '(S)he has gone / went'. In a monograph on Turkish aspect oppositions (Johanson 1971), some basic observations about -ml§ were made. First, there are significant differences between the finite and the nonfinite -ml§, since only the former may have indirective functions. It was observed that the finite -ml§ may convey more or less clear inferential shades of

Turkic indirectives

75

meaning rooted in its postterminality ('apparently' 'evidently', etc.), while it does not express doubt or confirmation concerning the event (Johanson 1971: 282, 288). Various motives for choosing this indirect way of envisaging events were assumed. The speaker may not have experienced the event consciously, the interest may focus on postterminal effects of the event, or the indirect view may be motivated by surprise, caution, modesty, etc. -ml§ can be used to summarize events in a complexive way, without any evidential shades of meaning concerning the source or the nature of experience (Johanson 1971: 291). In perceptive uses of -ml§, the event is envisaged after the crucial limit, but it is unessential whether or not the speaker has experienced the very attainment of this limit, e.g. Ya§günü toplantisini ne güzel anlatmi§sin 'How nicely you have described the birthday party [as I can just read]', Misafir bakti saatine. 'Benimki durmu§... ' dedi 'The guest looked at his watch. Mine has [as I become aware of] stopped, he said', Ali gelmi§ 'Ali has [as I see] come', Yemek çok güzel olmu§ 'The food is (has turned out) very good [as I can taste]', Çok büyümü§sün 'You have grown a great deal [as I see]'. Note, however, that -ml§ also covers high degrees of focality, including cases where a property of the subject is focussed on, e.g. in participial uses such as giyinmi§ 'dressed', tutulmu§ 'occupied'. Sentences such as Bu masa tutulmu§ 'This table is occupied' or Çok güzel giyinmi§sin 'You are very beautifully dressed' do not express more indirectivity than the corresponding English sentences. Whereas Turkmen may use the high-focal postterminal participle in -A(:)n in such cases, e.g. Oylum tœze öylönön 'My son is newly married', Turkish just uses -mis, e.g. Oglum yeni evlenmi§. The situation in Turkish dialects often deviates considerably from the one observed in Standard Turkish. Some Anatolian dialects display a second postterminal in -(y)IK with clearcut indirective (perceptive, inferential, reportive) uses (Demir 1997). It is more focal than -ml§ and thus not used narratively. It focusses heavily on the postterminal state, referring to the second actant with transitives and to the first actant with intransitives, e.g. Qapïyï acïq '(S)he has opened the door [as I see]', Sabah oluq ('It has become morning') 'The day has dawned [as I see]'.

76

Lars Johanson

4.3. The role of turur The addition of particles developed from turur ('is' < 'stands') to a simple postterminal of the -mis or -GAn type may eliminate the meaning of indirectivity. In written Turkish, the addition of -Dir to -ml§ creates an indicative past item in -ml§tlr. The formal and functional relation between Gitmi§ '(S)he has evidently gone, evidently went' and Gitmi§tir '(S)he went, has gone' is similar to the one obtaining between Bulgarian Xodil and Xodil e (Johanson 1971: 305). However, the addition of turur may also create items expressing presumption, an epistemic content different from that of indirectivity. In spoken varieties of Turkish, -ml§tlr is a presumptive item, e.g. Gitmi§tir '(S)he has presumably gone, presumably went' vs. Gitmi§ '(S)he has evidently gone, evidently went'. The same relation is observed in the opposition -GAndlr vs. -GAn in several modern Turkic languages. Presumptive presents expressing conjectures concerning unwitnessed on-going events may be formed with intraterminal stems + -Dir, e.g. Turkish §u anda okuyordur with the stem -(0)lyor, Turkmen Ol hœÔir oqoyânnïr '(S)he is probably reading now' with the intraterminal participle in -yÄn.

5. Copula particles in later Turkic languages Whereas East Old Turkic exhibits one indirective copula particle ermis, many later Turkic languages—e.g. modem ones such as Turkmen, Kumyk, Tatar, Chuvash, Bashkir, Kazakh, Karakalpak, Uzbek, Uyghur—possess both this type and an additional type erken, e.g. Uyghur U tilsunas iken '(S)he is evidently a linguist'. Though both ermis and erken are derived from er- 'be', they are not regular participles in -mis and -GAn. Both are temporally indifferent, though formally looking like past items. Chaghatay èkendur may seem to signal anteriority (Schönig 1997: 272), but this impression is probably due to its frequent occurrence in past tense narratives. Note that the ermis type also occurs in languages lacking a simple postterminal -mis. In several Turkic languages, erken (èken / iken) is not an indirective particle but a converb marker meaning '(while) being'.

Turkic indirectives

77

5.1. Erken in competition with ermis When occurring together in one system, the two types ermis and erken divide the area of indirectivity between themselves in specific ways. In many languages, the ermis suggests non-first-hand indirectivity in the reportive sense: 'reportedly', 'P is / was told /informed that', 'they say / said that', e.g. Turkmen -mis < ermis in Gidipmisin '(S)he has reportedly gone'. The type erken tends more towards first-hand indirectivity in the perceptive sense: 'P sees / saw that', 'it becomes / became clear, evident, obvious to Ρ that', e.g. Chuvash Vài kilnë ikken '(S)he appears / appeared to have come'. Both types can have more neutral or inferential uses: 'P infers / inferred that', 'P concludes / concluded that', 'it must be the case that', 'let's assume that'. A similar relation obtains between émis and èkendu in Chaghatay texts. On a scale with reportive uses at one extreme and perceptive uses at the other, ermis and erken items may be claimed to roughly occupy the following positions: REPORTIVE

INFERENTIAL

PERCEPTIVE

(more reservation) (less reservation) ermis ermis, erken erken Ρ is informed that Ρ infers, concludes that Ρ perceives that ('as Ρ is told') ('as far as Ρ understands'X'as Ρ sees, hears, etc.')

5.2. Perceptive uses of erken The particle erken is thus 'evidential' in the etymological sense of the word (ëvidens (S tn

+2

* ε o murdastam Ί have died/ am dead'—it is attested in early Classical Persian prose) is characterized by Rastorgueva as archaic but quite common in Southern Tajik speech, especially of Badakhshan.13 4. Inferential: Past and present (24) bu oda çok soguk. Birisi pencereyi açik unutmuç (TZ) This room very cold someone its-window open forgot-EV 'This room is too cold. Someone must have left the window open.' (25) gonâhi ¡carde bude-ast ke sazâ-yas-râ raft (PW) Α-sin done he-had-pp that its-requital-FOC he-went 'He must have done something wrong to be punished [for it].' (26) yagon kor-i ganda kardagi-st One

act

bad

(SA)

he-has-done-PERF II

'He must have done something wrong.' (27) hami sumo non nayoftast-en (OR) All you bread NEG-have-found-PERF ii 'None of you has found any food?!' (28) al-än u-rä dide-and ke ba xäne-ye barädaras" mi-rafte-ast Now him they've-seen that to house-of brother-his IMP-has-gone 'They saw him just now on his way to his brother's house.' (29) man hozir vay-a didam xonay aka-is-ba I now him saw house-of his-brother-to rafsas (2 c o u n t r y

because

ew

sër

unim

and

l o v e have:PRS:lSG to

y-asxarhin jerum, gut' your

compassion

and asxarhin jer (E. 170) land

your

'Because I have eaten salt and bread in your country, I have compassion and love your land.' (Th. 218)

The Present Perfect may also be used for the experiential action that took place at some uncertain moment or interval in the past, see for example (7):

404

Natalia A.

Kozintseva

(7)

Mi ok'

amenevin

luw-icë

z-ayd

No one

at.all

hear:FUT.C0ND:3sG

ACC-this from youiABL

i

k'ën,

vasn

tesleann meçi,

or

concerning

vision

which appear:PRF:3sG 1|2 him

great,

erevealj ë2

manawand especially

nma... (E. 158)

'Let no one at all hear of this from you, especially concerning the great vision which appeared to him.' (Th. 207)

It may refer to an iterative past action whose result may be regarded as the subject's experience. The next example (8) represents the inspiring speech of the leader to his army: (8)

I bazum paterazmuns mteal¡ ë2 In many battles participate:PRF:3sGi, 2 and is; ë3 urek'4, zi k'ajapës yayt'ecak' with me sometimes 3 4 that

urek't,

zi

im,

ew jer and you-GEN t'snameacn, ew ë5

I:GEN

valiantly beat:AOR:2PL

nok'a mez yayt'ecin;

ew

enemy:PL

and

bazum ayn

ë, or

s o m e t i m e s « that they

us

defeat-AOR:3PL and often

gteal7emk's

ew

oc

yayt'-eal-k' (E. 100)

occur:PRF:lPL 7S

and

not

defeated-PAST.PART-PL

that

is

that

yayt'oy victors

'You and I have participated in many battles. Sometimes we have valiantly beaten the enemy, and sometimes they have defeated us. More often, though, we have been the victors than the defeated.' (Th. 153)

Only the situation of inferred action which is reconstructed by the speaker based on the present results is close to nonevidential, see for example (9): (9)

[Looking inside the prison he saw that each prisoner was shining like an inextinguishable lamp. Greatly terrifyed he said to himself): Z-inc ë ays mec sk'ancelik's? Astuaç-k'mer uremnekeal¡ ACC-what be:3sG this great miracle? God-PL our then come:PRF:3PLu ij-eal2en3 i bants, ew nocap'aravorut'iwnn luc-eal descend:PRF:3PL21 into prison, and their glory light:PAST.PART borbok'-i (E. 145) fire-PRs:3sG

'What is this great miracle? Our gods then have descended into this prison and their glory has taken fire.' (Th. 196)

2.2. Past participle with linim 'be' The auxiliary verb linim may be in the Present or Past Indicative, Future 1 or 2 of the Conditional, and the Imperative (Tumanyan 1971:

Perfect forms expressing evidentiality

405

413). Oblique moods are not dealt with here, so only the Indicative forms of the 3rd Person Singular are presented as follows: Indicative Present Perfect zarmaceal linem '(I) am astonished', paheal linem '(I) am preserved.' Past Perfect zarmaceal linei '(I) was astonished', paheal linei '(I) was preserved.'

The Past Participle of an intransitive verb denotes the subject's state, see for example (10): (10) Manavandzi nsank' ews bzskut'ean yAstuçoy yajoyeal¡ linër2 especially because miracles and healing by.God succeed:PAST.PRF:3sG1>2 i jefs noca... (E. 196) through hands their '...especially because many miracles of healing were performed by God through them.' (Th. 240)

The Past Participle of a transitive verb usually denotes the state of the object (some exceptions are mentioned in Abrahamyan 1958: 240), see for example (11): (11) ...sastik tap-ov hareal i xorsakë meranêr surb Xorën, ew ...great heat-INST afflicted ABL heat die:IMPF:3sG Saint Khorën and awand-ealj liner2 i bnakcac asxarhin and surb vkaysn (E. 188) bury-PAST.PRF:3sGi,2 by inhabitants land:GEN with holy martyrs '...afflicted by the great heat, Saint Khorën died and was buried by the inhabitants of the land with the holy martyrs.' (Th. 234)

The latter form with its passive diathesis is normally used when the synthetic Imperfect may have both active and passive readings (Abrahamyan 1958: 238; Tumanyan 1971: 414). 2.3. The narrative use of past participle Notably, the Classical Armenian Perfect of the 3rd Person Singular can function without the auxiliary verb in a narration referring to successive events. This phenomenon was described by Lionnet (1933); Abrahamyan (1953); Jensen (1959), etc. as the narrative use of the Past Participle. It is suggested (see, e.g., Abrahamyan 1953) that this use

406

Natalia A. Kozintseva

had developed from the periphrastic form with the auxiliary verb linim in the Imperfect. This use is found in reported speech. The following cases may be distinguished. 1. The source of evidence is mentioned by the speaker. The epistemic evaluation of the narrated events by the speaker is not high (as in the following sentence where the speaker is skeptical about Christianity), e.g.: (12) ...z-Astowaç ...Acc-God

i

xac el-eal

i

mardkanë

k'aroz-en,

ew

o n cross lift-PAST.PART by people.PLiABL preach-PRs:3PL and

z-noyn

mei-eal

ACC-he

die-PAST.PART andbury-PAST.PART and then rise-PAST.PART

ew fay-eal,

ew

verac-eal

and

ascend-PAST.PART heaven-this

ew apa yaruc-eal

yerkin-s (E. 27)

[But what is even worse than what we have just written, they preach that] 'God was crucified by men, that he died and was buried, then rose and ascended to heaven.' (Th. 80)

When the Christian speaker refers to the Nativity, he uses Aorists, possibly because for him the narrated events are beyond doubt, see for example (13): (13) Baycayn But

that

yaydm

zor

asacer

et'

thatiACC say:iMPF:2sG that

cër

from.that was.not

arzan k'ez right

Astuaci¡

knojë2

çnaw,

God

woman:ABL 12

be.b0rn:A0R:3SG

xorshel

u

youiDAT tum.away

p'axcel (E. 27)

and

flee

'Now as for your having said that the God was born (Aorist) from a woman, it was not right for you to turn away or flee from that...' (Th. 85)

2. The source of information is known from the broad context. The narrator presents a neutral report of the events. The following example represents the reported words of a herald without any evaluation of their truth: (14) Yets,kac-eal2

yuxtën

Abandon-PAST.PART u

z-bazum

teyis

k'ristonëut'ean ew

c o v e n a n t : A B L Christian

Hayoc3

asxarhin4... ew

ACC-many places Armeniaxoc land

z-awans... af-eal Acc-town

and

awer-eal

Seize-PAST.PART destroy-PAST.PART

and

awer-eal ruin-PAST.PART

z-amenayn gews Acc-all

ew

village and

ew

hrjig arar-eal

and

afire Set-PAST.PART

Perfect forms expressing evidentiality ew z-amenecunjer andACC-all

z-3ntanis p'axuc-eal

meri-eal

your Acc-family put.to.flight-PAST.PART expell-PAST.PART

yiwrak'anciwr

bnakut'enë Jem

ark-eal

their

home:ABL

lay-PAST.PART also on holy churches

tar-eal

ew

z-surb

Hand

spas

ew

ACC-holy vessel church

var-eal

z-sntanis k'ahanayic, ew

lead.away-PAST.PART Acc-family priest-ABL

ew

bind-PAST.PART and

i

surb ekeyecisn

ekeyecwoyn seyanoy

Seize-PAST.PART and

kap-eal

407

altar:GEN and

gerì captive

z-nosin Acc-they

ed-eal

i

bandi (E. 79)

imprison-PAST.PART

in

prison

'He abandoned the Christian covenant and ruined many places in Armenia... He has also seized, destroyed, and set afire all the villages and towns... He has put to flight all of your families and expelled them from their homes. He has also laid hands on the holy churches and seized the holy altar vessels. He has led away captive priests' families, bound them and imprisoned them.' (Th. 131)

The loss of the auxiliary was characteristic only of narratives. The Past Participle without the auxiliary verb is no longer used. 3. Perfect in Modern Eastern Armenian The tense-aspect forms of the Indicative are mostly periphrastic and consist of the personal forms of the Present and Past tenses of the auxiliary em 'be' and the Imperfective participle ending in -urn, Perfect participle ending in -el, Resultative participle ending in -aç, or Future participle ending in -alu/elu. The principal tense-aspect forms, then, are the following: Present Imperfect Perfect Past Perfect Aorist (Simple Past) Present Resultative Past Resultative Future Future-in-the-Past

gn-um em gn-um ëi gnac-el em gnac-el ëi gnac-i gnacaçem gnacaç ëi gn-alu em gn-alu ëi

'Φ '(I) '(I) '(I) '(I) '(I) '(I) '(I) '(I)

go', went', have gone' had gone', went', am gone', was gone', shall go', should go'.

The auxiliary verb is enclitic and is placed after the rhematic word. Aspectually, the Past tense forms are opposed as follows: Imperfective

408

Natalia A. Kozintseva

(Imperfect)/ Perfective (Aorist)/ Perfect (Perfect, Past Perfect). MEA also has secondary tense-aspect forms that are built with the help of Resultative (ending in -aç), Processive (ending in -alis/-elis), and Future (ending in -alu/-elu) participles, and the auxiliary verb linei 'be'. In the present paper, only the secondary Present Perfect Resultative and Present Perfect Processive will be considered: Present Perfect Resultative Present Perfect Processive

gnacaç em eyel gnalis em eyel

'(I) had gone' '(I) had been going'

In Armenian, the opposition of evidential/nonevidential actions is relevant for past events. In the case of direct evidence, the speaker uses the Aorist. Verbs in the Aorist describe the events witnessed by the speaker. The information about an action is regarded as indirect if the speaker has gained it from other people's messages, from his own deductions, or from dreams. When speaking about past events or processes witnessed by himself, the speaker uses the Aorist or Imperfect. The Present Perfect may be used for describing both witnessed and unwitnessed situations. The paradigm of MEA forms opposed with respect to evidentiality may be represented as follows: Witnessed past events

Non-witnessed past events

Aorist gnac 'went' Imperfect g num. ër 'was going' Present Perfect gnacel ë 'has gone)' Imperfect Resultative gnacaç ër 'was gone'

Present Perfect gnacel ë 'has gone' Present Perfect Processive gnalis ë eye I 'had been going' Present Perfect Resultative gnacaç ë eye I 'had gone'

3.1. Aorist The Aorist is used almost exclusively with respect to a single situation. This form pinpoints the situation at the specific moment (interval) of time. The Aorist is compatible with adverbials of definite time, such as ayn zamanak 'then', zams hingin 'at five o'clock', or weakly definite

Perfect forms expressing evidentiality

409

time (known to the speaker only) such as mi or 'one day', etc. The Aorist is incompatible with markers of indefinite time, such as erbevë 'ever', orevë zamanak 'sometime', and others that usually co-occur with the Present Perfect. The Aorist is used as the main form of narration. In direct speech, the Aorist refers to the action that occurred just before the moment of speech, and its participants are still present. Compare the following MEA and Bulgarian translations of the same Russian text. In this context, the MEA Aorist corresponds to the Bulgarian Present Perfect, see for example (15a) and (15b): (15) a. Bulgarian ... njanja ne vizdas nurse

b. MEA ...dayak nurse

li,

ce detetoe¡ otislo2

not see:PRS:2sG QUEST that child

cesj tesnum2,

or

erexanvazec

NEG:see:PRs:2sG that child

na

run:PRF:3sGi.2

slœnce (132)

under sun

arev-i

tak(G. 138)

run-AOR:3sG sun-DAT under

'Nurse! Don't you see the child has run out under the sunlight?'

3.2. Present perfect The meanings of the Perfect are the following. (a) Current relevance of the past action, e.g.: (16) Petroso gnac-el, ë2 Peter go:PRF:3sG,i2 'Peter has gone.'

This sentence means that Peter is not present at the moment of speech. The past action has achieved its limit and its result is relevant at the moment of speech. (b) Experiential action that occurred at some unspecified time, e.g.: (17) kancec-i... call-AOR:lSG

ayd incu em, kani-el2,

cem3 hisum4(G.)

this

NEG: remember:PRS:lSG 3 4

why

calI:PRF:lSG 1 2

'Did I call you? Why should I have called you? I don't remember.'

(c) Successive events in flashbacks, e.g.:

410

Natalia A. Kozintseva

(18) tans at.home

erb

mora

xndrel¡ ë2

mother:DAT

ask:PRF:3sGi>2 treat

verk'ero lavaceli en4, norie

darmanel ir stacaç ësbax-el6

verk'eraew

his getiRES.PART

wounds

and

Marañe diners (Kh.)

when wounds heal:PRF:3PL3,4 again knock :PRF:3SG5,« Marañe

gates

'At home he asked his mother to treat his wounds, and later, after the wounds had healed, he knocked at Maranc's door.'

When referring to unwitnessed events the Armenian speaker must use the Present Perfect. The nonevidential meaning can be emphasized by the following contextual means: (a) parentheses referring to the information source, e.g. (19, 20), (b) verbs of speech or mental action, e.g. (21, 22), (c) dubitative particle ibr fe 'as though', 'as i f , e.g. (23), (d) re-interrogation, e.g. (24). (19) Hayoe Babken kat'oyikoss, mez hasaç bolor aybyurneri tvaç Armenians Babken Catholicos us available all sources given teyekut'yunneri hamajayn, gumarel, ë2 miayn mi ζογον Dvin-um(T-M.) information according convoke:PRF:3sGi,2 only one council Dvin-Loc 'Babken, the Catholicos of all Armenians, according to all the sources available to us, had convoked only one council at Dvin.' (20) 3st Astvaçasnci, erknayin draxta teyadrvaç ër Hayastan-um ev According Bible earthly paradise situated was Armenia-Loc and ibr erku depk'um ël, arajin angam Adam-ie erkrord angam allegedly both cases too first time Adam-ABL second time Noyic mardkut'yuns aiajacel¡ é¡ Hayastan-um... (Khl.) Noah-ABL mankind originate:PRF:3sGi,2 Armenia-Loc 'According to the Bible, the earthly paradise was situated in Armenia, and mankind allegedly originated in Armenia, the first time from Adam, and the second time from Noah.' (21) Novellan nsec nayev or ancaç tarin Italiay-um Novella n0te:A0R:3sG also that last year Italia-LOC nsanavorvel! ê2 gorçadulayin sarzman meç verelk'-ov, mark:PASS:PRF:3sG strike movement:DAT large rise-iNST orin masnakc-el 3 en4 milionavor asxatavorner (Media) in.which involve:PRF:3PL3i4 milions workers 'Novella also noted that the last year in Italy was marked by the rise of a strike movement in which millions of workers were involved.'

Perfect forms expressing evidentiality

411

(22) Her-s patmum¡ ër2, or im bolor papern ays kulay-ic en3 Father-possl tell:IMPF:3sG,,2 that myall ancestors this bowl-ABL gini xmel4 (Kh.) wine drink:PRF:3PLj,4 'My father told that all my ancestors had drunk wine from this bowl.'

The action performed by the speaker himself is usually considered as an eye-witnessed event. However, it may be nonevidential if, for instance, the speaker relates his dream: (23) Ibrt'e

grakan

gorçers

t'oyel¡

A s if

literary

work

abandon:PRF:lsGi

ev

eraz-um

and

dream-LOC I

ink's inj

as-um4em¡

u 3

vatjvel2em3

hotay

andhire:PASs:PRF:lsG

es incu em6 ayspisi

myself tell:PRs: ISG: I

why

such

shephard

himarut'yun stupidity

katarel7" (Zaryan) make:PRF:lsG 6 7

'(It was) as though I had abandoned my literary profession and had become a shepherd, and as though I said to myself in my dream, "Why did I behave so stupidly?'"

The speaker can emphasize the uncertainty of his information by means of re-interrogation, see for example (24): (24) Neroy

eyir

Garegin axrc-harcr-i

Excusing be:IMPER Garegin

ël

t'e

but NEG-ask-AOR:LSG even that

oncë how be:3sG:PRS

aroyjut'yun-d, asum¡ en2 çanr viravor es3eyel4... Çist e?(Kh.) health-p0ss2 tell:PRS:3PL12 seriously injured be:PRF:2sG... true is? 'Excuse me, Garegin, I didn't even ask how you are. l ' v e been told you were seriously injured. Is it true?'

In minimal context, the meaning of current relevance and that of nonevidentiality are not mutually exclusive. In three types of utterances, the combination of both meanings is expressed. 1. Exclamations conveying the speaker's surprise caused by something unexpected, e.g.: (25) Ay ine tyamard es¡ darj-el2 Hey what man become-PRF:2sG 'What a man you've become!'

412

Natalia A. Kozintseva

2. Utterances with an inferential meaning implying that the speaker infers the past action from the resultant state expressed by the Perfect (the following sentence may be uttered by a speaker who sees that the street is wet), e.g.: (26) Anjrev Rain

ë, eyel2 be:PRF:3sG

'It has rained.'

3. Clauses that contain the predicate in the Perfect and are subordinate to verbs of speech. Here, the subordinate clause conveys the information presented by the subject of the verb of speech. The information reported in the subordinate clause is currently relevant, e.g.: (27) Asum, en2 mez mot hank' en3gt-el4... (Kh.) Tell: prs:3pL| 2 we:DAT by ore find-PRF:3PL3,4 'I've been told they've found ore in our place.'

In the subordinate clauses depending on the verbs of speech or nouns like lur 'news', çsmartufyun 'truth', p'astarkufyun 'argument', patasxan 'answer', etc., past actions are usually expressed by Perfect forms. Sometimes, however, the Aorist is used, e.g.: (28) Marat-i hayrn ël imaca-v, or tana aveli Marat-DAT father too learn-A0R:3sG that at.home more βγαν (Khl.)

mec great

aymuk noise

be:A0R:3sG

'Marat's father, too, learned that an even greater row occurred at home.'

The Aorist is typically used if the predicate of the main clause is a verb of perception and its subject is the agent of the action of the subordinate clause, e.g.: (29) Mehrabyan zg-ac or sxal t'uyl, tvec2... (Haruthunyan) Mehrabyan feel-AOR:3sG that mistake make12:AOR:3sG 'Meghrabyan felt that he had made a mistake.'

