Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, Vol 24)

Lars Johanson Bo Utas (Editors)

Evidenţiate Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages

W DE

G. Mouton de Gruyter

Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 24

Editors Georg Bossong Bernard Comrie

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin • N e w York

Evidential 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.

h

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

Library of Congress — Cataloging-in-Publication-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, 1936 — II. Utas, Bo, 1938III. Series. PL29 .E85 2000 415-dc21 00-045249

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publication-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.

,Vi'^

JV

Preface .H:

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", anoint 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. 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

v

Comrie, Bernard Evidentials: semantics and history

1

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

15

Csató, Éva Agnes Turkish Miş- and iMiş-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 -miš in Khalaj

89

Menz, Astrid Indirectivity in Gagauz

103

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

115

vin

. '

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

ix

Kozintseva, Natalia Perfect forms as a means of expressing evidentially 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

Evidential: 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 Csatö, 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 unequivo­ cally and directly makes an assertion, and an unmarked form that does not convey this, although in particular contexts it may receive interpre­ tations 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 informa­ tion) 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 ap­ proaches 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 Csatö, Johanson, and Schroeder (this volume), the -mis form is evidential only as a finite verb form, where it also has past time refer­ ence, whereas in nonfinite usages it is primarily a marker of resultativ­ ity; note that both usages thus involve, in Johanson's terminology, postterminality, and contrast with the deceptively similar clitic -imiş, 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 affirm­ ative 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

k4

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 resultative 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

1

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

t'aTizi-n

0-oq-no

0-oxi-n

idur-no

disappear-and I-become-ANTCVB I-IUII-ANTCVB home-and

paraq'at

kec-xo

relax

sleep-siMCVB be-PSTUNW

dahamaq'aw

uyno

little

also

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

zow-no. ... 0-?uft'-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 tetrad rucka-n r-is-no me one notebook pen-and IIpl-take-ANTCVB nesi-1-ày kec'-no b-oy-si. he-CNT-ABL song-and III-make-PSTWiT 'I 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-

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 tetrad rucka-n r-is-no me one notebook pen-and IIpl-take-ANTCVB nesi-1-ây kec'-no b-oy-si. he-CNT-ABL song-and III-make-PSTWiT 'I 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 -mis 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 -mis 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 Z. Guentchéva. 4. As an additional, perhaps relevant fact, note that -n(oj is also the usual Tsez translation of the conjunction 'and'.

References Anderson, Lloyd 1986 "Evidential, paths of change, and mental maps. Typologically regular asymmetries", in: Wallace Chafe—Johanna Nichols (éd.), 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, cm—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 T the first person singular pronoun is glossed 'me'.

Turkic languages

•'•if

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; Givön 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 function­ al in the expression of these categories, and then summarize the data showing their course of acquisition.1 2. Expression of evidentially 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 multifunc­ tional, whereas the predicate-final clitics are mainly modal in nature, except for -IDI which preserves its tense function. There is close for­ mal 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 ex­ ample (1) below, the verb stem is followed by a tense-aspect marker, which may further be followed by a predicate-final modal clitic de­ pending on context, as in example (2). (1) Verb morphology: Stem -Tense/Aspect/Modality AH Ankara-dan ayrü-ıyor(-DI/-mlşAIr...) Ali Ankara-ABL İeave-IPFV 'Ali is leaving Ankara.' (2) Verb morphology: Stem -Tense/Aspect/Modality - predicate final clitic Ali Ankara-dan ayrıl-ıyor-muş (-IDI/-DIr...) Ali Ankara-ABL leave-iPFV-MODAL CLITIC 'Ali is evidently leaving Ankara.'

Amongst these suffixes -mis and -DIr deserve special attention be­ cause 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 be­ longing to some point on a continuum which has realis/factual and ir-

i

Acquisition of evidentials in Turkish

17

Table I. 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 -Iyor -mis

-Ir

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

B. Predicate-final clitics -IDI -imiş -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 informa­ tion about habitual states of affairs; less than perfect certainty of proposi­ tion (b) formal language: assertion based on generic/factual knowledge; cer­ tainty of proposition

realis/nonfactual as the anchoring points. The suffix -mis (Aksu-Koç 1988; Aksu-Koç—Slobin 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 asser­ tion 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 ab­ sence 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 ofevidential 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)

DP(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-1 SG T m making a puzzle too.'