As seen from the examples cited above, in certain contexts the MEA Perfect can convey such nonevidential meanings as reported information, see for example (5, 19-22, 24, 27), inference, e.g. (26), and surprise, e.g. (25).

Perfect forms expressing evidentiality

413

Compared with Bulgarian, the MEA Perfect is not used in the context of a "mocking report of what someone else has said" (Friedman 1986: 182). 3.3. Present perfect resultative The intransitive and passive Present Perfect Resultative derived from telic verbs expresses the Resultative state which refers to the remote past and does not exist at the moment of speech (pragmatically, such actions are known from secondary sources), see for example (30): (30) K'ayak'-i himnadrman zamanak karuc-v-ac parispn Town-DAT foundation:DAT time build-PASS-RES.PART wall barjr ëidrvaç2eyel3(ii.) high build: RES.PRF:3SG1-23 'When the town was founded, the wall was made higher.'

aveli more

In this case, the Present Perfect Resultative cannot be replaced by the Past Perfect because the latter refers not to a state but to an action. Intransitive atelic verbs in this form are used in narration based on the historic present. They refer to remote past actions that precede the actions of the main line, e.g.: (31) Erb Gevorgo ark'unik' ëihasnum2 nran uYarkum3en4 When Gevorg court reach:PRS:3sG|2 he:DAT send:PRS:3sc14 palat... (afaj na çaiayaçsë6eyel7 palat-um) imanalu ireri palace... (formerlyhe serve:RES.PRF:3sG5i6i7 palace-Loo cleanup things drut'una (T-M.) state 'When George had reached the court, he was sent to the palace to clear up the situation (formerly he had served at the palace).'

The Past Perfect may be used in this context without a change of meaning, except that the parenthetical remark would no longer be seen as referring to the remote past. The transitive Present Perfect Resultative denotes the preceding perfective action inferred by the speaker or known to him from secondary sources, e.g.:

414

Natalia A. Kozintseva

(32) Baye or But

that

Xosrova t'uyl¡ ë2 talis3

antrel arden cuyc4 ës talis6,

K h o s r o v allow:PRs:3sG li2 ,3

elect

or

already show:PRs:3sG 4 , 5 , 6 that

na argelafy ës eyel9 ara/(T-M.) h e forbid: RES.PRF:3SG b e f o r e 'But the fact that Khosrov allowed the elections itself shows that he had forbidden them before.'

These examples show that the Present Perfect Resultative combines the meanings of remote past actions and indirect information. Here as well, the Past Perfect may be used instead of the Present Perfect Resultative with the same meaning. 3.4. Present perfect processive This form is used in narrative discourse referring to indirect information. The actions of the main plot are expressed by the Present Perfect. The Present Perfect Processive denotes the Imperfective action that provides the background for the main plot, see for example (33): (33) [Varazdukht tells the story of the marriage of Vasak and P'arrandzem] P'aranjemapatrastvelis, ζ eyel3 mianjnuhu4kyank'ins nvirvel bayc Paranjem prepare :PROC.PRF:3SG12,3 monasticism:DAT4i5 devote but bmakal hor harkadrank'-ov stipvel6ë7 amusnanal iren dictator father:DAT order-iNST have.to:PASs:PRF:3sG6,7 marry her anhamakreli Vasak-i het (D.) unpleasant Vasak-DAT to 'Parandzem prepared herself to become a nun, but had to obey her authoritative father's order and marry Vasak, whom she disliked.'

4. Conclusions Typologically, Perfect forms tend to develop into Perfective and Simple Past forms (Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca 1994: 51-106). The evidential meaning may be regarded as a stage in this development. The loss of the auxiliary in the 3d person is a common formal feature of the Perfect, one which is also observed in Slavic languages (Friedman 1986). The apparent reason is the shift from Perfect to Perfective. The Classical Armenian Perfect presents one of the instances of this development.

Perfect forms expressing evidentiality

415

In MEA, the Perfect has strongly shifted towards Perfective and is used not only in the prototypical perfect function of current relevance, but also in narration as a nonevidential past tense. MEA Present Perfect forms are nonspecialized evidentials. They prototypically retain their aspectual meaning of current relevance. The evidential meaning is one of the partial (contextual) meanings of the Armenian Perfect (not an invariant one, though). The principal evidential meanings of the MEA Perfect coincide with some other languages, such as Bulgarian. The difference concerns only peripheral uses in mocking remarks in the dialogue, where the MEA Perfect is not used. The shift toward the evidential use of the Present Perfect was probably caused by different factors acting in the same direction. 1. The structural factors: the inherent tendency of the Perfect to acquire the perfective meaning; the ability of the Past Participle to combine with different auxiliary verbs, and its two-fold action/state meaning; the existence of different forms used in narration: aorist and imperfect. 2. The contextual factors: if the narrative text represents a succession of the same forms, then the identical auxiliary forms may be easily omitted - this explains how the narrative use of the Past Participle possibly emerged from the periphrastic form with Imperfect of auxiliary

liner. 3. The areal factor, i.e. contact with Iranian and Turkic languages. Prototypically, the secondary Perfect forms, namely Present Perfect Processive and Present Perfect Resultative, are forms of historical narration referring to the remote past actions simultaneous with or preceding the main actions. These forms may be regarded as specialized forms of reported or inferred action. They do not express admiration or surprise and are used in historical accounts, recollections, and tales. The Armenian evidential forms related to the Perfect, then, may be subdivided into two types: (1) Present Perfect, which functions in everyday discourse and refers to past events, its evidential use being merged with the meaning of current relevance; and (2) complex Resultative and Processive Perfect forms, which are used only in narration about the remote past, their evidential meaning being based on the

416

Natalia A. Kozintseva

presupposition that our knowledge about remote past events has been obtained from secondary sources.

Acknowledgement This paper is part of the project "Evidentiality in languages of various structures" sponsored by the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation (No 96-04-06071).

References Abrahamyan, Ashot A. 1957 Hayereni derbaynero ew tirane jevabanakan nsanakuf yuno. [Armenian participles and their morphological meaning] Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakchuthyun. Abeghyan, Manuk 1974 Erker. Η. Ζ. [Selected writings. Vol. 6] Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakchuthyun. Bybee, Joan—Revere Perkins—William Pagliuca 1994 The evolution of grammar. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Chafe, Wallace—Johanna Nichols (eds.) 1986 Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Donabedian, Anaïd. 1996a "Perfect and mediative in Modern Western Armenian", in: D. Sakayan (ed.), 149-166. 1996b "Pour une interprétation des différentes valeurs du médiatif en arménien occidental", in: Z. Guenthcéva (éd.), 87-108. Friedman, Victor A. 1979 "Towards a typology of status: Georgian and other non-Slavic languages of the Soviet Union", in: Paul Clyne—William Hanks—Carol Hofbauer (eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 330-350. Friedman, Victor A. 1986 "Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian." In: W. Chafe - J. Nichols (eds.), 168-187. Guentchéva, Zlatka (éd.) 1996 L' énonciation médiatisée. Louvain- Paris: Editions Peeters. Jensen, Hans 1959 Altarmenische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Perfect forms expressing

evidentiality

Lyonnet, Stanislas 1933 Le parfait en arménien classique. Paris. Sakayan, Dora (ed.) 1996 Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian guistics. Delmar, N e w York: Caravan Books. Tumanyan, Eteri G. 1971 Drevnearmjanskij jazyk [Old Armenian]. Moskva: Nauka.

417

Lin-

Sources Classical Armenian E

-

Th.

-

Eghishe. Vasn Vardanay ew hayoc paterazmin. Ed. E. G. Ter-Minassian. Erevan, Haykakan SSR Gitutyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakchuthyun. 1957. Elishe. History of Vardan and the Armenian war. English translation by R. W. Thomson. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass. London England. 1982.

Modern Eastern Armenian D. G.

-

H.

-

Khl.

-

Kh.

-

T-M. -

Z.

-

Demirtchyan, Derenik. Vardanank'. Haypethrat. Erevan 1946. Goncharov, Ivan. Oblomov. (transi, by E. G. Ter-Minassian). Erevan: Sovetakan groy. 1981. Harut'yunyan, Vladimir. Arevadarj [The solstice]. Erevan: Sovetakan groy. 1977. Khalap'yan, Zorayr. 1978. Ev Veradarjnelov Jer Dimankara [And returning your picture.]. Erevan, Sovetakan groy. Khanzadyan, Sero. 1974. Sevani Lusabaca [The sunrise over Sevan], Erevan: Sovetakan groy. Ter-Minassian E. D. Patma-banasirakan hetazotut'yunner [Historical and philological studies]. Erevan, Haykakan SSR Gitutyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakchuthyun. 1971. Zaryan, Nairi. Erkrord kyank' [The second life]. In: Sovetatan grakanut'yun. Nos. 2, 3. 1973.

Abbreviations 1—First Person, 2 - S e c o n d Person, 3-Third Person, ABL-Ablative, ACC-Accusative, AOR-Aorist. coND-Conditional, DAT-Dative, FUT-Future, GEN-Genitive, IMPF-Imperfect, IMPER-Imperative, INST-Instrumental, Loc-Locative, NEG-Negative, P A S S Passive, PART-Participle, PAST-Past, PL-Plural, P o s s l - P o s s e s s i v e article referring to ISG, POSs2-Possessive article referring to 2SG, PRF-Perfect, PROC-Processive, PRSPresent, RES-Resultative, SG-Singular.

Evidentially in Komi Zyryan Marja Leinonen The category of evidentiality/indirectness is virtually ubiquitous in the Eastern Finno-Ugric languages. In Mari (Cheremis), the 2nd past, based on a gerundial form with the copula "be", has developed functions as a narrative unwitnessed tense, and is also used to express deduction by the speaker on the basis of indirect evidence. In Mansi (Vogul), the "perfectum historicum", based on a past participle, is used for reporting unwitnessed situations ("auditive, absentive, narrative"), but also as a pluperfect (Rombandeeva 1995: 123). In Khanti, the category of latentive, based on participial present and past forms, has as its basic meaning unwitnessed action, but has other uses typical of evidentials as well. The latentive has forms for all the tenses, aspects, diathesis, and persons (Nikolaeva 1995: 126-131). In the Samoyed languages, e.g. Nganasan and Nenets, evidentials are found as well (Kiinnap 1992). Evidentiality is also represented in the Permic languages, Komi (Zyryan), Komi Permyak and Udmurt (Votyak). Among the languages of the Volga-Kama, which also include the Turkic languages Tatar, Bashkir and Chuvash, only Mordvin lacks the category. The evidential form of these Finno-Ugric languages, often called the Perfect in the grammars, is generally considered to be one of the phenomena that define the Volga-Kama Sprachbund. (Osnovy finno-ugorskogo jazykoznanija 1976, Serebrennikov 1960: 282-289.) While Mari had the most long-standing contacts with the Volga Bolgars, starting from the seventh century, and had a continuing co-existence with Turkic peoples (as did the Udmurts, and, to a lesser extent, the Mordvins), the contacts of the ancestors of the Komi moved northwards in the ninth and tenth centuries, probably because of Bolgar intrusion. Connections with the Turkic peoples continued, however, mediated by the southern and closest-related Udmurts, as is shown by the amount of Turkic loanwords in the Permic languages. (Lallukka 1990: 50-54.) As Mansi had contacts with the Tatars, areal influence is not excluded either. However, evidentiality, "indirekte Erlebnisform",

420

Mar ja Leinonen

forms an isogloss extending far into Asia (Haarmann 1970), and it would be somewhat over-enthusiastic to attribute the appearance of the category in all neighbouring languages to contact. As is evident from the mental space map of Anderson (1986), the connection of perfect with visual/auditive perception, surprise, inference, deduction etc. provides an ever ready field for growing yet another evolutionary variant of an existing function—for which, no doubt, bilingualism and areal contact may well give direction. In the Permic languages Komi (Zyryan), Komi Permyak and Udmurt, evidentiality is represented both lexically and grammatically. In the lexicon, there is a particle expressing hearsay: in Komi pö, in Udmurt pe. In the grammatical systems, the 2nd past tense, sometimes called Perfect, expresses in suitable contexts sub-meanings of evidentiality, or indirectness. Further, there are analytical forms that are specialized for just that purpose. Below, I shall treat the forms of Komi Zyryan in that order.

1. The particle pö The etymology of the particle pö is unclear (Majtinskaja 1982: 150). Since a close correspondence is found in Udmurt as well, it must be of Common Permic origin—in the eighth century, the languages presumably began to become differentiated from each other (Osnovy finno-ugorskogo jazykoznanija 1976: 99). The particle specifically signifies that the content of a proposition represents another linguistic act: a citation or general hearsay. Thus, no verb of speech is needed for an introduction, although one often naturally appears in the context. The particle is used fairly often in spontaneous speech (as far as can be judged on the basis of dialect samples), in literary prose and newspapers. By using it, the speaker may distance himself from the content; or it may be used quite neutrally both with direct and indirect speech. The position of pö in the sentence is always non-initial. Usually it is placed after the first constituent of the sentence, but it may come later as well. The particle may appear with any tense or mood. Examples:

Evidentiality in Komi Zyryan

421

(1)

(The door leading to the girls' room opened. Lyuda Stolyarova looked in, her eyes shining with joy.) Nyvjas! Diskoteka pö poz'ö kotyrtlyny! girls discotheque Quot can-3Sg organize-Inf 'Girls! They say that one can set up a discotheque!' (Gabova/Vojvyv kodzuv 1/1997: 36)

(2)

Misö övtystis kinas — Misö wave-lPst-3Sg with-his-hand pö me dorö. Quot I to. 'Mishö waved his hand - come to me.' (Toropov/Vojvyv kodzuv 1/1997: 52)

voly come-Imp-2Sg

The following example shows that the function of quotation or hearsay can be taken on by a past tense form (2nd past: 2Pst): (3)

Tulysnas Gen'a osjys'is: koll'ödöma kino in-spring G. boast-lPst-3Sg escort-2Pst-3Sg movie vidzödöm böryn Val 'a Kasevaös. Kutcys 'lömaös ' ves 'ig. watching after V. K.-Acc hug-Refl-2Pst-3Pl even Druzitny pö kutam. Seki Val'ays vis'talöma: be-friends-Inf Quot begin-Fut-lPl then V-NomDef tell-2Pst-3Sg kos'mö pö Svetlanays Misö Jurov ponda, dry-Pres-3Sg Quot S.-NomDef M. J. because a sijö bytt'ö pö oz i kaz'av. but he as-if Quot Neg-Pres-3Sg even notice 'In the spring, Genya boasted that he had taken Valya Kaseva home after the movies. They had even embraced. They would be friends. Then Valya had told that Svetlana is pining for Mishö Jurov, but he pretends that he does not notice.' (Toropov/Vojvyv kodzuv 1/1997: 51)

2. The second past tense In Komi—as in Udmurt—there are two past tenses, which are generally characterized in the grammatical descriptions as marking an opposition between witnessed—the 1st past—and unwitnessed, the 2nd past. The latter is based on a past participial form with the suffix -öm, which is neutral as to active and passive: kulöm mort 'dead person' (< kuvny 'to die'), velödöm ζ ver "trained animal' (< velödny 'to teach').

422

Marja

Leinonen

The form serves also as a verbal noun: kulöm 'death', velödöm 'teaching'. The forms of the 2nd past have an analogy with the possessive suffixes in the 2nd person, and in the 3rd person, with an adjectival suffix -a in the singular. In the 3rd person plural, the marker -ös ' is added to mark congruence, in analogy with adjectives (and adverbs) in the predicative function. The first person presents a problem to which I shall return. There is no present tense copula in the Permic languages. Paradigms of the 1st and 2nd pasts of vetlyny 'to go' as are follows (from Rédei 1978: 105-6): 1st past 1 2 3

Sg vetli vetlin vetli(s)

PI vetlim vetlinnyd vetlisny

2nd past Sg ( vetlöma ?) vetlömyd vetlöm( a )

PI ( vetlömaös '?) vetlömnyd vetlömaös Vvetlömny

2.1. Perfect vs. evidentiality The first to call the 2nd past a perfect was Uotila (1938), and the categorization as a perfect has been retained in Western descriptions. Rédei remains true to the tradition, but calls the "modal" use of the form "auditivus, narrativus" (1978: 102). In grammars written by native speakers and Russians, the form is called neocevidnoe vremja 'unwitnessed tense', though sometimes the attribute "resultative" is added. Thus, for instance, the most influential Komi grammarian, Lytkin described the Old Permic (Komi) texts of the fourteenth century (Lytkin 1952) containing 3rd person forms of the 2nd past. Serebrennikov, trying to combine the definitions, found that the form is a perfect, but "two-faced": the unwitnessed meaning, which he called "absentive", is a late development on the basis of the resultative perfect meaning. It may have arisen naturally; on the other hand, the similarity with the verbal systems of Turkic languages which were in contact with the Permic languages from the seventh century onwards, is striking (Serebrennikov 1960). The same applies to the use of the analytical past tenses, which has obvious parallels in Turkic languages (Serebrennikov 1960: 82, cf. Johanson, Csató, this volume). Since Serebrennikov, there have been no major investigations into

Evidentiality

in Komi Zyryan

423

the Komi temporal verbal semantics. Two recent suggestions attempt to unify the different functions of the 2nd past: Baker appeals to the narrator's subjective non-involvement in the action: in spatial/temporal terms the speaker was not present when the action occurred; in sensory terms he is not consciously occupied with the action, though present; in emotional terms, he is mentally or spiritually unaffected by the action (Baker 1983: 73-80). Bartens takes much the same stand, defining the form as signifying non-participation of the speaker in the action (Bartens 1993). In the latest description by Komi researchers, Fedjuneva and Cypanov, the perfect again appears as a "modal perfect", with submeanings "resultative", "resultative of comparison" (with the conjunction bytt'ö 'as i f ) , "narrative" and "inferential" (Fedjuneva and Cypanov 1992).

2.2. Resultativity, evidentiality and the perfect Although 2nd past forms are formed from any verb, there seem to be certain semantically conditioned factors influencing the interpretations. 2nd past forms of telic (terminative) verbs with resultative meaning do not always receive evidential interpretations, in which case they could be called simple resultatives. According to the definitions in Nedjalka (1983: 8-13), such forms are formed: a) from transitive verbs, the resulting state of which resides in the underlying object appearing as the surface subject, as in (4)

N'inöm suny, bud' zdorov, Nothing say-Inf (R. be healthy; lo and behold) nalön stavys das 'toma. they-Gen all-NomDef prepare-2Pst-3Sg 'What's there to add, wonderful, they have everything ready'. (Popov 1994: 99)

More often, however, the non-evidential interpretation of a transitive 2nd past form is found in an impersonal sentence without a subject (which, according to the definition of resultativity, should be a perfect, since the object receives accusative marking):

424

Marja

Leinonen

(5)

Körtön ezöma ödzössö. iron-with cover-2Pr-3Sg door-Acc 'The door was covered with iron.' (Juskov 1981: 70)

b) from intransitives and reflexives, the salient resulting state of which resides in the subject: (6)

Talun me tijanös burdöda stav I 'oktors 'ys, today I you-Pl-Acc heal-Pres-1 Sg all badness-Abl kodi kövjas 'öma tijanly. which attach-Refl-2Pst-3Sg you-Pl-Dat 'Today I shall heal you of all the bad things that have become attached to you.' (Popov/Vojvyv kodzuv 12/1994: 56)

(7)

(The hero is looking for Ardalion in the forest.) Kulomyd al'i lovja? Ardal'on! die-2Pst-2Sg or alive Ardalion 'Are you dead or alive? Ardalion!' (Juskov 1981: 9)

Transitive constructions with explicit subjects and objects easily receive an evidential interpretation; in the following example, a conclusion based on evidence: (8)

(Vera brings to Vas'ka pies and leaves.) Vas'ka: Hm! Vera köt' abu na vunödöma V. Hm Vera at-least not yet forget-2Pst-3Sg meno. I-Acc 'At least Vera has not forgotten me yet.' (Juskov 1970: 40)

Naturally, in a suitable context all 2nd past forms can express evidentiality. A problem, and rather decisive for a definition of the perfect, is whether atelic state verbs allow a "simple flashback" without nuances of evidentiality. Though comprehensive elicitation tests have not been carried out, it seems that especially the 2nd past of the verb vövny 'to be' is, as far as I have been able to establish, always interpreted as hearsay or as an evidential mirati ve (for the term, see below). Example: (9)

Albina: A. A but

Mis'a, I-think tan i na here still

gaskö, maybe völömyd. be-2Pst-2Sg

te munin you go-lPst-2Sg

n'in. already

Evidentiality

in Komi Zyryan

425

Ί thought that maybe you had gone already. But here you still are.' (Juskov 1970: 97)

2.3. Evidentiality The basic opposition between the 1st and 2nd past, in a minimal pair sentence with a transitive construction, is confirmation, validation of the assertion versus the lack thereof, non-confirmation (see, e.g., Friedman 1986 on Albanian and Bulgarian, Weber 1986 on Quechua). The 1st past is, however, rather a default value, for sequenced narratives are generally presented in 1st past and historical present/future forms. The 1st past is said to give more validity to narratives, as if they had been witnessed by the speaker. In the frequency of tense forms, Komi differs from Udmurt, where the use of the 2nd past for non-witnessed situations is more common. In fact, I have found only one Komi folklore tale with consistent narration in the 2nd past (Sbornik 1931: 96-97, Letka dialect). Evidentiality shows up in the 2nd past with the same functions as in numerous other languages, exemplified by the descriptions in this volume. Despite the seeming lack of logical connection between the three basic nuances, they appear in pairs or all together among the functions of one and the same form in genetically widely different languages (Guentchéva 1996); as they do in Komi: a) hearsay, termed as narrative, quotative, auditive, unwitnessed etc., b) conjecture, termed as inferential, suppositive etc., c) mirative, admirative, characterized generally by lengthy descriptions of psychological states: surprise, unexpectedness, unprepared mind, new knowledge (Aksu-Koç—Slobin 1986, DeLancey 1997). a) Hearsay: As the examples in 1. above show, for hearsay there is a specific particle, but the 2nd past alone in suitable contexts marks the information as non-first-hand: (10) (Valya comes to watch Vas'ka digging.) Val'a: Arheologön pö η'in loömyd? V. archeologist-Instr Quot already become-2Pst-2Sg Vas'ka: Λ myj nö es'kö?Tani korkö cudjas

426

Marja

Leinonen

V. And what Prtc if here sometime Chud-Nom-Pl ovlömaös lovja vyvs 'ynys as 'nysö guavlömaös live-2Pst-3Pl alive up-from self-3Pl-Acc bury-2Pst-3Pl 'They say you have become an archeologist?' 'And why not? At some time the Chuds lived here, buried themselves alive.' (Juskov 1970: 42) (11) Ucit'el'ys tani mat'emat'ikas'ys bur voli. teacher-NomDef here mathematics-Elat good be-lPst-3Sg Puks'ödlömaös' zö komyn s'iz'imöd voad. ... A imprison-2Pst-3Pl Prtc thirty seventh year-in and sess'a tatcö ssylkaö na ystömaös', then here-to exile-Illat still send-2Pst-3Pl srokys pomas 'öma da. time-NomDef end-Refl-2Pst-3Sg when 'The maths teacher here was good. He was imprisoned in 1939. And then sent here into exile, when he had sat out his time.' (Juskov 1970: 181)

"Chuds" refers to a legendary people who lived and vanished long ago, thus the information is most likely to be hearsay. In example 11), such detailed knowledge of what happened to someone in some year must have been heard from someone. The last form pomas 'öma 'ended' is simply a resultative used in the pluperfect function. In the following example, the narration moves between 1st past and historical future. The 2nd past form völöma is the only sign of the whole story being distant from the speaker, most likely hearsay: ( 12) (The hero sees a girl who looks familiar. He remembers his youth in school, the new boarding school and the girl who later on vanished, was either expelled or fled, never to be seen again.) Fizkul 'tura urok völöma. Nyvkaydlön seki, gymnastics lesson be-2Pst-3Sg girl-Def-Gen then kopras'igas, s'ylisys ydzyd yrgön perna bovmunas. running-Iness neck-Elat big iron cross pop-out-Fut-3Sg 'It was a gymnastics practice hour. When the girl was running, a big iron cross fell from her neck.' (Juskov 1981: 21)

Evidentiality

in Komi Zyryan

427

b) Inferential: The 2nd past may express conjecture, an inference by the speaker based on some traces left by an event. This is a common "diagnostic" interpretation, as it is termed in Johanson (1996). The information available in the postterminal situation is decisive: the situation at nunc is such that it may be concluded that the relevant limit of the event has already passed (1996: 86). Inferentiality in Komi is clearest when aided by modal adverbs such as burakö, gaskö 'maybe', tydalö 'obviously, evidently', sidzkö 'thus': (13) Sidzkö, So, vöcömyd, do-2Pst-2Sg

myjkö abu na sidz'i something not yet so kydz me tsöktyli. as I order-1 Pst-1 Sg

'So, something you have not done as I told you to.' (Juskov 1970: 123)

The following example from a dialect speaker shows first a pluperfect, then two inferences based on the evidence, namely the tracks of the animal (for the analytic forms, see 4. below): (14) Asylnad kor morning-in when Sijö völöma

kytsoltim, run-lPst-lPl os. Seni

lys-vatö voli kysköma. dew-Acc Cop shake-2Pst-3Sg i kujlö völöm

it Cop-2Pst-3Sg bear there Prtc lie-Pres-3Sg potsös doras tsökyd inas. fence by dense place-in

Cop-2Pst-3Sg

'In the morning, as w e were running around, the dew had dried. It turned out that it was a bear. There it had been lying by the fence in the thicket.' (ST III:

100)

In fact, another case of inferential might be comparison, where Komi generally (but not obligatorily) resorts to the 2nd, rather than the 1st past: (15) Jul'ayd, Julya-NomDef

sijö

teryb,

vizuv,

varov,

a

sijö

she

quick

fast

talkative,

but

he

kutsömkö...

bytt'ö

cemodansö

like

as-if

suitcase-Acc

vos'torna. lose-2Pst-3Sg

'Yulya is quick, fast, talkative, but he is, sort of, as if he had lost his suitcase.' (Juskov 1970: 103)

428

Marja

Leinonen

c) Mirative Conjecture is not far from conclusion, and conclusion comes very close to sudden revelation, immediate experience of a new situation. Thus, it is easier to find contexts for the mirative usage of the 2nd past than for pure inference. In Russian translations of Komi texts, the mirative sense—as well as inference—is rendered by the verb okazyvaetsja 'it turns out'. Usually the definitions of the mirative stress its expressiveness, which, however, would seem to be rather a by-product of sudden revelation. In Komi, the context, including the particles taj 'it turns out', and so, a demonstrative particle, clearly evoke the interpretation. And, as noted above, 2nd past forms of atelic verbs are practically always evidential, since continuous states and processes do not produce any automatic resulting change of state. First, an example that could be either inferential or mirative: (16) M is'a, abu η 'in, burakö, lovja. I-think not any-more maybe alive Jenmys taj vidzöma na. God-NomDef Prtc protect-2Pst-3Sg still Ί thought maybe he is not alive any more. It turns out that God has protected/ must have protected him still.' (Juskov 1970: 107)

The next example shows the mirative sense, since no event is "traced": (17) (The hero is inside, hears shouting and comes to the window.) Kodly n'in bara kovmi? Ken'a Jögör völöma! who-Datyet again need-lPr-lSg K.J. be-2Pst-3Sg Κutö na tenö muy s? carry-Pres-3Sg still you-Acc earth-NomDef 'Who needs me again? It is Kenya Yogor! Does the earth still carry you?' (Juskov 1970: 157)

Finally, an example to show that any verb, even a resultative, may be used with the mirative nuance of "unexpected event": (18) (The hero is dying in the presence of the family) (Grisa: (dies) Pekla: My Grisuk! Ivan: My brother! ...) Pekla: Grisuköj!.... Myj-nö te? Grisuköj!... Kulöma G-lPoss what Prtc you G-lPoss die-2Pst-3Sg

Evidentiality

in Komi Zyryan

429

s 'ölömsöröj!

dear-lPoss 'My Grishuk! What is it with you? My Grishuk! My darling is dead!' (V. Savin / Doronin 1936: 89)

The event took place in the presence of the speaker, and the 1st past might be justified in terms of witnessed vs. unwitnessed event. With the 2nd past the speaker shows that she is outside the event, which is more important here. Unexpectedness presupposes its opposite, and to decide that something else would have been expected can be seen as a hypothesis. The contradiction between the two states of affairs produces the sense of surprise. As pointed out by Guentchéva, the evidential (= médiatif) in Bulgarian and Albanian involves abduction, a hypothetical reconstruction of the past, the starting point of which is the present state of affairs (Guentchéva 1996: 66-67).

3. Variations in the first person The absence of the 1st person in the Komi grammars is due to the choice of the dialect serving as a basis for the literary language. In a grammatical sketch by Kuratov from 1865-66, the 2nd past had all three persons, the 1st being identical to the 3rd in the singular (-dm), while in the plural, the 1st person had the ending -ömaös ' and the 3rd -ömn(y) (nowadays both are variants of the 3rd person plural) (Serebrennikov 1960: 41, Kuratov 1939: 93). Since then, the 1st person has disappeared from the grammars, and it is reported only in the Western and Northern dialects, namely Letka, Luza, Vym, Izma and Udora (Batalova 1982: 141). In the Udora dialect, the 1st person has specific suffixes: -ömö for singular, and -ömnym for plural. The authors of the description define the meaning of the 2nd past as "expressing an action that took place much earlier before the moment of speech than an action expressed by the 1st past" (Sorvaceva—Beznosikova 1990: 71). Examples from the dialect, even though they are uncontextualized single sentences, show us that no matter how distant the event might be from the moment of speech, the functions of evidentiality are just as applicable:

430

Marja

Leinonen

(19) Ok töd, kytcö kl'ucös vöstömö. Neg-Pres-lSg know where-Illat key-Acc lose-2Pst-lSg Ί do not know where I have lost the key' (the result is there, hence inference "I must have lost it"). (20) Met'cen bur mi völömnym. most good we be-2Pst-lPl 'We turned out to be the best.' (in Russian translation

okazyvaetsja)

The following example, however, is difficult to interpret as inference or mirative; on the other hand, in Komi narratives concerning very early childhood the 2nd past is often used, possibly indicating "unconscious mind" or an event in the remote past: (21)

Mi cuzömnym dvöjn'ik. we be-born-2Pst-1 PI twin 'We were born twins.' (Sorvaceva and Beznosikova 1990: 71)

As to other dialects, the 1st person forms are homonymous with the 3rd person. Most of the examples noted in dialect descriptions seem to justify the generalization that the resulting state is produced by a non-controlled action of the speaker. Bartens notes that involuntary action ("Ungewolltheit, Unkontrolliertheit der Handlung") is evident in, e.g., the following example from the Izma dialect: (22) Me marajtema pal'tote. I smudge-2Pst-lSg coat-2PossAcc Ί have smudged your coat.' (Bartens 1982: 161)

However, there are several examples from Izma for which the inadvertent action interpretation does not seem to apply, and the wider characterization as a perfect seems inavoidable. The authors of the dialect description explain that the form "generally expresses a past action as a present result" (Saxarova—Sel'kov 1976: 83): (23) Top me sije addzema. exact I-Nom it-Acc see-2Pst-lSg 'It was exactly him I saw.'

Evidentiality

in Komi Zyryan

431

(24) Me olema Mohtsayn. I-Nom live-2Pst-lSg Mohtsa-in Ί lived/have lived in Mohtsa.'

Examples elicited from speakers with a background in other dialects indicate that the 1st person is nearly always used in a resultative sense: me pas'tas'öma Ί am dressed', me s'ojöma-juöma Ί have eatenand-drunk' (i.e. I am full), me prostud'itcöma "I have caught a cold". In the Prisyktyvkar dialect the usage can be extended to atelic state verbs, if modified by a suffix signifying a temporary situation, or additionally by a reflexive suffix. The relevant context shows that the interpretation is evidential: (25) (when walking in the woods and returning to a place where one had been already) Me tani vövlöma / vövlys'öma. I here be-Temp-2Pst-lSg / be-Temp-Refl-2Pst-lSg Ί have been here (already).'

The mirative usage is clear in the following example elicited from a speaker of the Lower Vycegda dialect: (at dinner) (26) Me tsyg völöma. I-Nom hungry be-2Pst-lSg 'It turns out that I was hungry.'

Transitive verbs in the 1st person with objects appear to be quite unacceptable even to those speakers who find the above usage normal. This supports the characterization of the 2nd past as primarily resultative and/or indirective, but not quite the perfect. This is the conclusion, if the definition of the perfect in typological studies is accepted (Nedjalkov 1983), namely that one of the basic features of the perfect is that it should apply equally to all lexical verb groups —and, surely, to all grammatical persons.

432

Marja

Leinonen

3.1. Impersonal evidentiality In literary language and in a number of dialects, the evidentiality for the 1st person is expressed by an impersonal reflexive construction: Genitive NP + V-Refl-öma, e.g. menam unmovss 'öma Ί fell asleep = I must have fallen asleep'. The occasions for using evidential forms for the 1st person are rare, as they are in other languages having the category as well. DeLancey notes that inferential forms with first person subjects require a context involving inattention or lack of consciousness (DeLancey 1997: 38) (see also Malchukov on Tungusic, this volume). In Komi, these are exactly the meanings expressed by the construction. Luck or happenstance may be involved as well. Hearsay, inference and mirative are the interpretations in the following examples: (27) (I drank wine. I had an accordeon.) Mejam jona jus'öma da gudöktö I-Gen much drink-Refl-2Pst-3Sg and accordeon-Acc pazödlyss 'öma. break-Refl-2Pst-3Sg Ί had drunk a lot and had broken the accordeon.' (ST III: 302) (28) (Vasilij, I am sorry to say, but you are a cynic!—Aristov interrupted him.) Gaskö. Tatsömön menam bydmyss'öma da maybe such-Instr I-Gen grow-Refl-2Pst-3Sg and myj vöcan! what do-Pres-2Sg 'Maybe. That's what I have grown up into, and what can one do!' (Fedorov 1989: 33) (29) Das kuim gozöm n'in menam udzavs'öma ten three summer already I-Gen work-Refl-2Pst-3Sg vidzjas vylyn. fields on 'It turns out that I have worked in the fields already for thirteen summers.'

In this example, the speaker views the thirteen years' work with astonishment (Ievleva 1984: 76-78); the result has appeared as if by itself. The reflexive impersonal construction is not limited to the 2nd past,

Evidentiality

in Komi Zyryan

433

but serves in Komi in all tenses in the impersonalization function. It indicates that the action is non-controlled, involuntary.

4. Analytic past tenses There is much vagueness in the existing descriptions and structural variation in the constructions that could be called compound, or analytic past tenses. In Western, i.e. Finnish and Hungarian research, the copular particles völi, völöm (1st past and 2nd past forms of vövny 'to be') and their allomorphs are counted as copulas of compound tenses. In these descriptions, Komi has a durative past consisting of the present tense form of lexical verb + völi, and a corresponding evidential 'it turned out/they say' durative past with völöm: Sg 1 2 3

vetla völi/völöm vetlan " vetlö "

PI vetlam völi/völöm vetlannyd " vetlöny

Further, the 2nd past form serves as part of the analytic pluperfect. In the paradigm given in Rédei (1987: 106), the copula follows the lexical verb. The opposite order is, however, quite frequent, and the indeclinable variant völi is by far the most common: Sg 1 2 3

vetlömavöli vetlömyd völi(n) vetlöm(a) völi

PI vetlömaös' völi(m) vetlömnyd völi(d) vetlömaös Vvetlömny

völi(ny)

The pluperfect has an evidential correspondence, 2nd past + völöm, which could analogically be called evidential pluperfect. The copula is generally uninflected. In the Russian/Komi grammatical tradition the picture is less clear. In the description by Serebrennikov, the durative past is identified with the English past continuous form (Serebrennikov 1960: 75), but the evidential counterpart is only mentioned in passing. The descriptions often lack the historical future, or habitual construction V-Fut + völi,

434

Marja

Leinonen

e.g. muñas völi, translated into Russian as pojdet byvalo 'would go, used to go'. (Serebrennikov 1963: 273). The crucial point is how to treat völi/völöm. In the authoritative Komi grammatical descriptions, völi and völöm in the durative pasts are defined as verbal particles (SKJa 1955: 287, KRS 1961: 887). Thus, völi expresses the "situation of the 1st past", and völöm that of the 2nd past. They combine with future tense forms as well: völi vodas (Fut) da kujlö (Pres) 'would lay down and lie'; völöm cukörtcasny (Fut) da kuritcöny (Pres) 'As became known/it turned out that they would gather and smoke'. Völi + 2nd past forms, while not being called pluperfects, seem to serve in just that function: völi voöma 'he came by that time, (as was evident)' (KRS 1961: 887). In spite of the bracketed evidentiality of the definition, it is perfectly acceptable to use the construction in clear cases of direct experience, in the following elicited example as a resultative in the 1st person: (30) Kor sijö loktis, me völi sad'möma. when s/he came, I Cop wake-up-2Pst-1 Sg 'When s/he came, I had already waken up / was awake.'

The pluperfect may also express a remote past without relating it to another past event. Further, the description gives examples of what above was called evidential pluperfect: völöm voöma 'it turns out/as became known, he had come' {on pribyl, okazyvaetsja / kak stalo izvestno, on pribyl, KRS 1961: 888). In recent linguistic research, the constructions are called analytic past tenses (Sorvaceva and Beznosikova 1990: 72). The latest grammatical description does the same, simply using numbers: Illrd past = durative past (V-Pres + völi), IVth past = pluperfect, which has no evidential interpretation; Vth past = evidential durative past (V-Pres + völöm), and Vlth past = evidential pluperfect (2nd past + völöm) (Fedjuneva and Cypanov 1992: 63-64). What is missing is the combination of V-Fut + völi, but this is obviously included in the Illrd past: the future tense has a specific form in the 3rd person only, the other persons being identical with the present tense forms. In narratives situated in the past, the function of völi is more important. The evidential analytic forms are, according to the authors, rare. I

Evidentiality

in Komi Zyryan

435

have found only a few examples of the Vlth past in dialect samples and in fiction: (31) (An escaped prisoner is hiding in the woods, a boy is bringing him food. A voice calling the boy's name is coming from among the branches.) Setcö i dzebs 'öma völöm syskyd. there Prtc hide-Refl-2Pst-3Sg Cop-2Pst-3Sg escapee-DefNom '(It appeared, turned out that) there the escapee had hid himself.' (Popov 1994: 76)

The morphology of the evidential past forms is not very stable. Völöm/ velem varies with völöma/velema in the dialects. Some have both forms, or only one which has the functions of participle and evidentiality; or there is a functional differentiation as in the literary language: -a marks predicativity (Batalova 1982, Kolegova—Baraksanov 1980: 50). The word order in the construction appears to be free. In the grammar of 1955, völöm is equated with the particle völömkö 'it turns out' (-kö, originally an interrogative particle, is now a suffix of indefiniteness, e.g. korkö 'at some time') (SKJa 1955: 287). Such an interpretation is also shown by the practice of a modern writer who separates völöm from the text with commas: (32) Udzalys'jasyd, völöm, zev tölka jöz:... worker-Pl-NomDef turns-out very clever people 'It turned/turns out that the workers were/are very clever people:...' (Toropov/Vojvyv kodzuv 1/1997: 48)

On the other hand, dialects may mark the person on the copula/particle as well: (33) Bytsa νο η'in vetlödli, a te every year already wander- IPst-lSg but you on vis ' völömyd. Neg-Pres-2Sg be-ill Cop-2Pst-2Sg Ί have been travelling for a whole year already, and it turns out that you were not ill at all.'(= evidential durative past) (ST III: 246)

There is double marking of the person, namely in the negative verb form on, and in völömyd, while the lexical verb remains without suffixes, as is the rule when negated in the present and 1st past. The liter-

436

Marja

Leinonen

ary negation of evidential durative past is shown in the following example: (34) Tsöktis da. On verit? tell-lPst-3Sg because Neg-Pres-2Sg believe O, te on na töd völöm sijös! Oh you Neg-Pres-2Sg yet know Cop-2Pr s/he-Acc 'Because she ordered. Don't you believe it? Oh, it turns out/I see that you don't know her yet!' (Juskov 1970: 53)

Presumably, the diffuse character of völöm and its treatment in the grammars reflect both the language's high degree of agglutinative technique and the low frequency of the analytic forms.

5. Conclusion The unambiguous markers of evidentiality in Komi are particles: the hearsay particle pö and the particle-like copula völöm. The 2nd past in Komi follows the general tendency of a past participle to develop a perfect-like tense. Certain restrictions in the use of the form, however, make the characterization of the 2nd past as perfect dubious. The Komi form is in most cases a resultati ve proper or an evidential, although vague usage occurs as well, especially in the dialects and spoken language, that could be called perfect. If, however, the definition of the perfect is to be kept in strict reins, another term for the 2nd past is in order. Postterminality, suggested by Lars Johanson, especially for the Turkic verb, would be less formal, and it covers all the uses presented above. Postterminality, the view of the event after the transgression of its relevant limit, presents through the result, whatever it is, an indirect perspective on the event. The indirect view creates an element of distance and uncertainty concerning the actual realization of the event (Johanson 1996: 86). This comes close to the psychological definitions of the Komi 2nd past cited above (Baker, Bartens), i.e. non-involvement, non-participation by the speaker. The mirative usage—surprise, unprepared mind etc.—seems to resist characterizations of indirectness, since the usage in question applies in situations of direct immediate perception. We can, however, fit

Evidentiality in Komi Zyryan

437

it into the indirect view by stressing that knowledge about the actual realization of the event is missing, i.e. the preceding process was unwitnessed. Therefore the event or result may appear unexpected, and produce the sense of surprise and other expressive nuances. Or, what was expected turned out to be the opposite/different.

References Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A.—Dan I. Slobin 1986 "A psychological account of the development of evidentials in Turkish", in: Chafe, Wallace & Nichols, Johanna (eds.), 159-167. Anderson, L. 1986 "Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps. Typologically regular asymmetries", in: Chafe, Wallace & Nichols, Johanna (eds.), 273312. Baker, Robin W. 1983 "Komi Zyryan's second past tense", Finnisch- Ugrische Forschungen, Band XLV, Heft 1-3: 64-81. Bartens, Raija 1982 "Die Dialektmonographien für das Komi-Syrjänische", FinnischUgrische Forschungen 44: 150-164. 1993 "Suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten tempuksista", in: Sirkka Saarinen, Jorraa Luutonen ja Eeva Herrala (eds.), Systeemija poikkeama. Juhlakirja Alho Alhoniemen 60-vuotispäiväksi 14.5.1993. Suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 42: 21-37. Batalova, R. M. 1982 Areal'nye issledovanija po vostocnym flnno-ugorskim jazykam. Moskva Chafe, Wallace—Johanna Nichols (eds.) 1986 Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. (Advances in Discourse Processes, Volume XX.) Norwood:Ablex. DeLancey, Scott 1997 "Mirativity: new vs. assimilated knowledge as a semantic and grammatical category", Linguistic Typology 1: 33-52. Fedjuneva, G. V.—Je. A. Cypanov 1992 Assör kyvs 'ikasjas komi kyvjyn. Syktyvkar. Friedman, V. A. 1986 "Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian", in: Chafe, Wallace—Johanna Nichols (eds.), 168-187.

438

Marja

Leinonen

Guentchéva, Zlatka 1996 "Le médiatif en bulgare", in: Guentchéva, Zlatka (éd.) L'énonciation médiatisée. (Bibliothèque de l'Information Grammaticale.) Louvain-Paris: Editions Peeters, 47-70. Haarman, H. 1970 Die indirekte Erlebnisform als grammatische Kategorie. Eine eurasische Isoglosse. (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, Band 2.) Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Ievleva, T. M. 1984 "Bezlicnye glagoly i ix valentnost' ν komi jazyke", Trudy Instituía jazyka, literatury i istorii. Akademia Nauk SSSR, Komi filial, 31: 6 7 86.

Johanson, Lars 1996 "On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives", in: Boretzky, Ν., Enninger, W. & Stolz, Th. (eds.), Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen. (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 24.) Bochum: Brockmeyer, 84-94. KRS 1961 Komi-russkij slovar\ ed. V. I. Lytkin, with a grammatical sketch by V. I. Lytkin and D. A. Timusev. Moskva. Kuratov, I. A. 1939 Lingvisticeskie raboty. 2-oj torn. Syktyvkar. Künnap, Ago: 1992 "On the analytical past tense forms in the Uralic languages", Linguistica Uralica XXVIII3: 173-179. Lallukka, Seppo 1990 The East Finnic minorities in the Soviet Union. (Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae, B: 252.) Helsinki. Lytkin, V. I. 1952 Drevnepermskij jazyk. Moskva. Majtinskaja, K. Je. 1982 Sluzebnye slova ν finno-ugorskix jazykax. Moskva. Nedjalkov, V. P. (ed.) 1983 Tipologija rezul'tativnyx konstrukcij (rezul'tativ, Stativ, passiv, perfekt). Leningrad. Nikolaeva, Irina A. 1995 Obdorskij dialekt xantyjskogo jazyka. (Einheitliche Beschreibung der Dialekte uralischer Sprachen, herausgegeben von Klara E. Majtinskaja und Wolfgang Veenker, V. Mitteilungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, 15.) Hamburg. Osnovy finno-ugorskogo jazykoznanija. Marijskij, permskie i ugorskie jazyki. 1976 Eds. V. I. Lytkin, K. Je. Majtinskaja, Karoj Redei. Moskva.

Evidentiality in Komi Zyryan

439

Rédei, Károly 1978 Syrjänische Chrestomathie mit Grammatik und Glossar. (Studia Uralica. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Finno-Ugristik der Universität Wien. Herausgegeben von Károly Rédei, Band 1.) Wien. Rombandeeva, Evdokija I. 1995 Sugvinskij dialekt mansijskogo (vogul'skogo) jazyka. (Einheitliche Beschreibung der Dialekte uralischer Sprachen, herausgegeben von Klara E. Majtinskaja und Wolfgang Veenker, IV. Mitteilungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, 14.) Hamburg. Saxarova, M. A.—N. N. Sel'kov 1976 Izemskij dialekt komi jazyka. Syktyvkar: AN SSSR, Komi filial, Institut jazyka, literatury i istorii. Sbornik 1931 1931 Sbornik komissii po sobiraniju slovarja i izuceniju dialektov komi jazyka II, ed. V. I. Lytkin. Moskva. Serebrennikov, B. A. 1960 Kategorii vremeni i vida ν finno-ugorskix jazykax permskoj i volzskoj grupp. Moskva. Serebrennikov, Β. Α. 1963 Istoriceskaja morfologia permskix jazykov. Moskva. SKJa 1955 Sovremennyj komijazyk, I, ed. V. I. Lytkin. Syktyvkar. Sorvaceva, V.A.—L. M. Beznosikova 1990 Udorskij dialekt komi jazyka. Moskva: AN SSSR, Ural'skoe otdelenie, Komi naucnyj centr, Institut jazyka, literatury i istorii. Moskva. Uotila, Τ. E. 1938 Syrjänische Chrestomathie mit grammatikalischem Abriss und etymologischem Wörterverzeichnis. (Hilfsmittel für das Studium der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen VI.) Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Weber, David J. 1986 "Information perspective, profile and pattern in Quechua", in: Chafe, Wallace—Johanna Nichols (eds.), 137-155.

Sources Fedorov, V. 1989 Cuzan mus 'an ' ylyn. Syktyvkar. Gabova, Je. 1997 Vospitatel'n'icalön kaz'tylömjas. Vojvyv kodzuv 1: 7^16. Juskov,G. 1970 Kuim tes. Syktyvkar.

440

Marja

Juskov, G. 1981 Popov, Α. 1994 Savin, V. [1936]

ST III 1989

Leinonen

Cugra. Syktyvkar. Myjs'ama jöz• Syktyvkar. "Sondi petigön dzoridz kos'mis", in: P.Doronin: Literatura hrestomat 'ija η 'epolnöj sredn 'öj da sredn 'oj skolasa 6—7 klassjasly, möd cast'. Syktyvkar. Syrjänische Texte, Band III. Komi-syrjänisch: Luza-Letka, Ober-Sysola, Mittel-Sysola-, Prisyktyvkar-, Unter-Vycegda- und Udora-Dialekte. Gesammelt von T.E. Uotila, übersetzt und herausgegeben von Paula Kokkonen. (Mémoires de la Société finno-ougrienne 202.) Helsinki 1989.

Toropov, V. 1997 Tulyss'an' arödz. Vojvyv kodzuv 1: 48-57.

Note on the glosses Case and possessive suffixes, as being less relevant than verbs, have been given simplified translations into English. The abbreviations used are either explained in the text or represent normal usage, except: NomDef = Nominative + Possessive Suffix, 3rd person -ys, 2nd person -yd. The transliteration follows as close as possible the graphemic representation of the literary language. Compromises were made in the case of the dialect examples. I wish to thank Yevgeny Cypanov, Valentina Ludykova and the folksong ensemble from Mezhador for their comments and interpretations.

Perfect, evidentiality and related categories in Tungusic languages Andrej L. Malchukov 1. Introduction The present paper, devoted to the description of evidential markers in Tungusic languages, is organized into two parts.1 The first part considers semantics of perfect forms in Tungusic languages in a synchronic and a diachronic perspective, focussing on their (indirect) evidential functions. The inferential perfect may be regarded as the core of the evidential system in Tungusic languages, although its evidential semantics is more conspicuous in some Tungusic varieties (Western Even, Udihe) than in others. It will be argued that other Tungusic idioms either have not reached the evidential stage in the evolution of the perfect forms or have already passed it. Section 2 provides a description of the evidential perfect in North-Tungusic languages, as well as an analysis of internal (structural) and external (induced by language contact) factors conditioning the rise of evidential meaning. Section 3 presents a similar evolution of the perfect in East-Tungusic languages, which additionally exhibit a diachronic link between evidential and validational categories. Implications of the Tungusic data for the research of functional universals (and mechanisms) of diachronic change, as initiated by Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994), are further discussed in Section 4. The subsequent sections provide a description of the rather heterogeneous set of epistemic modal markers, semantically related to evidentials. Finally, it is argued (in Section 5) that controversies concerning differentiation of evidentials proper from other epistemic categories are conditioned by the inherent semantic complexity of the prototypical evidential categories, such as hearsay or inferential.