(5)

(DP, 1;7) /commenting on an object which reminds her of a stick/ DP: uuğ-a benn-iyo (çubuğa benziyor) stick-DAT look:like-iPFV '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 nerede? 'Where is Eda?' ES: Anneanneye git-ti Eda grandma-DAT go-PA:DE Eda 'Eda went to grandma.'

(7)

(DP, 1 ;7.8) /normative use, building up of shared information/ MOT: Deniz lambalar elle-n-iyormu? D. lamp-PL touch-PV-iPFV Q 'D., are lamps touched?' DP: en-n-iyo(r) tOUCh-IPFV

'(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 re­ mote 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-mış bu oh, spill-EVD this 'Oh this got spilled (evidently).' ES: ak-tı spill-PA:DE 'got spilled' INV: bit-miş mi? finish-EVD 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 modal­ ity. -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-miş? where-EVD 'Where is it (evidently)?'

(10) (SO,2;0) SO: bak-ay-im şurada ne var-mış? look-oPT-lSG there-LOC what exist-EVD 'Let me see what is over there (evidently).'

Acquisition of evidential in Turkish 21 (11) (DP, 1;7) DP: buyda-mış

ı

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 sto­ ry-telling and pretense activity. These situations typically involve de­ scription 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)-muş food 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 incor­ porates 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 experi­ ence, with -DI.

22

Ayhan

Aksu-Koç

(13) (SO, 2; 1,15) /discovers that her toy is broken/ 2 SO: *Salmcak çık-ıl-mış 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, sık-ış-tı 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 certain­ ty, 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-dı exist-PA:DE

(15) (SO, 2;6)/notices the doll which fell behind her/ SO: aaa, bu düş-müş 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 dur­ ing 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 in­ tention, 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 'I 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 pat­ terns of use in child-directed speech. Such assertions are based on knowledge derived from prior experience. (17) (DP, 1;9) DP: el-in sık-ış-ır hand-POSS:2sG get:stuck-RC-AOR 'Your hand may 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/cer­ tainty. Habitual behaviors which have a high likelihood of occurrence are experienced frequently enough to result in well-assimilated knowl­ edge, hence, constitute the basis for assertions with high degree of cer­ tainty (Aksu-Koç 1995). In situations where the speaker lacks any kind of evidence, but has sufficient previous experience to rely on, -DIr ap­ pended 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 func­ tions 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 oc­ cur in contexts of naming, in question form, to elicit factual informa­ tion. (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 per­ ceptually available referent, unless one were making a generic state­ ment. 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: bayatlamıştır onlar, lütfen 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 'What is it?' DP: 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 pre­ diction at best. (21) (MD, 2;1) /in response to mother asking the location of a toy/ MD: yatağ-ın-da-dir bed-poss:2sG-LOC-DiR 'must be in your bed'

'

Acquisition ofevidential 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 infor­ mation, and children at first talk about what constitutes certain infor­ mation for them. Qualification of an assertion for less than perfect cer­ tainty 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 particu­ lar, 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 Boğaziçi University Research Fund, Project Number 96 S 0017. 1. Vowel harmony operates throughout all words of native origin and for all gram­ matical 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 -mlşADI and -ImlşAIDI are represented with the same tokens -mlsZ-DI. 2. The ungrammatically derives from the passivization of the intransive çık- '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 de­ gree 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 evidential in Turkish 27 1995

"Some connections between aspect and modality in Turkish", in: Pier M. Bertinetto—Valentina Bianchi—Östen Dahi—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 Erguvanlı-Taylan (eds.) 1984 Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. Bertinetto, Pier M.—Valentina Bianchi—Östen Dahi—Mario Squartini (eds.) 1995 Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, Vol. 2. Typological Per­ spectives. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. Bybee, Joan—Suzanne Fleischman (eds.) 1995 Modality in grammar and discourse. (Typological Studies in Lan­ guage 32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Co. Chafe, Wallace 1995 "The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian lan­ guages 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. Given, Talmy 1982 "Evidentiality and epistemic space", Studies in Language 6: 23^19. Hardman, Martha James 1986 "Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages", in: Wallace Chafe—Jo­ hanna 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 (éd.), 185-200.