442

Andrej L. Malchukov

1.1. A note on Tungusic languages Tungusic languages (that is, Tungusic proper, excluding the Manchu branch of Tungus-Manchu languages, which is disregarded in what follows) are traditionally divided into two branches: a Northern and an Eastern branch (on the classification of Tungusic languages see Cincius 1949; Sunik 1962; Doerfer 1978). Previously nomadic speakers of North-Tungusic languages are scattered across vast territories of Northeastern Siberia, whereas speakers of East-Tungusic languages live more locally in the Far East in the vicinity of the Amur river basin. North-Tungusic languages include Even, Evenki, Negidal and Solon (varieties of Evenki, due to strong areal influences, with East-Tungusic and Mongolian, respectively). The East-Tungusic branch includes Nanai, Ulcha, Oroch, Udihe and Orok. The three major Tungusic languages (with over 10,000 speakers) are Evenki, Even and Nanai. Typologically, Tungusic languages are in many respects well-behaved "Altaic languages". Phonetically, they exhibit vowel harmony. Morphologically, they are agglutinating-suffixing languages. Syntactically, they are SOV languages of the accusative typology. Within the NP the possessive relation is head marked. Subordinate clauses are based either on case-marked participles or on converbs. All Tungusic languages exhibit a contrast between two series of predicative forms: verbal forms (older formation) and participial forms (new formation). These forms are distinguished syntactically (the former are monofunctional the latter polyfunctional) and to a certain degree formally: the former mostly take specialized predicative agreement markers, the latter exclusively take nominal possessive-like markers. 2. Perfect and inference in North-Tungusic languages Let us start the discussion of the North-Tungusic perfect in -cA, which in some languages has developed indirect evidential functions. Before projecting the relevant data on a diachronic scale, I shall discuss the semantics of perfect forms within temporal systems in individual North-Tungusic languages.

Perfect, evidentiality

and related categories

443

2.1. Even 2.1.1. The perfect within the temporal system The core of the Even aspecto-temporal system includes, apart from the future in -di-, which is disregarded in what follows, the nonfuture ("aorist") in -RA-, the imperfect in -Ri and the perfect in -cA. These forms have a somewhat different grammatical status: the nonfuture form is a genuine verbal form, which is monofunctional and takes a verbal set of agreement suffixes. Its temporal interpretation depends on actional semantics of the verb: derived from telic verbs it refers to the recent past (em-re-n '(he) has just come'), derived from atelic verbs, it refers to the present (hong-ra-n '(he) weeps'). The imperfect form has developed from the nonfuture participle and takes the set of nominal (possessive-like) agreement markers. Finally, the perfect is a genuine participial form, which like all prototypical participles occurs in the attributive, argument or predicative function. In the latter function it is incapable of taking agreement morphology directly and needs in the lst/2nd person a "copula support" (see (3) below). Further, it takes the plural marker of the nominal type (as in (3)), thus patterning as other nonverbal predicates. The form in -cA has the following meanings in Even dialects : a) resultative (alias, stative perfect), as in (1); b) actional perfect; c) indirect evidential with inferential (or "mirative" in terms of DeLancey 1997) uses, as in (2): (1)

...böödele-ten, ngaala-tan celgem-ce, haan=da ure-ten höki-ce. leg-3PL arm-3PL break(int.)-PERF some=PTCL belly-3PL rip-PERF '(Their) arms and legs were broken, some of them had their stomachs ripped.'

(2)

Etike-jeken mut hut-u-t d'ormi-gra-ca. old.man-DEMiN our child-ACC-lPL steal-iTER-PERF '(It turned out that) the old man has stolen our children.'

In central and western dialects the evidential meaning may be considered the primary interpretation of the perfect form in view of the restrictions on its use in the 1st person. This form can be used only for events not controlled by the agent, as in (3):

444

Andrej L. Malchukov

(3)

Egd'en big

moderi evgide-du-n flood

this.side-DAT-3sG

nulge-sen-ce-l

bi-se-p.

nomadize-MOM-PERF-PL

be-NF-lPL

'(It turned out that) we have nomadized just before the flood.'

Realization of the perfect meaning in such cases normally requires strong contexts (such as the use of the adverb ukal 'already').

2.1.2. Perfect and dialectal variation As noted above, the meanings of the perfect are unevenly distributed across dialects. In eastern dialects the -cA form occurs only in the resultati ve function (as in (1)). Realistic narration is based on the imperfect in -Ri-, whereas fairy tales are normally based on the aorist (in that case the -Ri- form can occasionally be used for expository purposes, thus not performing a "plot-propulsive" function). Central and especially western dialects exhibit an expansion of -cA forms in the narrative function. This is corroborated by the statistics in Table 1, demonstrating the relative frequency of the basic narrative forms in folklore narration for different dialect groups. The text counts for an eastern (Ola) dialect, a central (Moma) dialect and a western (Allaikha) dialect are based on the folklore texts in Novikova (1980: 132-136), Lebedev (1978: 112-125) and Dutkin (1980: 103-111), respectively. Table 1. Distribution of narrative forms in Even dialects

Eastern dialect Central dialect Western dialect

-RA- (aorist)

-Ri- (imperfect)

63 39,3 30,5

37 15,1 -

-cA (perfect) -

45,6 69,5

Interestingly, the distribution of tense forms in dialogues shows less dialectal variation as compared to narration. Thus, in the same sample texts, recorded from speakers of western dialects, the -Ri- form is normally retained for past events localized in time, whereas the -cA form is restricted to evidential or perfect uses.

Perfect, evidentiality and related categories

445

2.1.3. Explanation of the dialectal variation The attested steady increase in the use of the -cA forms as one moves westwards is presumably due to language contact with Yakut. In particular, I suggest that the perfect in western varieties of Even has copied the semantics of the Yakut "perfect participle" in -byt (corresponding to forms in -mis and -gan in other Turkic languages). The participial forms in -byt are known to have two distinct uses in the predicative function (YG 1982: 310-312): a) in combination with nominal-possessive markers they function as the distant past and are extensively used as a narrative form in folklore; b) in combination with verbal-predicative markers they are used as the resultative-evidential form. These two uses are illustrated in Table 2 for the verb bar- 'go': Table 2. Conjugation of the participial forms in -byt in Yakut Distant past SG 1st p. 2nd p. 3rd p.

PL

bar-byt-ym bar-byt-pyt bar-byk-kyt bar-byt-yng bar-byt-a bar-byt-tar.a Ί (you, etc.) have gone long ago.'

Resultative SG

PL

bar-byt-pyn bar-byk-kyn bar-byt Ί (you, etc.) have

bar-byp-pyt bar-byk-kyt bar-byt-tar apparently gone.'

Bilingual Even speakers have presumably contaminated these two Yakut forms. Note that whereas the distant past matches the -cA perfect better functionally (in particular, it is used as a narrative form in folklore), the resultative form gives a closer structural correspondence, since it lacks overt agreement markers in the 3rd person. There are several phenomena indicating an external source for the spread of the -cA forms. First, the western dialects exhibit extensive Yakut interference elsewhere, namely in phonology and syntax. Second, the distribution of forms shows much variation even within one idiom, suggesting an ongoing interference process. That does not mean, however, that the evolution of the -cA perfect in other North-Tungusic languages should be solely attributed to the language contact. As will be demonstrated below, Tungusic languages exhibit a language-internal tendency to replace verbal forms by participials (cf., e.g., the use of the Even imperfect in -Ri- originating from the present participle).

446

Andrej L.

Malchukov

2.2. Evenki The Evenki temporal system differs from that of Even in a number of ways (for details see Konstantinova 1964; Nedjalkov 1992). First, Evenki lacks the imperfect in -Ri, which has preserved its original participial function. Second, the aorist in -RA- is pushed into the recent past uses, due to grammaticalization of the combination of the progressive aspect plus aorist into the present tense in -d'a-ra. In particular, this holds for temporally localized statives, such as songo- 'cry, weep', which refer to the past when used in the aorist; cf. Evenki songo-ro-n 'has recently wept' and Even hong-ra-n 'weeps (now)'. Thus, the major temporal distinction in Evenki (leaving aside peripheral past forms, such as the habitual in -ngki-) is drawn between the recent past in -RA- and the general/distant past in -cA-. According to I. Nedjalkov (1992) the two major functions of the -cA form are the perfect and the general factual (existential). On the other hand, the resultati ve function is untypical for Evenki forms: only passive perfect forms regularly exhibit resultati ve semantics (Nedjalkov and Nedjalkov 1983). Importantly for our discussion, the perfect form in Evenki is more grammaticalized, as compared to Even. First, it is more grammaticalized formally, as it takes the agreement morphology directly. Second, it shows a higher text frequency, being the most frequent past in dialogues. Finally, it is more generalized in meaning and is not restricted to the current relevance contexts. In particular, it extends its use to contexts where a result of the preceding action is abolished by a subsequent action (Nedjalkov 1992). Note, that in Even the imperfect in -Ri- would be used in such cases. The perfect form has further evidential extensions. As pointed out by Nedjalkov (1992: 171), the use of the -RA- form normally implies direct evidentiality, as in (4a), whereas the -cA form correlates with indirect evidentiality, as in (4b): (4) a. Eni eme-re-n. mother.NOM come-AOR-3sG 'Mother (just) came.' b. Eni eme-ce-n. mother.NOM come-PERF-3sG 'Mother (reportedly) came.'

Perfect, evidentiality and related categories

447

Still the indirect evidential meaning is clearly not the primary function of the perfect form: in most dialects (see below) the perfect is freely used with the 1st person and, conversely, the -RA- form is not restricted to witnessed events. Furthermore these forms exhibit evidential contrast only with regard to the recent past, elsewhere only the perfect form is available.

2.3. Other North-Tungusic languages With regard to grammaticalization of the -cA form, the other North-Tungusic languages—Negidal and Solon—take an intermediate position between the more conservative Even and Evenki. Thus, in Negidal the -cA form has "split" into two distinct forms—the participial used with the copula and the conjugated verbal form. Notably, (the degree of) grammaticalization in form correlates here with grammaticalization in meaning: the participial -cA is opposed to the verbal as perfect ("resultative past", according to Cincius 1982) to general past. In Solon the lst/2nd persons of the perfect are more grammatical ized in that they take agreement markers, whereas the 3rd person retains its participial status (i.e. does not conjugate), which may be attributed to the influence of Mongolian languages.

2.4. Evolution of perfect in North-Tungusic languages Thus the hypothesized path of diachronic evolution of the North-Tungusic perfect is represented in (5): (5)

RES

>

PERF

>

PAST

RES

>

PERF

>

EviD

(Evenki) > Past narrative (Western Even)

Thus North-Tungusic data exhibits the evolution of resultative to perfect and further to indirect evidential and past, which is well attested in a number of languages. According to Maslov (1983: 46-54), this process occurred cyclically in Indo-European languages. As demonstrated in Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994) (cf. Comrie 1976; Johanson 2000), such development represents a universal path of evo-

448

Andrej L. Malchukov

lution of the (stative) perfect. Further data supporting such evolution can also be gained from Tungusic languages. Evidence for the first step of the proposed evolution, leading from resultative to perfect, is provided by diathetic characteristics of the perfect form. Thus, in Even (as well as in other languages) the -cA forms derived from intransitives are subject-oriented, the derived subject of the perfect form being identical to the (intransitive) subject of the base verb (cf. celgem- 'break (int.)' and celgem-ce 'broken' in (1) above). However, when derived from transitives, these forms are predominantly object-oriented in eastern dialects: that is, the derived subject corresponds to the underlying object, rather than to the agent ( cf. höki- 'rip' and höki-ce 'ripped' in (1) ). A similar situation obtains in some other Tungusic languages, which have a productive -cA form.2 Thus, in Oroch and Udihe, the perfect forms derived from transitives have traditionally been qualified as passive in meaning (cf. Sunik 1962: 220-235; Boldyrev 1987: 153-159). This diathetic peculiarity of the perfect form, inexplicable under assumption of its verbal origin (cf. its qualification as one of the common Tungusic preterite forms in Doerfer 1978), finds its natural explanation in the semantics of resultative forms, which cross-linguistically exhibit the "ergative syndrome" (see the materials in Nedjalkov 1988). As suggested by Comrie (1981), this ergative cline has a functional explanation: a transitive action normally changes the state of its object, rather than its subject. In Evenki, however, -cA forms based on transitives are basically agent-oriented: object-orientation must be overtly marked by the use of the passive morphology. Evolution of the agent-orientation of the perfect forms in Evenki as well as most other North-Tungusic varieties is clearly conditioned by verbalization (and grammaticalization) of the -cA participle. The text distribution of the perfect form in Evenki also suggests an ongoing verbalization process. According to Gorelova (1979) in the present-day "literary" language -cA forms are used far more extensively as compared to folklore texts, which represent a conservative norm (they constitute 27.6% and 6.5 %, respectively, of the total number of indicative forms). Thus, the second step of evolution, leading from perfect to (general) past, is documented for contemporary Evenki.

Perfect, evidentiality and related categories

449

The factors that condition the rise of evidential meaning from the originally resultative in Tungusic languages are partly language-internal and partly determined by language contact. The major structural precondition for the rise of evidential meaning appears to be the existence of another (general) past form. Thus, in Even, the evidential meaning seems to be more conventionalized apparently due to the presence of the contrastive imperfect -Ri- form. In Evenki, by contrast, evidential semantics has still at best the status of the pragmatic impicature, due to the lack of another form with a general past meaning. Recall that in Evenki a contrast between aorist -RA- and perfect forms can be interpreted evidentially only with regard to the near past. Importantly, those Evenki varieties that have the past form in -Riexhibit an evidential contrast between -Ri- and -cA- forms in a way very similar to Even. This has been attested by Myreeva (Romanova— Myreeva 1962, 1964) for Ajano-Maj and especially Tommot dialects. For the latter dialect Myreeva (Romanova—Myreeva 1962: 75) explicitly states that the -cA form, used for non-witnessed events, has a defective conjugation paradigm: 1st person forms, which conflict with its semantics, are missing from the paradigm altogether. The impact of language contact with Yakut on the rise of the evidential perfect is clearest in the Even data. It remains to be investigated whether a similar evidential opposition of verbal (conjugated) -cA forms vs. participial -cA forms attested in many Evenki varieties (esp. in Yakutia) can be also attributed to Yakut influence.

3. Evidentiality and validation in East-Tungusic languages Although it is not clear if the East-Tungusic perfect in -hA is cognate with the North-Tungusic perfect in -cA,3 it is functionally equivalent and arguably underwent a similar diachronic evolution from resultative via perfect to unmarked past. Furthermore, it develops similar (indirect) evidential meaning, as originally attested for Tungusic languages with regard to Udihe in Sneider (1936). Different East-Tungusic languages have retained a contrast between the two series of predicative forms—verbal forms (older formation) and participial forms (new formation)—to different degrees. In

450

Andrej L. Malchukov

general, the contrast between these two series of predicative forms in East-Tungusic languages is more blurred than in North-Tungusic languages. Thus, East-Tungusic participles (along with other nomináis) take agreement endings more freely and normally do not need a copula support. Another difference between North-Tungusic and East-Tungusic languages pertinent to the evolution of the temporal system, lies in the fact that some of the former (Udihe, Nanai) have retained the verbal past tense. 3.1. Nanai Nanai is the most conservative among East-Tungusic languages in that it has retained the opposition between the two series of predicative forms in all tenses (present, past and future), whereas other languages display a reduced system. In particular, the verbal present in -RAn- and past in -kA- are opposed to the participial present in -Ri- and past in -hAn-. According to Avrorin (1961), the contrast between the two sets of predicative forms is validational in nature. The participial forms, being semantically neutral, are qualified by Avrorin (1961) as indicative in function. The verbal forms, emphatically asserting the truth of a proposition, are qualified as a special "affirmative mood". In other words, verbal forms have a marked status as compared to participials, but their markedness varies for different forms. An extensive discussion of the use and semantics of the "affirmative mood" forms by Avrorin (1961) may be summarized in the form of the Markedness Hierarchy in (6): (6)

Markedness Hierarchy in verbal tense forms Person Hierarchy: 1 > 2 > 3 Number Hierarchy:Sg > PI Tense Hierarchy: Present > Past < higher in frequency

>

higher emphasis

In accordance with the Markedness Hierarchy (viz. the Person Hierarchy) the 1st person verbal forms are most frequent and have the least

Perfect, evidentiality

and related categories

451

affirmative shading. As suggested by the translation of the affirmative verbal form in (7b), it is a near synonym to its participial equivalent in (7a). The 3rd person verbal forms, by contrast, are restricted to emphatic contexts, such as (8b): (7) a. Mi I.NOM

un-di-i. Say-PRES.PART-lSG

Ί say.' b. Mi I.NOM

un-dem.bi. Say-PRES-lSG

Ί (do) say.' (8) a. N'oani

un-di-ni.

he.NOM

Say-PRES.PART-lSG

'He says.' b. Haj erdenge-ve-ni bara?! what interesting-ACC-3sG find.PRES.3sG 'What an interesting thing he has found!'

A similar semantic contrast obtains in the past. In general, verbal past forms are still less frequent, as compared to verbal present forms, which may be attributed to the workings of the Tense Hierarchy. Thus, verbal past forms, as in (9b, 10b), are highly marked as opposed to the participial past, as in (9a, 10a). In particular, this holds for the 3rd person past forms, which according to Avrorin (1961), were originally elicited from informants. (9) a. Mi I.NOM

un-kim.bi. Say-PERF.PART-1SG

Ί said.' b. Mi I.NOM

un-ke-i. Say-PAST-lSG

Ί did say.' (10) a. N'oani yOU.NOM

un-ki-ni. Say-PERF.PART-3SG

'(S)he said.' b. Esi=le do-si ele-ke=teni?! now=PTCL inner-2sG fill-PAST=PTCL 'Isn't your soul (lit. inner) satisfied now?!'

452

Andrej L. Malchukov

Semantically, the affirmative forms differ from the corresponding indicative in that the former involve more commitment to the truth of the proposition on the part of the speaker. Thus, verbal forms, in contrast to participials, are not combinable with hypothetical markers, such as the modal particle bid'ere 'maybe' (L. Z. Zaksor, p.c.)· Moreover, verbal affirmative forms, when used in interrogative sentences, as in (10b) or (24), have the force of a rhetorical question, asserting rather than questioning the truth of the proposition. The hierarchies set up in (6), in particular the Person Hierarchy, reveal themselves to be relevant for other East-Tungusic languages as well. Notably, participial perfect forms also conform to the Person Hierarchy inasmuch as 3rd person forms occur most frequently and are thus unmarked. Note also that these forms are the first to establish themselves in the verbal paradigm (cf. the heteroclitic paradigms with participial forms in the 3rd person as in Udihe or in Solon).

3.2. Ulcha Ulcha, which is closely related to Nanai, displays the contrast between the two series of tense forms only in the present. Verbal past forms have been replaced by participials, which can be attributed to the workings of the Tense Hierarchy in (6). Judging by text samples in Sunik (1985), the situation in Ulcha is similar to Nanai in that the verbal present has an affirmative-emphatic shading and is preferably used in the 1st person.

3.3. Udihe In contrast to Ulcha, which retained an opposition between two sets of forms in the present, in Udihe this distinction obtains only in the past. In the present tense the paradigm is heteroclitic: the lst/2nd person forms are based on verbs, whereas the 3rd person is based on participles. According to Sneider (1936), the participial past is used as a hearsay form, whereas the verbal past functions as a direct evidential form; cf. ( I l a ) and (1 lb), respectively:

Perfect, evidentiality and related categories (11) a. Nua (s)he.NOM

453

bu-he-ni. give-PERF.PART-3SG

'He (is said to) have given.' b. Nua bu-ge. (s)he.NOM

give-PAST.3sG

'He gave (for sure).'

However, the distinction between the cognate forms in Nanai and Udihe seems to be in part terminological. First, according to Sneider (1936), the participial past, quite unexpectedly, can be used in the 1st person, as well (see (12a)). The corresponding verbal past forms carry an emphatic/affirmative meaning (see (12b)): (12) a. Β i I. NOM

bu-he-mi. give-PERF.PART-lSG

Ί gave/have given.' b. Bi bu-ge-i. I.NOM

give-PAST-lSG

Ί gave/have given (for sure).'

Second, according to Girfanova (1988), the participial past is used far more frequently as a narrative form and may refer in dialogues to witnessed events, as well. In short, the participial past is the unmarked member of the opposition, whereas the verbal past is the marked one. In that respect, then, the situation is rather similar to Nanai. Other meanings of the past forms are as follows (Girfanova 1988): both forms can be used as experiential past; the participial past may additionally be used in perfect function, whereas the verbal past additionally functions as the imperfect tense.

3.4. Other East-Tungusic languages In other East-Tungusic languages—Orok and presumably also Oroch—the set of verbal forms has been completely replaced by participles.

454

Andrej L. Malchukov

3.5. Conclusions The data presented on the distribution of the two sets of predicative forms—verbal and participial—in East-Tungusic languages can be summarized in Table 3: Table 3. Distribution of predicative forms in East-Tungusic languages Present verbal

participial

Nanai Ulcha Udihe

+ (affirmative) + (affirmative) (+)(l,2p)

+ (indicative) +(indicative)

Oroch Orok

?

+ +

-

(+) (3rd p)

Past verbal

participial

+ (affirmative) -

+ (direct evidential) ? -

+ (indicative) + + (hearsayindicative) + +

The proposed path of evolution of the perfect in East-Tungusic languages is represented in (13): (13) 1st stage (Resultative) > General Past >

2nd stage Perfect/Indir.-evid. > Imperfect/Dir.-evid. > Udihe

3rd stage Preterite Validational Nanai

> >

4th stage General Past 0 Orok

Individual East-Tungusic languages rank differently on this diachronic scale. Whereas the 1st stage is not attested in any language, Udihe represents the most close approximation to the 2nd stage with its opposition between evidential perfect and witnessed imperfect. The 3rd stage with the contrast between the participial preterite and the verbal affirmative is attested in Nanai. Finally, the 4th stage with the verbal forms lacking altogether is attested in Orok (and Oroch). Still more importantly, the differences in the status of semantic oppositions exhibited by particular languages is partially a matter of terminology. As demonstrated above, the -hA- past in Udihe does not have prototypical indirect evidential semantics, due to its evolution into the unmarked form, whereas the corresponding witnessed imperfect is closely related to the affirmative-emphatic. On the other hand, the Nanai (and also Ulcha) affirmative is close to the direct evidential

Perfect, evidentiality and related categories

455

in that it is preferably used in the 1st person. This peculiarity is apparently diachronically motivated by evolution of the evidential opposition, which has clear person preferences, into a validational one.4 In short, whereas the Udihe "witnessed past" has developed affirmative features, the Nanai affirmative retains certain (direct) evidential characteristics.

4. Evolution of Tungusic tense systems and mechanisms of diachronic change Thus, the East-Tungusic data provide further confirmation for the diachronic evolution leading from resultative to perfect and (indirect evidential) past, which is considered a universal path in Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994). The markedness reversal within the temporal system conditions a further familiar shift from perfect to non-witnessed past and to general past (see Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994). Less documented cross-linguistically is a concomitant process of evolution of the "old" indicative forms into the direct evidential and, further, into the affirmative-emphatic. Now, if the evolution of the perfect is driven by grammaticalization, what is the mechanism of semantic change in the latter case? Clearly, the evolution of the "old" indicative into the affirmative cannot be regarded as grammaticalization, since it rather involves a specialization in meaning. I suggest that this semantic shift involves a change in the semantic status of the meaning components, rather than a change in their inventory (shift/loss). In particular, it may be argued that this process involves conventionalization of the felicity conditions on the assertive speech act. It is common knowledge that assertions are normally based on indicative forms. On the other hand, it is equally clear that this correlation is one way, since the (unmarked) indicative may be used with another illocutionary force (e.g. in interrogative or hypothetical contexts). In other words, the semantic component Ί know that P' inheres to the meaning of assertion (according to H. P. Grice, belongs to a set of its felicity conditions), rather than to the semantics of indicative forms. However, in the course of the semantic evolution this meaning component may be "strengthened" and becomes an in-

456

Andrej L. Malchukov

tegral part of semantics of the verbal form (recall that the affirmative mood in Nanai is incompatible with hypothetical markers). Thus, this case of semantic evolution is not unlike conventionalization of implicatures, which have been argued to be one of the mechanisms of semantic change (see, e.g., Traugott—König 1991). On the other hand, the Tungusic data demonstrate that this conventionalization is just a subcase of semantic reassignment processes, involved in functional evolution. Generally speaking, the Tungusic data suggest that if a direct evidential form acquires a marked value in a temporal system it develops into an affirmative category.5 It remains to be investigated to which extent this evolution represents a universal tendency and to which extent it is dependent on the concomitant development of the generalizing perfect. Notably, in the Slavic languages of the Balkans (Bulgarian, Macedonian) a similar renewal of the temporal system is attested. The participle-based "indefinite past" with indirect evidential (hearsay) uses is on the way to developing into the unmarked past, whereas the verbal "definite past" develops a witnessed and, further, an affirmative semantics. According to Friedman (1986 and this volume) the definite past form in these languages cannot be used in hypothetical contexts. Still, the rise of the affirmative mood in East-Tungusic languages cannot be totally reduced to the side-effect of the semantic evolution of the perfect, as demonstrated by the evolution of the present affirmative in Nanai and Ulcha. Thus, in general, the scenarios of the rise and fall of evidential meaning as attested in Tungusic languages follows the predictions of the uni-directionality hypothesis, put forward by Joan Bybee and her asssociates (Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca 1994). However, it appears that the "source determinance hypothesis" (claiming effectively that the lexical and grammatical meaning of the source construction that enters into grammaticalization uniquely determines its path, whereas the structure of the grammatical categories are "epiphenomenal"), as proposed in Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca (1994), is too strong. The Tungusic data rather demonstrate that a preestablished past form in the temporal system (as in Even or in East-Tungusic languages) represents a decisive language-internal factor favoring the emergence of indirect evidential semantics. Actually, similar examples are also found in the

Perfect, evidentiality and related categories

457

data alluded to by Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca (1994). Thus, the existence of a past imperfective is argued to determine whether a generalizing anterior (i.e. perfect) will become a perfective, as the French passé composé, or simple past, as in German (Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca 1994: 83-85). Moreover, one can conclude that in most cases where evolutionary paths "branch", the choice is primarily determined by the structure of the target grammatical category. In short, I side with those linguists who argue that the substantialist and structuralist approaches to diachronic change should be regarded as complementary (Johanson 2000). Second, I disagree with Bybee as regards the motivation of such an evolution. Rather than assuming for all cases a spontaneous semantic evolution due to universal mechanisms of diachronic change (via metaphoric extensions, semantic generalization, etc), I shall argue that the evolution of resultative forms through the evidential stage, as attested in Tungusic languages, is a side-effect of the intrusion of nominal participial forms into the verbal paradigm.6 The resultative forms are consistently verbalized (in terms of Johanson (1994) they increase in event-orientation) through the stage of perfect and its indirect evidential extensions, whereas the original past form is pushed into a sphere of modal semantics and finally out of use. It appears that the current study of resultatives in typological (as in Nedjalkov 1988) and diachronic (Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca 1994) perspectives does not do full justice to the concomitant change in the word class status of the resultative forms. However, as Tungusic data show quite clearly this semantic evolution is induced by the change in the parts-of-speech status, forcing an actional interpretation on an originally attributive and therefore stative form.7

5. Categories related to evidentiality in the domain of epistemic modality In the rest of my paper I shall present an overview of grammatical means that may be employed to express evidential contrasts in Tungusic languages. Still, these forms are peripheral in that they are either not prototypically evidential (their meanings intersecting rather than

458

Andrej L.

Malchukov

being identical to genuine evidential categories) or are less grammaticalized, or both.

5.1. Confirmative moods and validation The pattern of the (emphatic) confirmative mood, as attested in a number of Tungusic languages, includes the combination of a negative verbal form with the emphatic particle =(k)kA. In North-Tungusic languages negation is expressed periphrastically by the combination of the inflected forms of the auxiliary negative verb e- with the non-inflected form of the content verb in -RA (as in the Even example (14a)). The confirmative forms in Even differ from the corresponding negative ones in that the finite verb, rather than taking the non-inflected form, doubles the form of the negative auxiliary and additionally takes the emphatic particle =kkA, as in (14b): (14) a. E-he-m

haa-r.

n0t.d0-NF-lSG

knOW-NEG.CONV

'(I) d o n ' t k n o w . '

b. Haa-ra-m=kka know-NF-lsG=PTCL

e-he-m. not.do-NF-lsG

'(I) d o k n o w . '

This pattern was first noted in Even by Lebedev (1978: 93-94), who erroneously interpreted the particle plus negative auxiliary verb combination as a special modal verb kehe-. Still, for Even it is clearly a misinterpretation since the particle need not be adjacent to the auxiliary and, moreover, may be missing altogether, as in (15): (15) (Context:—Where did they go?) Er=ke, n'un-di-v e-c-u. this-PTCL

sho w-PAST-1 SG

not.do-PAST-1 SG

'Over there, I have shown (the way, haven't I).'

In central dialects the default 3rd person singular aorist form of the auxiliary has further developed into the invariable confirmative particle ehni 'for sure'. A similar development has been attested in the Tommot dialect of Evenki by My ree va (Romanova—Myreeva 1962:

Perfect, evidentiality

and related categories

459

77), who admittedly qualified kehin as a dubitative (rather than a confirmative) particle: (16) Heemngi-m l 0 S e - A 0 R . 1SG

k.e.hi.n. PTCL+n0t.d0-A0R-3SG

Ί might have lost.'

Interestingly, a similar pattern obtains in Nanai, where it was termed, rather misleadingly, the "obvious mood" by Avrorin (1961: 114-118). The major structural difference lies in the fact that Nanai (as well as most other East-Tungusic languages) has developed synthetic negative forms by enclitization of the negative auxiliary verb to the preposed content verb (Cincius 1949: 252); cf. the (3rd person) negative past participle form in (17a). The corresponding confirmative form in (17b) differs from the negative merely by addition of the particle =kkA, and displays minor differences in the form of the (past) tense and agreement markers: (17) a.

Debo-a-cim.bi. WOrk-NEG-PP.lSG

b.

'(I) didn't work.' Debo-a-ca-i=ka. WOrk-NEG-PP. 1SG=PTCL

'(I) did work.'

In certain dialectal varieties of Evenki and Even a non-inflected confirmative-responsive form is found, which has a future time reference and may refer to any person. In Even central dialects it takes the form in -nukAn, as exemplified in (18b): (18) a. — M i n - u pioner-le i-ACC p i n e e r - L O C

i.v-d'i-s=ku? enter.cAus-FUT-2PL

'(And) would you let me enter the pioneer (organization)?' b. —I.v-nuken! enter.CAUS-coNF

'Sure, (we) will let (you) enter!'

In Evenki it takes the form in -kuun, as in (19b) from Vasilevic (1948: 242):

460

Andrej L. Malchukov

(19) a.

-Huru-d'e-s? gO-PROG-AOR.2SG

'Are you going?' b. — Huru-kuun! gO-CONF

'(Sure) I (we...) am (are...) going!'

This form has presumably developed from a verb plus particle combination: the enclitic particle -nukAn is still attested in some Even dialects.

5.2. Evidentiality and hypothetical forms In North-Tungusic languages epistemic modality is expressed primarily by special hypothetical mood forms, which may be differentiated for tense-aspect. Thus, the set of hypothetical mood forms in Evenki includes the nonfuture in -nAA- (saa-naa-s 'you probably know'), the past in -rkA- (saa-rke-sun 'you probably knew'), and the habitual in -rgu- (dagi-rgu-s 'you, probably, used to cross the river'). Even has one specialized hypothetical mood form in -mnA-, which apart from epistemic possibility (e.g., nulge-mne-n 'probably, nomadizes') may express obligation (geleci-mne-vu Ί must look for'). It can further have an evidential or perhaps an attenuative interpretation, as in (20) from Lebedev (1978): (20) Hurken youth.NOM

honga-mna-ca. weep-PROB-PERF.3sG

'The youth nearly/apparently wept.'

Still, evidential meaning is clearly not categorical for these forms, since its primary use is to express possibility of the proposition rather than to specify the source of information. East-Tungusic languages generally lack specialized hypothetical mood forms. Instead they make use of sentential clause-final particles, normally the auxiliary verb bi- 'be' in the future tense form; cf. Nanai bid'ere, Ulcha bile 'maybe' and its equivalents in other Tungusic languages, such as bid'in/bimnen in Even or bid'engen in Evenki. Note

Perfect, evidentiality

and related categories

461

that future forms of auxiliaries, in contrast to future forms of content verbs, have developed unequivocal modal meanings, which is also typical of the evolution of indirective copula markers (cf. Johanson 1994 on the Turkish indirect evidential particle imi§, historically the perfect form of the auxiliary, which has specialized in the modal function).8 Finally, enclitic particles also take part in the formation of irrealis moods or even express epistemic modality on their own; cf., e.g., the dubitative enclitic =dakit in Evenki (Konstantinova 1964: 190).

5.3. Similative-evidential forms More pertinent for the current topic are similative-evidential forms, such as the Even form in -mdAs. This form is used to hedge the truth of the proposition, indicating that the speaker is not certain in identification (of properties) of the object. It is closer to the evidential since its meaning, apart from hypothetical semantics, presupposes apprehension. Still, this form differs from markers of direct evidentiality in that it includes an additional semantic component, meaning roughly: 'smth. happens near me, this smth. looks like X'. The similative marker is primarily a nominal form,9 as in (21a), but can also be applied to verbs, provided they take a participial form, as in (21b): (21) a. Asi-mdas

nulge-n.

woman-siMiL

nomadize-NF-3sG

'Somebody w h o looks like a woman nomadizes.' b. Asi nulge-ri-mdes. woman

nomadize-PRES.PART-siMiL-3sG

Ά woman apparently nomadizes.'

A number of Tungusic languages make use of less grammaticalized similative-evidential markers. Thus, in Even is found the clause-final particle ureci-n 'like; apparently' of similative origin, which, in contrast to -mdAs forms, is used to indicate inference based on indirect evidence. Thus, whereas (21b) is only appropriate in a situation of direct apprehension, (22) may be uttered upon seeing, for example, the tracks of a nomadizing woman.

462

Andrej L.

Malchukov

(22) Asi nulge-n ureci.n. woman.NOM nomadize-NF.3sG similar.3sG 'It must be a woman who nomadizes.'

Finally, there are similative/equative forms cognate with Even -gAcin, which have a different grammatical status in individual Tungusic languages. Whereas in Nanai =kAci is an enclitic particle, its equivalent in Evenki is a special derivational form. In Even it has further acquired the status of a special "equative" case in -gAcin, which does not cooccur with other case forms. Interestingly, the Even form in -gAcin may have indirect evidential uses when attached to the perfect participle. Such forms are used to hedge assertions concerning states/processes inaccessible for direct apprehension, e.g., mental/emotional states of other persons: tikul-ca-gcin 'angrily (lit. as if getting angry)', tivne-ce-gcin '(lit. as i f ) relieved'.

5.4. Quotative forms Direct speech in Tungusic languages is normally introduced by the verb göön-lun- 'say', used in the finite form, when preceding, and in the converbial form, when following the quoted material (cf., e.g., Even converbial forms gööniken/göömi/göönid'i 'saying/having said'). Some Even varieties exhibit an overuse of göön in the invariable form, which indicates a beginning grammaticalization process: (23) Gaaran'd'a göönni: "Ongalgan, göön, hii caamaj nungu bi-se-nri. G-bird say-NF-3sG O-bird QUOT youmost fool be-NF-2sG oon, göön, d'eb-d'i-n, göön, ia-c ciki-d'i-n, göön..." how QUOT eat-FUT-3SG QUOT what-INSTR CUt-FUT-3SG QUOT 'The Gaaran 'd'a -bird said: "Ongalgan-bird, what a fool you are! How will he (the fox) eat you, how will he cut the tree.

Nanai represents a further step in the grammaticalization process by having developed the quotative enclitic =(j)Am. As originally suggested by Petrova (cf. Avrorin 1961: 275-276), 10 this enclitic has developed from the verb un- 'say' in the form of the simultaneous converb in -mil-mari. It is used as a citation particle with both verbs of speech and mental predicates.

Perfect, evidentiality (24) Mi Ι.NOM

haj-va

un-ke-i?!

Gamasom-ba

what-ACC

Say-PAST-ISG

son-in-law-ACC

pondad'o-i

edi

sister-REF.SG

nOt(LMPER)

and related categories

463

baogo-o-ri=am find-PASs-PRES PART=QUOT

olbinda-m. fetCh-NEG.IMPER.2SG=QUOT

'Haven't I said?! W e have to find our son-in-law, don't bring along your sister.'

The use of refrain words in Tungusic folklore may be regarded as a special means of marking direct speech. In North-Tungusic epic tales individual refrain words normally introduce heroes' monologues (dialogues), which are recited in contrast to the bulk of narration. Thus in the following example adopted from an Even epic tale the pratagonist's—Kidani's—speech is introduced by the individual refrain word Kiido-kiido(-gu): (25) Kidani göön-ni Kidani NOM say-N0NFUT.3sG Kiido-kiido-gu Helnike-ken Kiido-kiido-PTCL Helniken-DEM Kiido-kiido-gu hooni-ka-mar Kiido-kiido-PTCL

kutet-ken brother-in-law-DEM hee-mke-t'-kere...

mighty-DEM-REF.POS.PL

try-CAUS-STAT-IMPER:lPL

'Kidani said: "My brother-in-law Helniken, let us try each other's valience..." '

In East-Tungusic folklore, refrain words are reduced either in frequency, occurring only at culmination points of narration as in Nanai, or in form, as in Ulcha. According to Sunik (1985: 13), Ulcha fairytales make use of the generalized male and female refrains: the hero's speech is normally introduced by Jo-jolda, whereas the maiden's refrain word is Nargulda. The Tungusic refrain words differ from quotatives proper both stylistically (being restricted to folklore) and functionally: apart from marking citation they are used to introduce/identify participants."

6. Conclusions As is clear from the above discussion of Tungusic markers of epistemic modality, they are not purely evidential in meaning. According to Palmer (1986) the system of epistemic modality, indicating commit-

464

Andrej L. Malchukov

ment of the speaker to the truth of the proposition, includes as its sub-systems Judgements (of possibility and necessity) and Evidentials, as well as a related domain of discourse functions (such as question, counter-assertion, etc). Within this conceptual framework, hypothetical markers, considered in Section 5.2, belong rather to Judgements, whereas confirmative markers (in particular, the confirmative-responsive form) are related to certain discourse functions. Similative markers in Section 5.3 are more closely related to evidentials proper, but normally include additional semantic components. On the face of it, the quotative markers discussed in Section 5.4, should be considered genuine evidentials, since they explicitly indicate the source of information. Still, in contrast to hearsay forms and other prototypical evidentials, which specify the information source in order to qualify commitment to the truth of the proposition (Palmer 1986), quotatives are not used to abdicate this commitment from the speaker. Another instructive minimal pair is represented by an opposition of inferential markers and "concrete resultati ves". According to Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1983), "concrete" (observable) resultati ves (e.g. 'broken' or 'fastened'), which refer to the observable state of a preceding action, are opposed to "general" resultatives (e.g. 'killed' or 'eaten up'), for which the observability requirement is not categorical. Clearly, the "concrete resultative", as attested, for example, in Chinese, Mongolian and Chukchi, is similar to inferential markers in that it makes reference to observable results of a preceding action, but differs from the latter in that it lacks the deductive component. In other words, the meaning of evidential markers is inherently complex, and the widely accepted definition of these forms as specifying the source of the information in the proposition does not do full justice to their semantics. The meaning of inferential evidentials, such as the inferential perfect in Turkic or Tungusic languages, provides a particularly good illustration of this semantic heterogeneity. The semantics of prototypical inferentials indicating "inference from results" (another inferential category—"inference from reasoning" in Willet's terms—is virtually indistinguishable from epistemic Judgements) arguably includes three components: 1) 'before the reference point 11 did not know/think that P'; 2) 'at 11 have evidence that P' (i.e. Ί observe

Perfect, evidentiality

and related categories

465

some situation E which may be thought as a result of P'); 3) 'therefore I conclude that P'. Clearly, individual languages may give more prominence to a certain semantic component, which is in need of special investigation. On the other hand, even with regard to the same language (as well as in cross-linguistic overviews) different scholars tend to focus on one component in the meaning of inferential at the expense of others. Thus, Palmer interprets inferential evidentials (such as the Turkish perfect in -mi§) as part of a Judgement system, emphasizing the third "deductive" component in the proposed explication. For DeLancey (1997), by contrast, it is rather a manifestation of the "mirative" category, marking information that the speaker was unaware of (cf. the first semantic component). 12 Finally, most other scholars (e.g. Willet 1988) consider Inferential as the second major subtype of the indirect evidentiality along with Hearsay, giving more prominence to the second component. Thus, the semantic heterogeneity of evidential markers accounts for the controversies regarding the interpretation of evidential categories, as well as for the difficulties in differentiating evidentials proper from other systems within the domain of epistemic modality. Second, it accounts for the fact that pure evidential systems are cross-linguistically rare, as compared to "mixed" epistemic systems, which include both Evidential and Judgement terms, as well as discourse markers (Palmer 1986). Finally, it provides an additional motivation for the diachronic reanalysis of an evidential system into a validational one, as attested, for example, in (East-) Tungusic languages.

Notes 1. The author gratefully acknowledges partial financial support of his research of Tungusic evidentials from the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul and the Russian Humanities Science Foundation (grant no. 98-04-06048). 2. The inherently passive participle in -sA in Udihe is presumably related to North-Tungusic perfect -cA forms (Benzing 1955: 139). In other East-Tungusic languages the -cA forms are non-productive and retained in fossilized nominal forms. Notably, when derived from transitives these forms invariably show the object-orientation. 3. Cincius (1949) considers these forms to be cognate, whereas Benzing (1955) dis-

466

Andrej L. Malchukov

agrees, alluding to subjunctive forms in -mcA and fossilized -cA forms in East-Tungusic. Sunik (1962) deems both alternatives plausible. Kormushin (1984), in line with Benzing, regards East-Tungusic forms as heteroclitic, regarding only -ci allomorphs as cognate with the North-Tungusic perfect. In the latter case semantic convergence is conceivable. 4. Avrorin (1961) attributes low occurrence of the 3rd person (of the verbal present) forms to their homonymy with the anterior converb. Still, this explanation does not account for the high markedness (and still lower frequency) of the 3rd person past tense forms which lack converbial equivalents. 5. This evolution is apparently available only for those direct evidential markers which do not specify a source of information, as is the case in many Amerindian languages. 6. The same process is attested in many other Siberian languages and language families: Turkic, Mongolian, but also Chukotka-Kamchatkan (cf. Present 2, and Past 2 forms of participial origin in Chukchee), Nivkh (cf. the unmarked predicative form in -d' is of the nominal origin), Jukagir (cf. the intransitive past tense in -j(e)/t'(e)/d'(e) of a participial origin and the verbal noun/participle in -/, used for backgrounded predicates), Eskimo-Aleut (resulting in a virtual indistinguishability between verb and noun in Aleut). 7. Of course, in some other languages this change in parts-of-speech status can be blurred by the use of periphrastic resultative-perfect forms. 8. Cf. also a similar evolution of the Tungusic confirmative particles: Even kehni, Evenki kehin, Nanai bi-e-si=ke 'for sure'. 9. In some dialects (e.g. Allaikha) this form occurs frequently with adjectives to indicate a relatively low intensity (hulan'a-mdas 'reddish/sort of red'). 10. Cf. also the question particle =gu and its cognates in Tungusic languages, which is presumably related to göön-, 11. For the origin of refrain words in Evenki see Myreeva (1980). According to Myreeva (1980), they stem from tribal names, as proposed originally by G. M. Vasilevic, onomatopoetic terms (esp., when rendering an animal's speech). In Even most refrains are closely related to the hero's name, as in (25) above. 12. According to DeLancey the basic function of the Turkish perfect in -mi§ just like the mirative forms in Tibetan and some other languages is to mark information which is new for the speaker. Still such interpretation overlooks an important difference between these forms: whereas Tibetan forms may imply perception of the actual occurrence of the event, the Turkish form invariably implies perception of its results. In other words, the second (evidential/resultative) component is categorical for the use of the Turkish form.

Perfect, evidentiality and related categories

467

References Avrorin, V. A. 1961 Grammatika nanajskogo jazyka [Nanai grammar], 2. Moskva/Leningrad: Nauka. Benzing, Johannes 1955 Die tungusischen Sprachen. Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, No. 11.). Wiesbaden: Steiner. Boldyrev, Β. V. 1987 Slovoobrazovanie imen suscestvitel'nyx ν tunguso-man'czurskix jazykax [Nominal derivation in Tungus-Manchu languages]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Bybee, Joan-Revere Perkins-William Pagliuca 1994 The evolution of grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Cincius, V. I. 1949 Sravnitel'naja fonetika tunguso-man'czurskix jazykov [Comparative phonetics of Tungus-Manchu languages], Leningrad: Nauka. 1982 Negidal'skij jazyk [Negidal]. Leningrad: Nauka. Comrie, Bernhard 1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeLancey, Scott 1997 "Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information", Linguistic Typology 1: 33-53. Doerfer, Gerhard 1978 "Classification problems of Tungus", Tungusica, Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1-26. Dutkin, X. I. 1980 "Umcegyn" [Umcegyn: an Even tale], in:Voprosy jazyka i fol'klora narodnostej severa [Issues in language and folklore of northern nationalities], Jakutsk, 103-118. Friedman, Victor 1986 "Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian", in: Chafe, Wallace—Johanna Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: the coding of epistemology in language. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 168-187. Girfanova, Α. X. 1988 Indikativnye formy glagola ν udegejskom jazyke [Indicative forms in Udihe], Unpublished doct. diss. Leningrad. Gorelova, L. M. 1979 Kategorija vida ν èvenkijskom jazyke [Aspect in Evenki]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

468

Andrej L. Malchukov

Johanson, Lars 1994 "Türkeitürkische Aspekto tempora", in: R. Thieroff—J. Ballweg (eds.) Tense systems in European languages, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2 4 7 266.

2000

"Viewpoint operators in European languages", in: Ö. Dahl (ed.) Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Konstantinova, Ο. Α. 1964 Êvenkijskij jazyk [Evenki], Moskva/Leningrad: Nauka. Lebedev, V. D. 1978 Jazyk èvenov Yakutii [Language of Evens of Yakutia], Leningrad: Nauka. Malchukov, Andrej L. 1995 Even. Unterschleissheim & Newcastle: LINCOM EUROPA. Maslov, Ju. S. 1983 "Rezul'tativ, perfekt i glagol'nyj vid" [Resultative, perfect and verbal aspect], in: Nedjalkov V. P. (ed.), 41-54. Myreeva A. N. 1980 "O zapevax evenkijskix skazanij" [On refrain words in Evenki tales], in: Voprosy jazyka ifol'klora narodnostej severa [Issues in language and folklore of northern nationalities]. Jakutsk, 93-103. Nedjalkov, I. V. 1992 Zalog, vid, vremya ν tunguso-man'czurskix jazykax. [Voice, aspect and tense systems in Tungus-Manchu languages]. Unpublished doct. diss. St.Petersburg. Nedjalkov, V. P.—I. V. Nedjalkov 1983 "Stativ, rezul'tativ, passiv i perfekt ν èvenkijskom jazyke" [Stative, resultative, passive and perfect in Evenki], in: Nedjalkov V. P. (ed.) , 124-133. Nedjalkov, V. P.—S. E. Jaxontov 1983 Tipologija rezul'tativnyx konstrukcij. [Typology of resultative constructions], in: Nedjalkov V. P. (ed.), 5-41. Nedjalkov, V. P., (ed.) 1983 Tipologija rezul'tativnyx konstrukcij. [Typology of resultative constructions], Leningrad: Nauka. 1988 Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Novikova, K. A. 1980 Ocerki dialektov évenskogo jazyka. Oiskij govor [A sketch of Even dialect systems. The Ola dialect.]. II. Leningrad: Nauka. Palmer, Frank R. 1986 Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perfect, evidentiality

and related categories

469

Romanova, Α. V.—Myreeva, A. N. 1962 Ocerki tokkinskogo i tommotskogo dialektov [Sketches of Tokkin and Tommot dialects of Evenki], Moskva/Leningrad: Nauka. 1964 Ocerki ucurskogo, majskogo i tottinskogo dialektov [Sketches of Uchura, Maja and Tottin dialects of Evenki]. Moskva/Leningrad: Nauka. Sneider, E. R. 1936 Kratkij udegejsko-russkij slovar'. S prilozeniem grammaticeskogo spravocnika [A short Udihe-Russian dictionary]. Moskva/Leningrad: Nauka. Sunik, Orest P. 1962 Glagol ν tunguso-man ' czurskix jazykax /The verb in Tungus-Manchu languages], Leningrad: Nauka. Traugott, Elizabeth C.-Ekkehard König 1991 "The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited", in: Elizabeth C. Traugott—Bernd Heine (eds.) Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 189— 219. Vasilevic, G. M. 1948 Ocerki dialektov èvenkijskogo jazyka [Sketches of Evenki dialects]. Leningrad: Nauka. Willett, Thomas 1988 "A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticizations of evidentiality", Studies in Language 12: 51-97. YG 1982 Grammatika sovremennogo jakutskogo jazyka [Grammar of contemporary Yakut]. Moskva: Nauka.