28 Ayhan Aksu-Koç Tura, S. Sabahat 1986 "Dır in modern Turkish", in: Ayhan Aksu-Koç—Eser Erguvanlı-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—posses­ sive, PL—plural, PV—passive voice, Q—question, RC—reciprocal, SG—singular.

Turkish MIS- and iMiş-items. Dimensions of a functional analysis Éva Âgnes Csatö 1. Introduction This article accompanies the discussion of Turkic indirectives pre­ sented 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 MIŞ and IMIŞ in Turkish, i.e. to outline some dimen­ sions of their functional analysis. The discussion is based on ideas de­ veloped by Johanson (see the references in Johanson, this volume). Not all the possible Turkish forms based on Mis and IMIŞ will be dealt with here. The presentation will be confined to the most important items and those that are particularly suitable to illustrating the theoret­ ical 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 syn­ tactic functions and sentence-final versus embedded positions will be distinguished, (iii) How do Miş-items differ from iMiş-items? The difference between these two items is morphological; the first item is a suffix, where­ as 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 MIŞ with other suffixes resulted in suf­ fix types whose meaning is not synchronically derivable from the

30

Éva Agnes Csatô

meaning of the components? The semantics of forms based on MISTI and MISTIR 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 MIS is always depend­ ent 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 fini transformative or intiotransformative. Furthermore, for in­ stance, 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 Csatö (1999). The context is, ultimately, always decisive for the specific reading assigned to an item; thus an ac­ count like the present one can refer only to the most usual interpreta­ tions. 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 MIŞ respectively. Both forms typi­ cally 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 im­ portant difference between the two items. The Di-items, as a rule, refer to events historically. For instance, the Di-form in example (1) is ap­ plied to point to the event as an unanalysed whole at the historical mo­ ment of its occurrence. Consequently, it can be used to narrate se­ quences of events, implying that event A took place, then event B and then event C. Thus, Di-items usually have propulsive function in narratives, i.e. they produce progression in the narrative chain, as illus­ trated in (2).

Turkish MIS- and ımş-items (1)

31

Di-Past Düştü. fall-Di.PST

'It/(s)hefell.' (2)

Bir taş aldım, yılana attım one stone take-Di.PST-lsG snake-DAT throw-Di.PST-lSG ve onu öldürdüm. and it-ACC kill-Di.PST-lso 'I 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 MIS. 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 Miş-form implies that the event has at least begun. The only relevant limit designated by a nontransformative verb is the be­ ginning of the event; thus the postterminal view expressed by the Miş-form directs the attention to a time after the beginning of the event. For instance, Okumuş [read:Miş] means '(S)he has obviously / appar­ ently begun to read and may or may not still be reading'. A transforma­ tive phrase, on the other hand, designates an event that includes a cru­ cial turning point. Thus, the Miş-form of a transformative phrase di­ rects 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 finitransforrnative, e.g. Ölmüş [die:Miş] '(S)he has obviously died / obviously died'. The other type of trans­ formative phrase is called initiotransformative, e.g. Oturmuş [sit:Miş] '(S)he has obviously sat down and may still be sitting'. Example (3) contains a finitransforrnative 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)

Miş-Past Düşmüş. fall-Miş.PST

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

32

Éva Agnes Csatô

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

Kulübün idarecilerine haber uçuruldu, club-3P0ss-GEN manager-PL-3POSS-DAT message carry-PASS-Di.psT geldiler ama... Mektubumuzu almamışlar. come-Di.psT-PL but letter- İPL.POSS-ACC receive-NEG.Miş.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 occur­ rence of an event, whereas Miş-items are often diagnostic, i.e. refer to an event after its completion, i.e. after its relevant limit has been trans­ gressed. 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 uyumadım. this night good sleep-Di.psT-lso 'I didn't sleep well last night.' (EUROTYP Questionnaire)