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in glosses: ACC—accusative; AOR—aorist; CAUS—causative; DEMIN—deminutive; EVID—evidential; FUT—future; IMPER—imperative; INSTR—instrumental; ITER—iterative; LOC—locative; MOM—momentative (aspect); NEG—negative; NEG.CONV—negative converb; NF—nonfuture; NOM—nominative; PERF—perfect; PERF.PART—perfect participle; PL—plural; POS—possessive; PRÈS—present; PRES.PART—present participle; PROB—probability (mood); P T C L — particle; QUOT—quotative; REF—reflexive, RES—resultative, SÍMIL—similative.

Evidentiality in Kinnauri Anju Saxena 1. Introduction An attempt to reiterate a message verbatim is usually regarded as more authentic than conveying the same message indirectly.1 This observation has led linguists such as Thurgood (1981) to suggest that direct and indirect speech are structural mechanisms to mark evidentiality. Other scholars such as Mansen and Mansen (1976) and Wittie (1977) suggest discourse-oriented functions of the direct and indirect speech, where direct speech, and not indirect speech, occurs in climax situations. This paper concerns itself with the evidential interpretations associated with the copulas to and du in direct and indirect speech in Kinnauri, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in the Himachal Pradesh region in India. It is suggested here that, for text analysis purposes, it is more useful to make a distinction between direct speech and what may be called indirect free speech, even though it is structurally possible to distinguish direct and indirect speech in a language, such as Kinnauri. The indirect free speech includes cases of indirect speech. An interesting feature of Kinnauri in the light of the theme of this volume is the constraints on the combination of tense and evidential markers in indirect free speech.

2. Finite sentence structure Tibeto-Burman languages are clause-chaining languages, in which the verb of the final clause carries the finite verb morphology (see, for example, (1)). A finite verb in Kinnauri contains a verb stem, tense marker and a subject agreement marker. An object agreement marker, aspect marker and evidential marker may also occur on the final verb complex (for details, see Saxena 1995). Copulas may also occur in noncopula constructions, where they function as auxiliaries. The tense markers in copula constructions as well as in noncopula constructions

472

Anju

Saxena

involving the copulas are the same, i.e., -tal-tll-tel-tol-ll-o (future tense) and -kel-ge and -gyo (past tense). The present tense does not have any overt marking.2 (1)

ki-n you(HON)-GEN

chad mes=pa son.in.law last.night

là au food

kdm little

zaza eat/NF

prat-o-ts picar) tutjzQ_ du serving.plate-LOC-ABL starch drink-PROG be/PRST '(The smart man said to the old woman) "Having eaten very little last night, your son-in-law is (now) drinking starch (leftover liquid from rice) from the serving plate." '

2.1. Copula construction To, du and ni function as copulas. To and du occur in nonfuture tenses. Clauses involving the copula to may have all three persons as their subjects, but du occurs only with third person subjects. The copula ni, on the other hand, occurs in all tenses. In the future tense it can occur with all persons, where the tense and subject agreement markers are suffixed to the copula ni (example (2)), but it occurs only with third person subjects in past and present tenses. No inflectional endings are affixed to ni in nonfuture tenses (example (3)). In the last case, discourse context denotes the temporal situation of the clause. (2)

g3 nab kim-o I tomorrow house-Loo Ί will be at home tomorrow.'

(3)

do-go skul-o hus-idya s/he-PL School-Loc read-NOM 'They were students.'

ni-ta-k be-FUT-lSG

chag-o boy-PL

du-ge/ be-PST

to-ke/ be-PST

ni be/NONFUT/3

All three copulas can occur with third person subjects in the nonfuture (example (3)). In such constructions the distribution of the copulas is semantically conditioned. The semantic interpretations associated with to and du in clauses with nonhonorific subjects is as follows. To, in such constructions, indicates that the subject is somehow related to

Evidentiality in Kinnauri

473

the speaker. This may either be because they are members of the same family or because they are in physical proximity. Du is used in contexts where the subject does not belong to the speaker and the speaker has no information or knowledge about the subject. Ni is used in conversations where the hearer has some doubts either about the very existence of the subject, or in identifying the subject, whereas the speaker knows the answer (either because he saw it himself or because he has some way of knowing the truth). Consider the following sentence. (4)

katab dam

to

book

be/PRST

good

/

du

/

be/pRST

ni be/PRST

'The book is good.'

To is used in (4) because the book either belongs to the speaker or is in his possession when speaking. Du is used as the book neither belongs to the speaker nor is it in his possession. Ni is used because the hearer has some doubts concerning the book being good, while the speaker is quite confident that the book is good. The distribution and the semantic interpretations of the copulas {to, du and ni) remain the same with animate subjects. In (5), below, to is used when Sonam is either a family member of the speaker, or is presently with the speaker. Du is used, when Sonam is not a family member of the speaker, nor is she in physical proximity to the speaker. Ni is used if the hearer has some doubts about Sonam being a good person and the speaker knows that she is a good person. (5)

sonam

dam

to

name

good

be/PRST

/

du

/

be/PRST

ni be/PRST

'Sonam is good.'

The following examples show that the distribution and the semantic interpretations associated with the copulas remain the same in the past tense. (6)

g3 pijares

to-ke-k

1

be-PST-lsG

priest

Ί w a s a priest.'

/ *du-ge-k be-PST-lsG

474 Anju Saxena (7) kd

pijares to-ke-n

you(-HON)

priest

/ *du-ge-n

be-PST-2(-HON)

be-PST-2(-HON)

'YOU(-HON) w e r e a p r i e s t . '

hus-idya char¡ to-ke/ du-ge/ ni

(8) nu skul-o h e School-Loc

read-NOM

boy

be-PST

be-PST

be/NONFUT/3

' H e w a s a student.'

The copula to is used in (8) above, if the subject is either a family member of the speaker, or is in physical proximity to the speaker. Ni is used if the hearer has some doubts regarding the subject being a student and the speaker knows that the subject was a student. Otherwise, du is used. 2.2. Noncopula construction Copulas (to and du) also function as auxiliaries in the noncopula constructions in Kinnauri. (9) ram-is name-ERG

charj-u tar]tag boy-DAT

see/PERF

du-ge/ to-ke be-PST

be-PST

'Ram saw a boy.'

In the imperfective and progressive aspects, the semantic distinction of the copulas is carried over in the noncopula construction with nonhonorific subjects: with first and second person subjects only to occurs as the auxiliary (10-11), but with third person subjects both to and du may occur (12-13). The semantic factor which determines the choice of the auxiliary in the noncopula construction is the same as in the copula construction, where to indicates that the subject is somehow related to the speaker. This could be either because they are related to each other by kinship or the subject is physically close to the speaker. Du, on the other hand, indicates that the speaker either does not want to specify this information or that the subject is not related to the speaker. (10) gd git^ag lan-ts I

song

make-IMPF

Ί used to sing songs.'

to-ke-k be-PST-ISG

Evidentiality in Kinnauri (11) ki

toto sick 'You are sick.'

to-ñ

you(HON)

be-2HON

(12) supakts lis bdd-o evening cold come-PROG 'It is cold in the evening.' (13) lag kim-o c o w house-Loo

475

du be/PRST

bang

tshutsl'u to

outside

tie/PERF be/PRST

' T h e c o w is t i e d o u t s i d e . '

3. Direct and indirect speech in Kinnauri In this section we will observe that the semantic information associated with to and du occurs not only in direct speech, but is also carried over in the quotative construction and in indirect speech. Before we can do that, it is pertinent to my aims that we examine whether Kinnauri structurally distinguishes direct and indirect speech. For the present purposes, we can define direct and indirect speech as follows. DIRECT SPEECH:

In direct speech, the reporter-speaker plays the role of the reported/original speaker. The reporter-speaker intends for the hearer to believe that the form, the content and the non-verbal messages.. .of the reported speech originate from the reported speaker. (Li 1986: 38) INDIRECT SPEECH:

In indirect speech, the reporter-speaker does not play the role of the reporter speaker. The form and non-verbal messages of the reported speech belong to the reporter-speaker. (Li 1986: 38)

Sentences (14) and (15) illustrate direct and indirect speech in Kinnauri. (14) ram-is

riTj-o

"g3 kamdrj sugsug to-k" I work finish/PERF be-lsG 'Ram said "I have finished the work." '

name-ERG Say-PST

476

Anju Saxena

(15) ram-is riq-a ki do-s kamarj surjsug name-ERG Say-PST COMP s/he-ERG work finish/PERF 'Ram said that he (Ram) has finished the work.'

to be/PRST

The two diagnostic criteria for distinguishing direct and indirect speech in Kinnauri are the referential strategy of pronouns and the retention of modality information in direct speech. (i) Pronouns Not all languages structurally distinguish direct and indirect speech. Further, even among those languages which do make this distinction, one observes variation in the range of linguistic differences between direct speech and indirect speech, spanning from languages where an elaborate set of structural distinctions is made between direct and indirect speech to languages which distinguish the two constructions minimally. Despite this difference, all languages that structurally differentiate direct and indirect speech have at least one thing in common: the first and second person arguments in direct speech refer to the reported speaker and the reported addressee, respectively. Conforming with this, the reference of the third person arguments in a quotation can never be the reported speaker nor the reported addressee outside the direct quote. In a sentence, such as (16) for instance, the third person pronoun does not refer back to the reported speaker. This, in part, can be gathered from the choice of the auxiliary. (16) ram-Is rirj-a ki do-s kamarj sugsog name-ERG Say-PST COMP s/he-ERG work finish/PERF 'Ram said that he (someone else) has finished the work.'

du be/PRST

(ii) Modality information The difference between imperative and declarative is maintained in the direct speech construction, but this distinction is structurally lost in indirect speech in Kinnauri. (17) ga-s do-paq "pQ-ts bo" I-ERG s/he-DAT here-ABS go/iMP Ί asked him to go from here.'

lo-k say-lsG

Evidentiality (18) ga-(s) I-ERG

do-par)

pr¡-ts

bi-mu

lo-k

s/he-DAT

here-ABS

go-NOM

say-lsG

in Kinnauri

477

Ί asked him to go from here.'

Further, direct and indirect speech also differ concerning the degree of "fusion" of the "main clause" and the complement. In Kinnauri the complementizer ki3 may occur between the main clause and the complement, but it does not occur with direct quotes, for example, chaq mother-ERG Say-PST-3(H0N) COMP boy 'Mother said that the boy is sick today.'

(19) ama-s

(20) nirja-s

riq-a-s

ki

ram name 'We heard that Ram has won (X).'

we-ERG

toro today

toto sick

tas-e-c

ki

zitataya

du

hear-PST-LPL

COMP

win/PERF

be/PRST

du be/PRST

A further distinction between direct and indirect speech in Kinnauri is the intonation break between a direct quote and the verb of saying, but not between an indirect quote and the verb of saying. Other criteria which are sometimes used to distinguish direct speech from indirect speech, for example, deictics such as 'this/that', 'here/there' 'now/ then' and 'come/go' are not relevant for this distinction in Kinnauri. We will now examine the occurrence of the copulas to and du along with their semantic interpretations in the quotative construction and in direct and indirect speech. Kinnauri has two verbs of saying, lo and rig. The lexical verb rig is used when referring to the speaker and lo is used when referring to someone else. In the quotative construction in Kinnauri, rig-o (literally 'say-PST') functions as the quotative marker, occurring after the quoted material. The quotative construction retains the direct speech characteristics. For example, first and second person pronouns in the quoted material refer to the original speaker and not to the person who is reporting the message. (21) lagtsya-s servant-ERG

hurs-o

ga-s

deny-PST I-ERG

ma-fyo-k NEG-take.away-lsG

rigo QUOTE

'The servant denied that he had stolen (took away) (anything).'

478

Anju

Saxena

(22) ama-s

chag-u

léou za-ñ food eat-2(H0N) 'Mother called the boy to c o m e and eat.'

mother-ERG

dok

ku-s

boy-ACC then

call-3(HON)

rigo QUOTE

The semantic factors determining the occurrence of to and du are the same for the quotative construction (24) and for indirect speech (2526) as in direct speech (23). They are the same as described earlier, where to indicates closeness to the speaker and du is either neutral or indicates distance from the speaker. Direct speech (23) ama-pag mother-DAT

pata

du-s,

ag

cbar¡

sarabi

to

know

be-3(HON)

my

boy

alcoholic

be/PRST

'Mother knows that her son is an alcoholic.' Quotative construction (24) ama-pag ail £4£2 mother-DAT my

boy

sarabi

to

rigo

pata

alcoholic

be/PRST

QUOTE

know

du-s be-3(H0N)

'Mother knows that her son is an alcoholic.' Indirect speech (25) ama mother

an-u

tAag

wal

husyar

to

self-GEN

boy

much

intelligent

be/PRST feel-PROG be/PRST

tsal-o

du

'Mother feels that her son is intelligent.' (26) ama-ρ3g pata du-s toro baiar mother-DAT know be-3(H0N) today market 'Mother knows that the market is closed today.'

band closed

du be/PRST

3.1. Text analysis Even though Kinnauri structurally makes a distinction between direct and indirect speech in the direct elicited data, a text analysis of nine oral Kinnauri narratives suggests that it is not always possible to distinguish indirect speech from that of the narrator's narration. In the texts that were examined for the present paper, there was not even one instance of indirect speech, including a head, such as he said that. In the following two excerpts, for example, it is not clear whether the underlined pieces of propositions are instances of indirect speech or part of the narrator's narration.

Evidentiality (27) g3 I

bi-td-k

g3 byobyo

kar-ta-k

go-FUT-lsG

I

bring-FUT-1SG

go/pERF

katai

mas

kod-o

du

at.all

refuse

tell-PROG

be/PRST

dok

byo-o

du

then

g0-PR0G

be/PRST

in Kinnauri

479

rii)-o Say-PST

' "I will go. I will go and bring it." He is refusing. Then he is going (away).' (28) an-e-nu self-EMPH-GEN

hurt ta now

pa

rani-le

bal

dukh3T¡-ts

4

queen-EMPH

head

Sad-INST

hode-s

EMPH that-iNST

sare

tsP-etshmi

kar-a-s

beautiful

girl

bring-PST-3(HON)

do nipi raja ta bal làus-is raj tsalaya-o he after king EMPH head happy-INST estate run-PST 'His four wives were feeling sad. (Thinking that) he has married a beautiful woman. The king lives happily.'

Such an ambiguity is understandable in oral narratives, keeping in mind that a story is told within the physical and temporal frame of the world-view the narrator has created for the story and it is within this frame that different characters play their roles. The narrator tells the story for the most part from one particular viewpoint, but (s)he does not have to be restricted to that particular point. Rather, (s)he has the freedom to move from one point to another or to tell the same event from different perspectives, describing the situation as a whole at one moment and then elaborating on the same event from the point of view of one of the characters. This is especially evident in oral narratives. This flexibility on the part of the narrator makes it difficult to structurally distinguish indirect speech from the rest of the narration. Thus, for text analysis purposes, it is worthwhile to examine direct speech, on the one hand, and indirect free speech, which includes what technically may be instances of indirect speech, on the other. An attempt to analyze the structural differences between direct and indirect free speech reveals interesting differences between the two. Here I will concentrate on the choice of the evidential markers to and du and the past tense markers.

480 Anju Saxena (i) to-du in direct speech The semantic values associated with to and du in the direct speech of narratives are the same as in the direct elicited data, where to indicates closeness to the speaker and du indicates that the entity does not belong to the speaker. In contrast, in the indirect free speech it is only du which occurs in both copula and noncopula constructions. (29) ρ 3-ra wait-iMP

ρ 3-ra

ka-n

enil]

swig hac-is

du

wait-iMP

you(HON)-GEN

udder

red

be/PRST

become-PERF

' "Wait! Wait! Your udder is red." (The demon said to the cow).'

(30) aq my

eniy-o

i

tsh atshats to

udder-LOC

one

girl

be/PRST

'(The cow said to the brahmin:) "There is a girl inside my udder." '

(ii) Neutral vs. distant past tense markers The two past tense markers which may occur with copulas in Kinnauri are -kel-ge4 and -gyo. The suffix -ke occurs with the copula to and -ge occurs with the copula du. (31 ) gas id if'ar sa-ts to-ke-k I-ERG a

lion

kill-iMPF be-PST-LSG

Ί had killed a lion.'

(32) g3pijares to-ke-k I

priest

be-PST-lSG

Ί was a priest.'

(33) do pijares du-ge (s)he priest

be-PST

'(S)he was a priest.'

The suffix -gyo functions as the distant past tense marker. It is sometimes realized as -kyo. (34) ms chaq-o byo-gyo two

boy-PL

go-D.PST

'The two boys went.'

(35) do-s (s)he-ERG

lo-kyo say-D.psT

'(S)he said (it).'

Evidentiality in Kinnauri

481

The distant past tense marker gyo occurs only in the indirect free speech of narratives, where it always occurs with du and never with to. Further, it is only the copula du (and never to) which occurs in indirect free speech. The distribution of to, du and the distant past tense marker (-gyo) seems to be correlated with the differences in the level of involvement of the narrator. It seems that when the narrator tells the story or the event from a distance, this distance is indicated, linguistically, both in the choice of the past tense marker and in the choice of du and not to as the copula and auxiliary. The examples chosen illustratively confirm a suggestion made in the literature (Chafe 1982) that direct speech expresses the narrator's involvement in the event (s)he is narrating, using the semantic marker to to indicate personal involvement.

Notes 1. Data for this paper was collected during two field trips to India. The first field trip was supported in part by NSF grant Π BNS-8711370 and the second by an Olof Gjerdman travel grant from Uppsala University. I would like to thank my language consultants for their generous support. 2. This complement construction along with its complementizer ki is a borrowing in Kinnauri from Indie languages. 3. The past tense suffixes -ke and -ge are sometimes realized as -ce when they are followed by an agreement marker.

References Chafe, Wallace 1982 "Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature", in: D. Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood: Ablex, 35-44. Li, Charles Ν 1986 "Direct and indirect speech: A functional study", in: Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter, 29-44. Mansen, R.—K. Mansen 1976 "The structure of sentence and paragraph in Guajiro narrative discourse", R. E. Longacre (ed.), Discourse grammar, Part 1. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 147-258.

482

Anju

Saxena

Saxena, Anju 1995 "Finite verb morphology in Kinnauri", Cahiers de Linguistique, Asie Orientale 24.2:257-282. Thurgood, G. 1981 "The historical development of the Akha evidentials system", in: Proceedings from the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 295-302. Wittie. P. 1977 "Functions of the Andoke copulative in discourse and sentence structure", in: R. E. Longacre (ed.), Discourse grammar. Part 3. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 253-288.

Abbreviations 1—first person, 2—second person, 3—third person, ABL—ablative, ACC—accusative, COMP—complementizer, DAT—dative, D.PST—distant past, EMPH—emphasis, ERG—ergative, FUT—future, GEN—genitive, HON—honorific, IMP—imperative, IMPF—imperfective, INST—instrumental, LOC—locative, NEG—negative, NF—nonfinal verb, NOM—nominalizer, NONFUT—nonfuture, PERF—perfective, PL—plural, PROG—progressive, PRST—present, PST—past, SG—singular.

Index

Abkhaz 275,313, 323 actional phrase 30, 62, 63, 66, 157 adab prose 266 admiration, admirative, admirativity 38, 61, 82, 84, 154, 177, 236, 237, 253, 288, 292, 294, 297, 305, 310, 315318, 322, 339-344, 346, 347-350, 354, 360, 362, 363, 366, 415, 425 affirmative 3, 46, 47, 51, 53, 109, 292, 396, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456 - particle 110 - sentence 354 affirmative-emphatic 452,454,455 Afghanistan 229, 230, 250, 251, 255 Afghan Uzbek 78 aktionsart 116, 137, 393 Albanian, albanais 10, 83, 84, 154, 215, 216, 227, 315, 322, 329, 340, 342344, 346-350, 354, 355, 357, 359, 360, 362-364, 366, 416, 425, 429, 437,467 ambiguity 69, 306,479 Amdo Tibetan 45 Americas, language of 1 analytic 298, 313, 320, 334, 360, 420, 422,427, 433,434, 436, 438 Anatolian 75, 178, 358, 369, 370, 375, 378 anterior, anteriority 9,12,30,38, 39,40, 46, 47, 58, 63, 76, 91, 92, 104, 105, 107, 108, 160, 162, 189-191, 202, 261,263, 270, 457,466 -An turar 72 aorist, aoristic 28, 39, 93, 98, 99, 114, 117, 122-124, 126, 127, 129, 132, 140, 143, 165, 229, 259, 261, 267,

278, 279, 282, 286, 290, 291, 294, 297-300, 302-305, 307, 309, 316, 318, 319, 328, 330, 331, 342, 353, 356, 359, 361, 415, 443, 444, 446, 449,458,469 apprehended 68, 77 Arabic 9, 113, 236, 268, 368, 383, 384, 391-399 Archi 317, 325 areal - contact 3,420 - feature 7, 378 - influence 9,419,442 - phenomenon 9-11, 149, 276, 284 ä(r)mis 89, 96-99 Armenian 4, 64, 268, 276, 277, 284, 313, 314, 318, 320, 325, 327, 401, 402, 405, 408, 410,414-^17 Classical - 401 Modern Eastern - 4, 325, 401 arménien 215, 220, 227, 313, 321, 328, 416,417 Aromanian 10, 347-350, 356, 360, 365 aspecto temporal, aspecto-temporal - opposition 150, 151 - unit 91, 92, 96 aspectual 20, 21, 62, 64, 128, 132, 141, 148, 151, 154, 164, 176, 178, 202, 252, 253, 325, 366, 373, 383, 384, 415 assertion, assertive 3, 16-18,23-26,41, 45, 47, 53, 54, 110, 139, 212, 291, 292, 294, 295, 306, 311, 312, 320, 329, 354, 356, 372, 374, 376, 379, 380,425, 455, 462,464 assumption 3, 65, 70, 97, 110, 116, 201, 242, 268, 277, 448

484

Index

atelic 413,424, 428, 431,443 attitude 15,33,69,70, 81,147,170,236, 291, 317, 318, 329, 334, 357, 375 auditif 209, 326 auditory information 1 auxiliary 35, 36, 40, 58, 91, 95, 101, 114, 169, 205, 229, 231, 241, 243, 245, 246, 248, 250, 265, 334-338, 341, 342, 347, 364, 397, 402^108, 414, 415, 458-461, 474, 476, 481 auxiliation 248 Avar 275 awareness 15, 65, 67, 71, 77, 82, 176, 236, 237, 238, 245 Azerbaijanian, Azerbaijani, Azari, Azeri 74, 80, 81, 89, 93, 95, 97, 99, 100, 175, 187, 261, 277, 283, 284, 307,314,315, 323

backgrounding 55 Balkan 1, 2,6, 8, 84, 230,231,236, 237, 276, 284, 298, 316, 322, 329, 330, 331, 339, 340, 341, 343, 344, 346, 347, 349, 350, 353-355, 357-360, 362, 363, 366, 376, 416, 437, 456, 467 - languages 2, 6, 236, 237, 284, 354, 357, 359, 376 - Romance 329, 347, 355, 357, 363 - Slavic 2, 237, 329-331, 339-341, 343, 344, 346, 347, 349, 350, 355, 357, 359, 360, 362, 363, 366 Baluchi, baloutchi 223, 225, 226, 269, 271 Baonan 58, 59 Bashkir 76, 113,419 bil 84, 223,315,334, 346 -Bit, -byt 72, 80, 445 border area 383, 393 Bukhara 231,256

Bulgarian, bulgare 3 , 7 6 , 8 3 , 8 4 , 8 6 , 1 0 0 , 103, 112, 113, 177, 180, 206, 215, 216, 227, 310, 315, 316, 318, 320, 322, 324, 329, 330, 332, 334, 336338, 341, 342, 344, 346, 347, 353, 354, 359, 360, 361-363, 365, 366, 399, 409, 413, 415, 416, 425, 429, 437,438, 456, 467 Burmese 180, 367, 370-374, 378, 379381

-cA- 446, 449 categorical assertion 18, 25 Caucasian 6, 67, 84,275, 276, 284, 317, 330, 353, 358 Caucasus 1, 112, 230, 275, 276, 313, 322, 353, 355, 357, 362, 363 causality 310, 380 external - 310-312 internal-311, 312 caution, cautiousness 58, 67, 75, 164, 166 Central Asian 59, 84 certainty 16,17,22-26,53-55, 376, 379 Chaghatay 49, 50, 59, 73, 76, 77, 79, 81 change-of-affective-state verb 118 change-of-location verb 118 change-of-state verb 118, 155 Chechen-Ingush 275, 284, 314 Cheremis 315, 419 Cherkez 275 Chinese 45,49, 50, 56, 58, 464 Chukchi 464 Chuvash 76, 77 Classical New Persian 5, 185, 259, 262, 268, 269 clitic 3, 16, 23, 48, 49, 115, 130, 131, 133, 134, 139 - particle 336 code copying 284

Index cognitive 25, 61, 69, 82, 201, 213, 214 colloquial 93, 95, 186, 204, 205, 259, 260, 279, 354,381 commitment 17,452, 463, 464 strength o f - 2 9 5 Common Slavic 329, 338, 340, 359 complexive 66, 67, 73-75 compound 8 9 , 9 2 , 9 7 - 9 9 , 1 6 9 , 2 0 5 , 2 0 6 , 229,433 conceptual link 4 conclusion 53, 99, 186, 191, 202, 213, 259, 286-288, 294-296, 306, 311, 313, 318, 386, 390, 395, 424, 428, 431 conditional, conditionnel 87, 105, 108, 114, 143, 150, 165, 169, 179, 182, 214, 233, 234, 253-255, 278, 279, 281, 282, 291, 309, 311, 328, 341, 350, 361,366, 375, 379 confirmation 64, 66, 72, 75, 229, 332, 339,340, 343,425,455 confirmative 3, 8, 53, 54,284,285, 316, 329, 331-334, 337, 355, 357-359, 458, 459, 464, 466 - past 329, 332, 359 conjectural 98, 240, 242, 253, 254 conjugation 384, 394,449 conscious 61, 65, 71,82, 170 - participant 71 - participation 65 - subject 61, 82 constative 91, 253 contact 2 , 3 , 1 1 , 5 8 , 59, 84,92,112,147, 149, 213, 276, 277, 284, 313, 350, 357, 359, 383, 393,415, 420, 422 contextually determined interpretation 4 contingent 239, 251, 255 conventionalized usage 6 converb 9, 12, 76, 86, 87, 95, 96, 114, 132, 138, 139, 143, 314, 462, 466, 469 - construction 256

485

convergence 276, 328, 362, 466 copied 2,10, 89,90,93,95,96, 100,445 copula 10, 36,41,49, 50, 56, 67, 71, 89, 91,92,95-97,99,101,105,109,110, 112, 115, 150, 162, 163, 182, 242, 254, 269, 283, 284, 314, 315, 367, 377, 419, 422, 433, 435, 436, 443, 447, 450, 461, 471, 472, 474, 480, 481 - particle 29, 34, 36-39, 69, 80, 91, 96, 105, 107, 108 copying 89,90, 284 counterfactual 34, 54, 260 Crimean Tatar 73 crucial limit 31, 62, 63, 66, 75 current relevance 32, 62, 319, 411, 415, 446

Daco-Romanian 347, 350 Daghestanian 353 Dari 4, 180, 186, 230, 255, 256 data-source marker 18 deduction 353,419, 420 definite time 333, 408 defocalisation 63 deictic 119,389 - centre 388 demonstrative 119, 368, 380, 386, 428 derivation 130, 467 -Di, -DI, -di 16-22, 25, 26, 43, 46, 47, 62, 64, 65, 67, 74, 83, 91, 95, 104, 105, 137, 151, 175, 315, 357, 443, 451,458 diagnostic 29, 30, 32,41, 63, 66, 72, 73, 95, 229, 252, 427, 476 diagnostically oriented 63, 66 -Dir 16-18, 23-25, 40, 49, 51, 76 direct - evidence 17, 191, 259, 285, 390, 408 - experience 17-19, 21, 25, 26, 47, 51, 52, 65, 82, 252, 434

486

Index

- perception 61, 65, 67, 81, 82, 177, 178 - speech 293, 409, 463,471, 475-481 direct/indirect marking 57 directive 49, 53, 54, 56, 57, 167, 178, 259 discourse 5, 6, 19,24, 25,27, 29, 30, 32, 40, 42, 45, 52-55, 57, 59, 63, 71, 74, 93,108,109,141,142,227,306,317, 319, 336, 342, 353, 362, 368, 370, 414, 415, 464, 465, 471, 472, 481, 482 discourse-pragmatic 45 discovery 71,82,83,229,236,305,317, 339, 340, 343, 346 distance 52, 57, 63,67, 69, 84,154,185, 201, 203, 212, 215, 218, 226, 266, 334, 342, 420,436,478, 481 distanced past 252, 254, 260, 264 distanciation 212 doubt 2, 7 , 6 6 , 7 0 , 75,96, 107,110,152, 157, 241, 242, 247, 251, 255, 265, 266, 291, 292, 293, 295, 318, 357, 375, 376, 379, 385, 386, 390, 393, 406, 420 dubitative, dubatif, dubativity 58, 66, 70, 79, 80, 213, 214, 221, 239, 243, 250, 251, 289, 339, 341, 343, 350, 354, 359-361, 384-386, 410, 459, 461 durative, durativity 46, 49, 51, 58, 148, 150, 166, 169, 219, 230, 236, 243, 245, 247, 250, 252, 255, 262, 263, 269,271,319, 433-436 dynamic 303 - phase 69

East Old Turkic 62, 65-68, 70, 74, 76, 78-81 Eastern Turki 79

East-Tungusic 441, 442,449, 450, 4 5 2 456, 459, 460, 463, 465, 466 ebit 79-81 effet de sens 215 embedded clause 61, 292, 294-296 emotive 355, 358 emphasizing 156, 377, 465 emphatic 49, 50, 55, 120, 121, 336, 338, 354, 396, 3 9 9 , 4 5 1 , 4 5 3 , 4 5 8 endopathique 216 English 2 7 , 3 6 , 3 9 , 4 0 , 6 1 , 6 4 , 6 9 , 7 1 , 7 3 , 75, 77, 95, 140, 141, 160, 162, 178, 181, 182, 190, 204, 231, 234, 237, 244, 251, 255, 262, 298, 305, 313, 319, 325, 327, 331, 339, 340, 346, 349, 354, 355, 359, 360, 386, 417, 433, 440 epistemic 15-17, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, 69, 76, 81, 122, 185, 229-231, 233, 237, 239, 240, 243, 245, 248, 2 5 0 255, 280, 292, 311, 322, 406, 441, 457,460, 461,463^165 - evaluation 406 - marker 69 - modality 15, 20, 26, 81, 457, 460, 461,463, 465 epistemicity 231, 253 épistémique 212, 214 ergati vity split - 177 erinc 70 erken 76-79, 84 erki 70, 79 erkin 70, 79 ermis 67-70, 76-81,84, 96 Even 11, 442-449, 456, 458-463, 4 6 6 468 Evenki 442, 446-449, 458-462, 4 6 6 469 event-oriented 63, 74, 161, 317 evidence 4, 15, 17, 18, 22-25, 27, 45, 58, 68, 69, 73, 148, 153, 160, 164,

Index 177, 191, 201, 209, 240-242, 259, 285, 295, 296, 306, 311, 312, 320, 329, 332, 340, 357, 367, 373, 379, 386, 390, 395, 408,424, 427,464 evidential, evidentiality 1-4, 6-12, 15, 16, 18, 25-28, 43, 46, 48, 55, 58, 61, 6 7 , 6 8 , 7 0 , 7 5 , 7 7 , 83, 84, 87,93,109, 112, 117, 142, 149, 152, 164, 176178, 181, 185, 202, 209, 214, 216, 219, 226, 228, 231, 239, 253, 257, 259, 262, 275-277, 279, 282-285, 287, 288, 290-300, 303-307, 309315, 317-320, 322, 323, 325, 328, 329, 335, 342, 357, 362, 363, 372375, 377-379, 383, 386, 389, 392394, 396, 397, 401, 408, 411, 414, 415, 419, 420, 422-424, 428, 429, 431-436, 441-447, 449, 452, 4 5 4 458, 460-466, 469,471,479 existential 4 6 , 4 8 , 4 9 , 58, 132, 140, 287, 297, 298, 300, 303-307, 312, 315, 385, 399, 446 - copula 69 expectation 4, 54, 65, 67, 83, 240, 288 experience 1 5 , 1 7 - 2 6 , 4 5 ^ 7 , 5 1 , 5 2 , 5 5 , 57, 65, 68, 71, 75, 81, 82, 153, 185, 187, 195, 198, 199-202, 240, 241, 251, 252, 288, 294, 307, 390, 404, 428,434 direct - 1 7 - 1 9 , 2 1 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 4 7 , 5 1 , 5 2 , 6 5 , 82, 252,434 indirect - 15, 17, 22, 2 6 , 4 5 , 4 6 experiential 47,48, 55, 66, 403,453

facticity 66, 70 finis 115 finite 3, 8, 10, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37-39, 62, 73, 74, 80, 91, 92, 96, 99, 115, 116, 121, 122, 128, 134, 136, 138, 141, 158, 161, 163, 168, 174, 179, 245,

487

283, 284, 314, 372, 394, 397, 458, 462,471 finitransformative 30, 31, 155 Finno-Ugric 67,315,419 first-hand - information 61, 177, 178 - knowledge 65, 67 focal - intraterminal 104-108 - postterminal 72, 73, 75, 138 focality degree o f - 6 3 , 72, 161,391 foregrounding 45, 51, 55, 56 français 209, 210, 213, 214, 217 free indirect speech 293, 317 futur 6 , 1 0 , 1 1 , 2 8 , 5 0 , 5 8 , 104,105,114, 117, 121-127, 129, 132, 137, 140, 143, 165, 182, 214, 220-224, 230, 231, 243-251, 253, 275, 278-281, 287, 290, 291, 295, 309, 313, 328, 340, 341, 350, 361, 379, 384, 426, 433, 434, 443, 450, 459, 460, 461, 469,472, 482

Gagauz 103-108, 110-112 -GAn, -gan 46-48, 55, 57, 72, 73, 76, 297, 445 -GAndlr 76 -GAn turur 72, 73 gender 6, 57, 353 general factual 446 genre 6, 4 5 , 5 1 , 5 2 , 57 Georgian 3, 6, 83, 125, 141, 236, 2 7 5 281, 283-285, 287-298, 305-307, 309, 310, 312-314, 316-319, 321, 322, 324-327, 329, 353-357, 361, 363 Old - 3, 275, 279, 296, 297, 300, 308, 310,312,316,319, 326 German 70, 71, 77, 92, 139, 162, 168, 182, 305,314,384, 399, 457

488

Index

Grabar 401,402 grammar 27, 42, 58, 59, 61, 104, 141, 142, 147, 148, 152, 165, 167-169, 173, 174, 204, 207, 228, 231, 256, 262, 270, 271, 285, 316, 321, 325, 327, 337, 360, 363, 367, 368, 371, 374, 378, 381, 416, 435, 467, 481, 482 grammaticalization 138, 147, 149, 201, 250, 328, 373, 383, 397, 446-448, 455, 456, 462, 469 Greek 278, 314, 316, 320, 369, 370, 375-380 Ancient - 9

habitual, habituality 17-19, 23, 101, 104, 105, 108, 110, 113, 122, 123, 127, 138, 150, 154, 160, 225, 243, 247, 263, 333, 4 3 3 , 4 4 6 , 4 6 0 harmonic combination 282, 294, 295 hearsay 61, 64-66, 81, 91, 93, 96, 105, 107, 108, 153, 154, 164, 165, 169, 178, 229, 233, 252, 259, 286, 288, 290, 292-295, 297, 304, 310, 311, 312, 319, 332, 420, 421, 424^126, 436,441,452, 454, 456, 464 Hebrew 9, 383-389, 391, 392, 395, 397, 399 Herat 231,243,250, 256 high-focal, high focality 63, 105, 162, 386 Himachal Pradesh 471 historical 8-10, 11, 30, 43, 47, 52, 55, 56, 6 3 , 7 2 , 7 3 , 9 1 , 1 1 5 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 0 , 1 8 7 , 290, 310, 312, 313, 321, 384, 385, 389,415,425,426,433,482 - use 91 historically oriented 63 history 1, 7, 57, 58, 141, 275, 306, 324, 363 Hittite 9, 368, 369, 375-377

hixkarayana 216 hot news 32, 83, 305 hypotactic, hypotaxis 368, 374 hypothetical 233, 429, 452, 455, 456, 460,461,464 - event 108 - statement 18

ikän 48, 58 imis, imi¡, -Imi^ (cf. -(y)ml¡) 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 80, 96, 97, 99, 100, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 112, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 2 8 3 , 2 8 4 , 3 1 4 , 3 1 5 imparfait 210, 211, 217, 219, 222, 223, 226, 270,316 imperfect 67, 143, 148, 149, 150, 154, 160, 167, 169, 170, 171, 175, 179, 182, 240, 257, 278, 291, 305, 309, 310, 328, 330, 334, 335, 341, 342, 346, 348, 359, 383, 384, 386, 388, 389, 393, 397, 399, 415, 443, 444, 445, 446, 449, 453 consecutive - 384, 388, 389, 399 imperfective 17, 28, 46, 49, 58, 176, 190, 202, 259, 261, 278, 330, 372, 457,474,482 impersonal 122, 159, 246, 248, 250, 423,432 reflexive - 432 implicature 10,456 India 471,481 Indian 315, 318, 368, 371,377 indirect 2 , 3 , 7 , 15,22,25,26,45,46,48, 51-55, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 69, 75, 93,105,148,154,167,174, 178,185, 187, 189, 200, 262, 263, 267, 278, 279, 291, 328, 385, 408, 414, 436, 437, 442, 443, 446, 447, 454, 456, 457,461,462,465,477

Index - evidence 151, 154, 177, 201, 247, 259, 395,419,461 - evidentiality 105, 262, 446,465 - free speech 471, 479, 480, 481 - perception 65 - perspective 63, 93, 154, 202, 436 - speech 233, 293, 317, 420, 471, 4 7 5 479, 481 indirective 3-6, 8,10, 29, 34, 36,40,43, 46-58, 61, 62, 64-67, 69-76, 79-84, 91-93, 97, 99, 104, 110, 115, 133, 134, 139, 143, 148, 154, 156, 161, 163, 165, 168, 171, 174-178, 185187, 189, 201, 202, 229, 233, 243, 251, 252, 254, 259, 265, 266, 384, 391,431,461 - belt 83 - copula particle 67, 70,76,79-81, 161 indirectivity 3-7, 9, 10, 34, 35, 37-40, 45,47, 51, 52, 55-58, 61-65, 6 7 , 6 9 72, 74-78, 80-84, 91, 93-99, 105, 107, 112, 148, 149, 154, 161, 163, 164-167, 173, 175-177, 179, 185, 186, 189, 191, 201, 202, 230, 244, 259, 268, 2 6 9 , 2 7 7 , 3 1 0 indirectness 419, 420, 436 Indo-European 9, 10, 64, 84, 93, 179, 180, 275, 278, 367-370, 372, 374, 375, 377, 378, 380,447 inductive 105, 106 inference 15, 17, 18,41, 63, 81, 87, 101, 133, 148, 151, 154, 155, 157, 163165, 176, 185, 186, 201, 207, 229, 233, 240, 241, 244, 252, 257, 259, 260, 263, 269, 271, 286, 289, 292, 294-296, 304, 312, 317, 373, 375, 379, 386, 388, 390, 392, 393, 395, 396, 412, 420, 427, 428, 430, 432, 442, 461,464 - from reasoning 464 inferential, inférentiel, inferentiality 5, 17, 21, 34, 38, 43, 61, 64, 68, 70, 71,

489

73-75,77, 82, 83, 85, 86, 91-94, 9 6 98,100,101, 114,115,132,133, 135, 136, 138-140, 147, 148, 154, 157159, 162, 163, 165, 166, 168, 170, 173-178, 180, 182, 185, 186, 191, 200-202, 204, 206, 209, 218-220, 226-228, 233, 234, 239, 240, 242, 243, 247, 251, 256, 259-263, 265, 269, 270, 284, 286, 288, 306, 310, 314, 323, 373, 376, 383, 386-390, 392-395, 397, 412, 423, 425, 427, 428,432, 441,443,464, 465 inferred 3, 22, 51, 57, 64, 66, 68, 77, 107, 108, 177, 187, 194, 202, 233, 240, 242, 245, 268, 269, 377, 388, 395,404,413,415 - action 404, 415 inflectional 472 information 1-3, 11, 12, 15, 17-22, 2 4 26, 45, 51, 53-58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69-71,73,83,85, 153, 155, 165, 174, 177, 178, 180, 185, 187, 189, 194, 200, 205, 209, 211, 212, 214-217, 219, 227, 229, 240, 244, 252, 255, 295, 318, 323, 329, 332-336, 339, 357, 401, 406, 408, 410, 411, 412, 414, 425^127, 460, 464-467, 473,476 assimilated - 17, 25 novel - 22 new - 20-22, 57, 83 Ingilo 283,284,314, 322, 323 Ingush 275, 284,314 initiotransformative 31, 65, 69 initium 115 intentionality 45, 52 interrogation, interrogative 3, 4, 34, 61, 79,291,314,316,320,366,376,390, 410,411,435,452,455 intransitive 75, 122, 149, 155,278,279, 353, 366, 403, 405, 413, 424, 448, 466

490

Index

intraterminal 62, 76, 79, 80, 104-108, 110, 112, 148, 154, 161, 165-171, 173, 175, 176, 203, 204, 236, 380, 384 indirective - 67, 163 intraterminality 138, 166 invariant 2, 227, 306, 330, 343, 348, 350,415 involuntary 361,430,433 -1/7 261 -(I)ptlr 10, 72, 73 Iranian 1,5, 11, 139,145,147,149,164, 169, 175-177, 181, 186, 198, 205, 206, 248, 256, 259, 261-263, 270, 284, 370, 397,415 irano-aryen 209, 227, 270 irg i 70 ironical, irony 69, 82, 96, 107, 154,289, 308,317 irrealis 16, 25, 27, 45, 46, 55, 461 iterative, iterativity 150, 299, 304, 315, 316,319, 4 0 2 , 4 0 4 , 4 6 9

judgment 15, 18, 236, 240, 242, 295, 311,317

Kaboli 230, 231 Karachay 73, 79 Kartvelian 275, 276,284,285,320, 321, 323, 327, 353 Kazakh, Qazaq 48, 73, 76, 108 Khalaj 2, 10, 89-93, 95-99 Khevsur 284 Khorasan-Turkic 89,95 Kinnauri 10,471, 474-478,480-482 Kipchak 112 Kirghiz 73 Komi Permyak 419, 420 Komi Zyryan 4, 6, 236, 419,420,437 Kumyk 73, 76

Kurdish, kurde 84, 147, 148, 150, 151, 154, 156, 163, 165, 168, 169, 171, 178, 180, 181,222, 223, 225 Kurmanji, kurmandji 5, 147-155, 159, 161-166, 168, 170, 174-179, 222

Lak 284, 322, 329, 353-357, 363 language contact 7, 10, 11, 89, 90, 103, 147, 176, 277, 312, 378, 445,449 Laz 275, 276, 309, 313, 314, 322 /-form, /-participle 329, 332, 335, 341-343, 347, 362, 366 literary language 79, 86, 275, 314, 360, 361, 364, 367, 369, 375, 432,435, 440 localization 63, 374, 388 - point 388 interval of - 63 logical 17, 18, 66, 81, 82, 164,178, 338, 425 - conclusion 61, 66, 81, 82, 178 - deduction 15, 17, 18 - inference 23, 164 low-focal 107, 112, 125, 126, 132, 386 - postterminality 96, 99, 138

100, 441,

336, 342, 429,

233,

138,

Macedonian 3, 83, 84, 316, 318, 322, 329-332, 334, 338, 340-342, 344, 347-349, 359, 360, 362-365, 416, 437,456, 467 macro-syntactic 388 -madoq 62 Mansi 419 Mari 419 marked 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, 26, 45^19, 51, 52, 54-57,61,74,91,115-117,129,130, 132, 148, 159, 165, 167, 175-178,

Index 204, 242, 267, 279, 317, 329, 332, 339, 340, 342-344, 347, 355, 357, 358, 366, 371, 372, 378, 388, 410, 442, 448, 450, 451, 453, 456 markedness 8, 50, 316, 450,455, 466 - inversion 8 marking 12, 15, 17, 22, 26, 27, 34, 46, 48, 49, 51-57, 61, 62, 85, 90, 112, 128, 134, 180, 189, 227, 278, 310, 329, 333, 342, 368, 421, 423, 435, 463,465, 467, 472 mediative, médiatif 64, 86, 177, 185, 204, 209-215, 217-222, 225-229, 243, 252, 256, 262, 321, 416, 429, 438 Megleno-Romanian 347, 348 mental 4 , 1 2 , 1 5 , 2 2 6 , 4 1 0 , 4 2 0 , 4 3 7 , 4 6 2 - preparation 65, 67 - unpreparedness 67 mentally grasped 77 Mingrelian 275-277, 309, 313 mirative, miratif 5, 83, 84, 154, 211, 216, 218, 219, 221, 226, 231, 236, 237, 240, 243, 245, 252, 254, 376, 424, 425, 428, 430, 431, 432, 436, 443, 465, 466 -mis, -mis, -miç, -mlξ, Mi§ 29—43, 62, 64-69, 72, 74-77, 79, 80, 82, 8 9 , 9 1 96, 98, 99, 104-110, 112, 115-121, 123-141, 148, 151, 154, 158, 159, 161, 163, 166, 168, 174, 175, 178, 179, 257, 261, 336, 337, 338, 344347, 350, 352, 356, 357, 360, 394, 445 -mismis 104, 108, 109 -misti, MI§TI 30, 39, 40, 43, 175 - M / J I / r , MI§TIR 30, 39-42 mocking remarks 415 modal - adverb 93, 110, 112,427 - copula 105, 107 - word 61, 70, 326

modality - epistemic 15, 20, 26, 81, 457, 461,463,465 modalizing 371, 380 modesty 67, 75 Mongolian, Mongolie 58, 67, 442, 464, 466 mood 18, 59, 112, 147, 149, 165, 176, 189, 191, 271, 278, 317, 327, 360, 361, 366, 380, 403, 420, 450, 456, 458, 459, 460, 469 Mordvin 419

491

460,

447, 174, 326, 405, 461,

nachträgliche Feststellung 64 Nakh-Daghestanian 6 Nanai 8, 442, 450, 452-456, 459, 460, 462,463,466, 467 nambiquara 217 narrated event 32, 61-63, 67, 69, 71, 148, 178, 201,329,406 narratif 209 narration 7, 32, 363,401, 402, 405, 409, 413, 415, 425, 426, 444, 463, 478, 479 narrative 6, 12, 21, 30, 32, 46-48, 52, 53,55-57,63,64,76,91,93-95,104, 106, 108, 155, 161, 162, 179, 199, 203, 229, 240, 242, 252, 262, 279, 290, 317, 334, 335, 342, 358, 384, 386, 388, 394, 401, 405, 407, 414, 415, 419, 423, 425, 430, 434, 444, 445,447, 453,478, 480, 481 - chain 30, 32, 66, 388 - thread 388 natural 5,9, 10, 31, 68, 69,70, 233, 304, 346, 448 negation, negated 33, 36, 50, 51, 62, 94, 122, 191, 204, 302-304, 315, 319, 367, 373, 435, 436,458 Negidal 442,447, 467

492

Index

neocevidnoe, neocevidnye 262, 285, 422 népali 211,213, 215,216, 228 neutral 9, 49, 61, 65, 77, 161, 165, 176, 230, 251, 284, 286, 333, 353, 354, 421,450, 478 - report 406 neutralization, neutralized 9, 130, 347, 384 new knowledge 71, 82, 83,425 nissaya 371, 372, 374 nominal clause 109, 384-386, 388-392 non-3rd sing. 248 non-anaphoric 119 non-assertive 320 noncertainty 23, 25 non-commitment 152 non-committal 176 non-committedness 153 non-confirmation 425 nonconfirmative 329-331, 334, 340350, 355, 357-360 non-confrontational 237 non-constatation 74, 84 non-controlled 430, 433 noncopula 471, 474, 480 non-copular 56 non-deictic 119 non-dependent 248 non-embedded 317 non-evident 209, 253, 262 non-evidential 177, 291, 294-296, 298, 309,316,318,423 non-existant 178 non-existence 122 non-explicit 117, 123, 124, 126, 128, 138 non-eyewitnessed 204 non-factive 46 non-factual 17, 132, 133, 139 non-fiction 40 non-final 33

non-finite 3, 8, 9, 29, 33-37, 62, 74, 90, 91, 92, 99, 115, 116, 136, 138, 139, 245, 250 non-first-hand 61, 68, 77, 177, 178, 425 - indirectivity 77 non-focal 105, 132, 161, 384, 385, 388 non-focality 385 non-implicative 46 non-indicative 260, 317 non-indirective 5, 8, 61, 62, 202, 205 non-inferential 174 non-inflected 458, 459 non-initial 420 non-involvement 423, 436 non-literary 275 non-localization 318 non-modal 291, 295 non-negated 303 non-occurrence 314 non-Oghuzic 89 non-participation 423, 436 non-passive 140 non-past 149, 282, 310 non-perfect 316 non-performance 302 non-postterminal 34, 143, 384, 388 non-pregnant 122 non-productive 465 non-prospective 34 non-referential 119, 140 non-reported 190 non-restrictive 123, 124, 126 non-resultative 298 non-resultative perfect 300 non-Slavic 322 nonspecialized evidentials 415 non-subject 124 non-telic 118, 120, 121, 132 non-telicized 132 non-temporal 122 non-testimonial 68, 70, 74, 201, 253 non-testimony 65

Index non-third persons 95 non-topical 119 non-topicality 120 non-topicalized 56 non-transformative 31 non-verbal 67, 115, 131, 205, 475 non-volitional 303, 304 non-volitive 302 non-witnessed 153, 239, 253, 304, 315, 425, 449, 455 non-witnessedness 152, 166, 174, 296, 316, 324, 326 normative 19, 25, 201, 359 North-Tungusic 441, 442, 445, 4 4 7 450, 458, 460, 463,465, 466 novelty 71, 83 Nuristan 67

ocevidnye 262 Oghuz, Oghuzic, Oguz-Turkic 48, 57, 59, 80, 89, 103, 112, 178 Old Church Slavonic 341 Old Georgian 3, 275, 279, 296, 297, 300, 3 0 8 , 3 1 0 , 3 1 2 , 3 1 6 , 3 1 9 , 326 Old Turkic 4 7 , 4 8 , 5 8 , 6 2 , 6 5 - 6 8 , 7 0 , 7 4 , 76, 78-81,92, 96 opposition 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 34, 46-49, 51, 61,62,64, 65,74,76, 81, 84,91,124, 126, 128, 150-152, 154, 165, 211, 220, 225, 284, 286, 291, 303, 304, 329, 331, 334, 339, 349, 353, 357, 408, 421, 425, 449, 450, 452-455, 464 oral 52, 253, 266, 334, 478,481 - narratives 479 - story-telling 266 orientation point 30, 39, 63-65, 69, 115, 129, 388, 389 Oroch 442, 448, 453,454 Orok 442, 453,454

493

Ottoman 103, 108, 276, 277, 322, 341 ouï-dire 212, 215, 216, 218, 219, 221

Pali 371-374 paratactic, parataxis 368, 374, 376, 377 parfait 74, 190, 205, 214, 215, 217-225, 270,313,315,316,417 participial 8, 62, 75, 92, 118, 126, 130, 348, 353, 419, 421, 442, 443, 4 4 5 447, 449-454, 457, 461, 466 participle 34, 36, 37, 39, 67, 75, 76, 80, 86, 87, 92, 99, 104, 116-129, 131, 132, 138, 140, 141, 143, 149, 150, 237, 242, 263, 265, 269, 281, 314, 328, 329, 332, 335, 336, 341, 342, 347, 359, 361, 362, 366, 385, 388, 392-394, 399, 407, 408, 416, 435, 442, 443, 445, 448, 450, 452, 453, 456,462, 465, 466,469 - active 385, 392-394 - aorist 122-124, 126, 140 - future 117, 121-124, 126, 127, 129, 140 - periphrastic 126 - present 361,445,469 particle 5, 9, 10, 29, 34, 36-39, 45, 50, 52-55, 57, 67, 69, 70, 76, 77, 79-81, 90, 91, 96, 105, 107, 108, 110, 154, 156, 161, 163-165, 167, 170, 171, 173, 174, 178, 179, 182, 269, 275, 279, 281-285, 292, 295, 296, 299, 304, 309, 313-315, 318, 328, 336, 338, 341, 346, 348, 350, 356, 358, 366-381, 385-393, 395-397, 399, 410, 420, 425, 428, 4 3 3 ^ 3 6 , 452, 458,459, 460, 461,462, 466, 469 - evidential 283, 304,314,461 passé 86, 98, 100, 180, 185, 186, 189, 190, 201, 204-206, 209, 214, 2 1 6 227, 240, 253, 254, 256, 260-262, 264, 270,315,457

494

Index

- distancié 86, 98, 100, 180, 185, 190, 191, 201, 204-206, 227, 256, 260, 270 - indéfini 225, 264 - révolu 185, 186, 219, 226, 253, 254, 261,262 passive 28,114,122,128,135,136,140, 143, 182, 250, 277, 278, 281, 293, 318, 328, 341, 387, 388, 402, 405, 413,421,446, 448,465, 468 past 3,4, 6 , 1 2 , 1 7 , 2 1 , 2 2 , 2 6 , 2 8 , 3 2 , 3 7 , 39, 40, 48, 55, 62-68, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 83, 84, 87, 91, 95-97, 101, 104111, 114, 115, 132, 134, 141, 143, 148-154, 164-166, 169, 173-178, 182, 189-191, 194, 200-202, 206, 223-225, 229, 231, 233, 234, 236, 237, 240, 242, 243, 245, 248, 249, 251, 252, 254, 255, 257, 260-268, 271, 281, 282, 288, 298, 299, 304, 306, 310, 311, 314-317, 325, 328, 329, 332, 333, 337-342, 344, 346348, 350, 355, 357-360, 363, 388, 395, 403-409, 412, 415, 417, 419438, 443-460, 463, 466, 472, 473, 479-482 distant - 152, 175, 178, 333, 445, 446, 480,481,482 - participle 182, 229, 242, 245, 257, 265, 268, 271, 314, 315, 347, 350, 361, 402-405, 407, 415, 419, 436, 459 - tense 4, 6, 17, 67, 76, 97, 107, 115, 148-152, 154, 166, 169, 174, 175, 177, 178, 189, 194, 206, 233, 236, 237, 261, 262, 329, 339, 340, 342, 346, 355, 357, 415, 420-422, 433, 434, 437, 438, 450, 466, 472, 473, 479,480, 481 - time reference 3, 4, 6 continuous - 166, 175, 190, 205 progressive - 190, 191, 203, 205, 241

perceived 17, 46, 57, 65, 68, 77, 237, 240,248,253,281,389 - information 3, 17 perception 5, 57, 61, 63, 68, 71, 78-80, 82, 135, 293, 296, 386,420,436, 466 d i r e c t - 6 1 , 65, 67, 81, 82, 177, 178 indirect - 65 perceptive 34, 38, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77, 78, 115, 392 perfect 3-5, 17, 21, 26, 28, 48, 64, 66, 67, 72-74, 83-85, 92, 93, 95, 98, 99, 101, 107, 114, 148-168, 173-179, 182, 189-191, 194, 199, 201-203, 205, 206, 224, 225, 229-233, 236, 237, 240-243, 250-253, 257, 259, 261-270, 275-279, 281-283, 285288, 290-317, 319, 320, 323, 325, 326, 328, 333, 334, 336-338, 341, 342, 345-350, 353-355, 358, 361, 362, 364, 366, 383-389, 391, 392, 394-397, 399, 409, 413-415, 420, 422-424, 430, 431, 436, 441-449, 452-457, 461, 462, 4 6 4 ^ 6 6 , 468, 469 - conditional 361 - double 259, 263, 264, 269, 349 Perfect II, perfectum secundum 234, 238, 240-243, 247, 265 perfective 17, 58, 95, 148, 189, 190, 191, 202, 261, 263, 278, 330, 401, 413,415, 457, 482 performative 297, 312, 354 peripheral language 394 periphery 383, 397 persan 86, 185, 201,204, 206, 209, 210, 213, 215-223, 225-227, 255, 256, 270 Persian 4-6, 64, 74, 84, 87, 89-93, 9 5 101, 147-149, 152, 154, 164, 165, 175-179, 181, 185-187, 189, 199, 201, 202, 204-207, 228-234, 2 3 6 238, 240, 242-248, 250-255, 257,

Index 259-263, 268-271, 276, 277, 315 - of Iran 4, 6, 176, 229, 243, 250, 255 - Classical 164 - Modern 147, 148,149,164,176,178, 179, 185, 186, 189, 201, 204, 269, 270 - New 5, 185, 202, 247, 248, 250, 259, 262, 263, 268, 269 - Standard 230, 243, 248, 250, 252 Person Hierarchy 450, 452 pitch accent 80 plot-advancing 63, 74, 291, 317 plot-propulsive 444 pluperfect, plus-que-parfait 39, 40, 67, 78, 98, 143, 149, 150, 151, 160, 162, 169, 170, 172-175, 190, 205, 210, 211, 220, 223-226, 240, 245, 252, 260, 262, 278, 282, 300, 301, 313, 318, 320, 341, 345, 349, 360, 419, 426, 427, 433, 434 point of observation 62, 65, 69 politeness particle 70 ponctuel 225 posterior observation 64 postterminal 31, 34, 36-40, 62-65, 67, 69, 71-76, 80, 82, 84, 91, 93-96, 99, 100, 104, 106, 108, 109, 116, 125, 126, 132, 135, 137-139, 143, 151, 155, 158, 162, 164, 202, 203, 233, 236, 254, 380, 384-389, 391,427 - evidentiality 109 postterminality 3, 31, 34-39, 62, 64, 74, 75, 81, 91-93, 96, 97, 99, 105, 115, 132, 138, 148, 154, 157, 161, 162, 174, 202, 203,310 pragmatic 6, 19, 25, 27, 30, 43, 45, 51, 57, 69, 87, 120, 126, 141, 142, 150, 154, 174, 334, 350,449, 469 predicating, predication 25, 71, 121, 127, 286, 377, 379, 380 predicative complement 139

495

prediction 18, 24, 25, 456 predpolozitel'nyi, predpolozitel'noe 239, 253, 254 present 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 30, 37, 42, 46, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 72, 90, 93,96, 104, 105, 113, 119, 139, 148, 149, 151, 153, 165, 166, 169, 173, 185, 189, 199, 202, 204, 205, 230234, 236, 243, 245, 247, 249, 265, 269, 278, 283, 285, 288, 295, 296, 298, 305-307, 310, 312, 318, 319, 333-335, 339, 340, 342, 344, 346, 347, 350, 354, 360, 370, 375, 377, 383, 384-386, 388, 389, 391, 401, 404, 408, 409, 419, 422, 423, 429, 430, 433-435, 441, 443, 446, 4 5 0 452, 456, 457, 472, 475, 478 present perfect 223, 242, 297, 298, 305, 324, 326 present/future 189,425 presentative particle 386, 389, 390 présomptif 213, 214, 221 presumption 41, 76, 229, 240, 244, 251, 363 presumptive 2, 42, 66, 76, 79, 104, 109, 110, 239, 240, 242, 243, 248, 251, 254, 350 - mood 350, 361 preterite, prétérit 47, 73, 74, 148-153, 155, 156, 158, 160, 161, 170, 178, 217, 218, 223, 225, 236, 315, 316, 362,448, 454 probability 70, 147, 167, 240, 243, 248, 254, 469 progressive 98, 150, 151, 177, 190, 191, 203-205, 223, 225, 240, 241, 243, 257, 260, 262, 270, 346, 366, 384, 446,474, 482 pronoun 12,90,119,204,328,366,368, 385, 397, 476, 477 propulsive 30, 63, 74, 155, 317, 444

496

Index

prospective 34, 39, 105, 108-110 Proto-Indo-European 374 prototype 8, 10 historical - 8 proverb 52, 105, 280, 303, 355 pseudo-conditional 233, 234 psychological preparation 71

Qashqay 9 7 , 9 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 1 , 176-178,181 quotation 46, 53, 57, 158, 160, 162164, 173, 178, 230, 260, 269, 379, 421,476 quotative 233, 234, 237, 239-241, 243, 244, 254, 275, 279, 280, 284, 290, 293, 315, 328, 354, 356, 366, 373, 425, 462-464, 469, 475, 477, 478

-rA- 443, 444, 446, 447, 449 rakhshani 223 realis 16, 27, 4 5 ^ 7 , 55 reception 61, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73 - as a mental impression 77 - by a conscious subject 1, 61 reference point 464 reflection 66, 311 reflexive 120, 424, 431,432, 469 impersonal - 432 register variation 5 registre 217-221, 223 relative anteriority 91, 116, 151, 153, 160, 162 remote past 20, 175, 178, 186, 225, 259, 413-416, 430, 434 reportative, reportive 22, 34, 38, 48, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77, 82, 83, 91, 93, 105, 106, 109, 115, 185, 269, 383, 392-394, 396, 397 reported 26., 4 5 , 5 1 , 5 7 , 6 6 , 6 8 , 1 5 2 , 1 5 3 , 166, 169, 175, 177, 187, 189-191, 198, 201, 202, 205, 237, 244, 261,

262, 266-268, 318, 335, 339, 341, 343, 358, 359, 366, 373, 387, 396, 4 0 6 , 4 1 2 , 4 1 5 , 4 2 9 , 475, 476 - evidence 165 - information 3, 187, 412 - speech 17, 66, 187, 198, 199, 201, 2 0 3 , 2 6 1 , 2 7 9 , 354,406, 475 reportedness 329, 339, 343, 353 responsibility 17, 185, 203, 295 restriction, restrictive 1, 4, 6, 100, 118, 121, 123, 124, 126, 128, 135, 248, 294,317, 344, 3 7 9 , 4 3 6 , 4 4 3 resultative 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 43, 91, 107, 115-117, 120, 121, 125, 126, 128, 130-133, 135-141, 229, 242, 243, 254, 263, 275, 277, 279, 281, 297, 298, 310-313, 316, 321, 334, 358, 413, 423, 426, 428, 431, 434, 436, 443^*49, 455, 457,464, 466, 468 - participle 334, 353, 359 - perfect 311, 329, 422 - state 413 resultativity 3 , 4 , 128, 423 rétrospectif 219, 252, 253 révolu 185, 186, 211, 218, 219, 226, 253, 254, 261, 262 -Ri. 444, 445, 446, 449, 450 Romani 329, 353, 365 Romanian 112, 347, 348, 350, 354, 364 Russian 71, 77,103, 108, 112,125,128, 256, 262, 276, 285, 292, 313, 325, 364, 409, 416, 422, 428, 430, 433, 434,465, 469

Salar 6 , 4 5 - 5 2 , 54-59, 73 Sanskrit 64, 278, 318, 326, 367, 368, 3 7 5 , 3 7 8 , 3 8 0 , 381 Sarigh Yoghur 48, 50, 59 sarti 253, 255 Scandinavian 64, 85

Index secondary 39, 126, 165, 177, 187, 204, 205, 230, 238, 310, 408, 413, 415, 416 - predicate 126, 131, 134, 139-141 - tense-aspect form 408 semantic, semantics 1, 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 16, 19, 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37-39, 41, 42, 55, 58, 62-64, 72, 79-81, 90, 92, 95, 96, 116, 118, 122, 125, 126, 128, 131, 133, 135, 142, 148, 163, 174, 216, 231, 239, 243, 248, 253, 265, 268, 269, 285, 293, 294, 303, 306, 310, 312, 317, 319, 325, 362, 363, 367, 369-372, 374, 376, 377, 395, 423, 437, 441-443, 445, 446, 448^151, 454-457, 461, 464-466, 469,472-475, 477,478, 480, 481 Semitic languages 9, 383 Serbian 343 Serbo-Croatian 338, 364 signifiant 215, 219 signifié 215, 219, 220 similarity predicate 130, 133, 136, 139 similative/equative 462 similative-evidential 461 simple past 62, 65, 87, 148, 151, 152, 160, 166, 168, 172, 175, 190, 191, 194, 199, 201, 203, 205, 231, 267, 457 simultaneity 69, 132 Slavic 2, 237, 256, 322, 329, 330, 331, 338-344, 346, 347, 349, 350, 355, 357, 359-366, 414,456 S o u t h - 3 3 8 , 341 Southern West South - 338, 342, 360 Solon 442, 447, 452 Sorani 150, 177, 178 source 1 , 2 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 2 1 , 2 2 , 2 6 , 2 7 , 4 5 , 5 3 , 54, 61, 63, 66-68, 75, 81, 82, 109, 113, 118, 149, 167, 177, 209, 211, 212, 214-217, 230, 231, 240, 242, 248, 260, 262, 276, 285, 290, 291,

497

295, 306, 312, 314, 329, 332-336, 357, 359, 371-373, 401, 406, 410, 413, 416, 445, 456, 460, 464,466 - of evidence 16 - of knowledge 178 speaker's psychological stance 18 speculative 8, 121, 239, 240, 243, 244, 250, 393 spoken language 26, 105, 106,113,147, 189, 368-370, 376, 377, 436 stative 6, 19, 20, 25, 66, 72, 128, 132, 135, 136, 138, 155, 277, 288, 293, 346, 385, 389, 392, 443, 446, 448, 457 - phase 69 status 15, 16, 22, 26, 86, 117, 119-121, 140, 229, 248, 322, 329, 330, 333, 334, 341, 350, 353, 355, 357-360, 363, 367, 369, 443, 447, 449, 450, 454, 455, 457, 462,466 story-telling 17, 21, 23, 266, 291 subjunctive 91, 159, 163, 169, 182, 191, 205, 245, 248, 250, 257, 278, 282, 318, 320, 328, 350, 360, 361, 466 supposition 18, 70, 212, 379, 380, 391 surmise 229, 268 surprise, surprising 6, 17,21,71,75, 82, 83,154-157, 163,221,229,236,250, 251, 288, 301, 317, 339, 340, 343, 344, 346, 347, 349, 354, 359, 360, 368, 375, 411, 412, 415, 420, 425, 429, 436, 437 S van 275-277, 309, 313 synthetic 329, 363, 366, 401,405, 459

Tajik, Tajiki, tadjik 2, 4, 6, 84, 92, 101, 147-149, 164, 165, 176, 181, 186, 209, 213, 216, 221, 227, 228, 2 3 0 232, 234, 236-245, 247, 250, 2 5 5 257,262, 270,315

498

Index

Tat 284 Tatar 73, 76, 277,280,419 taxic 358 telic, telicity 4, 118, 120, 121, 128, 131, 393,413, 423,443 temporal localization 296, 300, 304 temporality 37, 107 tense 4, 6, 16, 17, 23, 27, 30, 36, 37, 45, 55,67,76, 8 7 , 9 1 , 9 2 , 9 5 , 9 7 - 9 9 , 1 0 1 , 104, 105, 107, 114, 115, 121, 134, 143, 147-155, 161, 162, 165, 166, 168, 169, 172, 174-178, 182, 189, 191, 194, 195, 204-206, 216, 224, 225, 229, 230, 233, 234, 236, 237, 243, 248, 251-253, 257, 261, 262, 265, 269, 271, 277-279, 285, 291, 295, 310, 315, 316, 319, 326, 327, 329, 332-334, 336, 339, 340, 342, 346, 347, 354, 355, 357, 363, 383, 384, 394, 401, 407, 408, 415, 419422, 425, 433, 434, 436^138, 444, 446, 450, 452, 453, 455, 459, 460, 466, 468,471—473, 479, 480, 481 Tense Hierarchy 450-452 tense-aspect system 147, 148, 177, 178 testimonial 65, 209 text world 388 Tibetan 45, 49, 58, 67, 372, 373, 466 Tibeto-Burman, tibéto-birman 10, 217, 471 time reference 3,4, 6, 39, 300, 304, 319, 320, 325,459 topicality 119 topicalization 56, 392 tradition 147, 285, 290, 291, 298, 300, 315,397, 422, 433 transformative 30, 31, 63, 66, 157, 265 transgression 62, 63, 66, 82, 91, 115, 202,436 transitive 75, 149, 278, 402, 403, 405, 413,423,425,448,465 Tsez 6-8, 11, 12

Tungusic 1, 8, 10, 432, 441, 442, 445, 447-450, 452-466 Tungus-Manchu 442, 467-469 turc 43, 8 4 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 3 , 2 1 5 , 3 2 8 Turkic 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 29, 33, 43, 45, 47-50, 56-59, 61-74, 76, 78-81, 83, 84, 86-93, 95-97, 99, 100, 103, 112, 113, 139, 142, 147, 149, 165, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 206, 230, 236, 275-277, 284, 313, 322, 324, 393, 397, 399, 415, 419, 422, 436, 438,445, 464, 466 Turkish 3,10, 15-17, 25-30, 33, 34, 40, 42,43, 71,72, 74-76, 80-85, 8 7 , 9 1 96,100,103-108,110,113,115,116, 124, 137, 139-142, 147, 148, 150154, 157-166, 168, 169, 171, 173179, 181, 231, 233, 240, 257, 261, 276, 277, 284, 286, 291, 298, 307, 314, 315, 317, 320, 322, 325, 329, 336-338, 342, 344, 346, 347, 350, 354, 355, 357, 359, 360, 362-364, 393, 394, 397, 437,461, 465, 466 Turkmen 73, 75-77 turur 40, 72, 7 3 , 7 6 Tuvan 70, 73, 79, 85 tuyuca 217 typology 86, 180, 322, 363, 367, 370, 372, 378, 401,416, 442

Udihe 441, 442, 448-450, 452-455, 465, 467, 469 Udmurt 419-421, 425 Ulcha 442, 452, 454, 456, 460,463 uncertainty 53, 63, 69, 70, 152, 154, 280, 291, 295, 379, 392,411, 436 unexpectedness 71, 82, 128, 288, 292, 425 unmarked 3-5, 8, 24, 40, 45, 53, 55, 56, 58, 61, 65, 81, 83, 91, 149, 242, 251, 279, 286, 291, 303, 304, 316, 329,

Index 332-334, 339-341, 344, 346, 347, 349, 358-360, 366, 394, 449, 4 5 2 456, 466 - past 3, 40, 329, 332, 333, 334, 339342, 344, 346, 347, 349, 355, 358, 359, 360, 366, 449,456 unprepared mind 18, 154, 236,425,436 unwitnessed 6, 7, 9, 12, 46, 74, 76, 153, 166, 173, 175, 202, 313, 317, 331, 408, 410, 419, 421, 422, 425, 429, 437 - past 7, 9, 74, 153, 173, 175,317 Upanishads 367,368,381 Uralic 1,438 Uyghur 4 8 , 4 9 , 6 6 , 6 8 , 7 0 , 7 3 , 7 6 , 7 7 , 7 9 , 82 Uzbek 76, 78, 79, 84-86, 92, 101, 165, 176, 181,231,256,315,316, 326

validation 212, 333, 425, 449, 458 Vedic 9, 367-369, 373, 375-379 verb of perception 412 verbal aspect 85, 100, 383, 384, 398, 468 verbal content 391 viewpoint 30, 31, 36-38, 40, 62, 63, 93, 115, 151, 155, 156, 158, 185, 202, 203, 252, 479

499

visual 1 , 6 5 , 2 8 5 , 3 8 8 , 4 2 0 - evidence 65 Vlah 363 Vogul 419 voice 28, 170, 171,289,387,435 volition 105 Votyak 419 vouching 329 -(V)p turur 72

Western Even 441, 447 witnessed 6, 7, 9, 12, 65, 71, 74, 174, 175, 191, 195, 199, 203, 242, 266, 285, 286, 315-317, 333, 408, 421, 425, 429, 447, 456 - imperfect 454 - past 6, 7, 9, 153, 175, 455

153, 229, 329, 453-

Yakut 11, 72, 74, 79, 81,445,449, 469 Yellow Uyghur, see Sari'gh Yoghur -(y)ib, -(y)ip 95, 96 -(y)mls 37, 80, 83

zyriène 215, 220, 222

Empirical Approaches to Language Typology Edited by Georg Bossong and Bernard Comrie Mouton de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1 Paolo Ramat, Linguistic Typology. Translated by A. P. Baldry. 1987. 2 Emma Geniusienè, The Typology of Reflexives. 1987. 3 Dieter Wanner, The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns. From Latin to Old Romance. 1987. 4 Ann M. Cooreman, Transitivity and Discourse Continuity in Chamorro Narratives. 1987. 6 Armin Schwegler, Analyticity and Syntheticity. A Diachronic Perspective with Special Reference to Romance Languages. 1990. 7 Doris L. Payne, The Pragmatics of Word Order. Typological Dimensions of Verb Initial Languages. 1990. 8 Toward a Typology of European Languages. Edited by Johannes Bechert, Giuliano Bernini, and Claude Buridant. 1990. 9 Paradigms. The Economy of Inflection. Edited by Frans Plank. 1991. 10 Meaning and Grammar. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Edited by Michel Kefer and Johan van der Auwera. 1992. 11 Franz Miiller-Gotama, Grammatical Relations. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on their Syntax and Semantics. 1994. 12 Tense, Aspect and Action. Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology. Edited by Carl Bache, Hans Basb0ll and Carl E. Lindberg. 1994. 13 Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms-Adverbial Participles, Gerunds. Edited by Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König. 1995. 14 The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. Edited by Hilary Chappell and William McGregor. 1996. 15 Elke Nowak, Transforming the Images. Ergativity and Transitivity in Inuktitut (Eskimo). 1996. 16 Giuliano Bernini and Paolo Ramat, Negative Sentences in the Languages of Europe. A Typological Approach. 1996. 17 Harrie Wetzer, The Typology of Language Predication. 1996. 18 Bernd Kortmann, Adverbial Subordination. A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. 1996.

19 Gilbert Lazard, Actancy. 1998. 2 0 EUROTYP. Nine volumes. 1 9 9 7 - 1 9 9 9 . 20-1 Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe. Edited by Anna Siewierska. 1997. 20-2 Actance et Valence dans les Langues de l'Europe. Edited by Jack Feuillet. 1997. 20-3 Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Edited by Johan van der Auwera in collaboration with Dónall P. Ó Baoill. 1998. 20-4 Word Prosodie Systems in the Languages of Europe. Edited by Harry van der Hulst. 1999. 20-5 Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Edited by Henk van Riems dijk. 1999. 21 Mario Squartini, Verbal Periphrases in Romance. Aspect, Actionality, and Grammaticalization. 1998. 22 Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Selected Southasian Languages. A Principled Typology. Edited by Barbara C. Lust, Kashi Wali, Jean W. Gair, and K. v. Subdarao. 2000. 23 Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes. Edited by Petra M. Vogel and Bernard Comry. 2000. 24 Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages. Edited by Lars Johanson and Bo Utas. 2000.