(6)

Otobüs geldi! bus arrive-Di.PST 'The bus has arrived! '

(EUROTYP Questionnaire)

Similarly, under specific conditions Miş-items can be used historically, i.e. to refer to sequential events in a chain of narrative. This use is de­ pendent on the inventory of past items employed in the given discourse type. If the inventory does not include any competing Di-forms, Miş-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 MIS- and mış-items (7)

33

Her hazırlığım kendi tamamlamış, arabaya bindirmiş, all preparation-3POSS-ACC herself complete-Miş.PST cart-DAT mount-CAUS-Miş.PST kendi de girmiş yanına oturmuş. herself also enter-Miş.psT side-3POSS-DAT sit down-Mis.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 con­ tent. This is especially true of forms containing the suffix MIS. Part of the differences may be set into relation to the syntactic position occu­ pied by finite and non-finite forms respectively. Finite forms in Turk­ ish typically occupy a sentence-final position, whereas non-finite ones are typically embedded and, therefore, usually take a non-final posi­ tion. 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)

Yağmur yağacak herhalde. rain rain-PROSP surely 'It will surely rain.'

(9)

Hatice Hanım akşam namazını kılıyor değil. 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) Hatice Hanım akşam namazını kılmıyor. Hatice Mrs evening prayer-3ross-ACC do-NEG-iYOR.PRS 'Mrs Hatice is not performing the evening prayer.'

34

Éva Agnes Csatô

The semantic notion of indirectivity is also an epistemic modal cate­ gory, expressing, as it were, a comment on the propositional content of the utterance. Indirective marking only applies to asserted and inter­ rogative 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-final position of sentential operators in Turkish. Non-finite, embedded items based on Mis do not express indirectiv­ ity (see Schroeder, this volume, for a detailed discussion). The seman­ tic notion conveyed by them is postterminality. There is a semantic op­ position between postterminal and non-postterminal participles in Turkish; see (11a) and (lib), respectively; furthermore, between pro­ spective and non-prospective participles. See (12a) and (12b), respec­ tively. (11) a. gelmiş otobüs come-Miş.PRT bus 'a / the bus which (has) arrived' b. gelen otobüs come-AN.PRT bus 'a/the coming bus' (12) a. pullanmış zarflar stamp-Miş.PRT envelope-PL 'stamped envelopes' b. pullanacak zarflar stamp-ACAK.PRT envelope-PL 'envelopes to be stamped'

A particular non-finite use of Mis and the copula particle IMIŞ is repre­ sented by the construction MIS / \mş+gibi 'as if. The original indirec­ tive 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 indirec­ tive categories are ambiguous between inferential, perceptive and reportive meanings. The items based on MIŞ / \M\ş+gibi 'as if, on the oth­ er hand, convey a counterfactual meaning, which is semantically relat­ ed to indirective nuances but does not convey the readings of genuine indirective categories.

Turkish MIS- and Miş-items

35

(13) Olmamış şeyler olmuş gibi, become-NEG-Miş.PRT thing-PL become-Miş.PRT like olmuş şeyler olmamış gibi become-Miş.PRT thing-PL become-NEG-Miş.PRT like.POSTP anlatılacak. 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 karısının kaçtığı kişiyi man wife-3poss.GEN run away-DiK.PART:3poss person-ACC bilemiyormuş gibi yapsın. knOW-NEG.POT-IYOR.PRES-IMIS like.POSTP 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 Miş-items can be used as embedded elements of periphras­ tic forms, their common characteristic being that they express postterminality but not indirectivity. See (15), illustrating the use of MIŞitems in a periphrastic verb form of a relative clause, and (16), which illustrates its corresponding use in a complement clause. (15) Çok oturulmuş olan iskemlenin yüzü much sit-PASS-Miş.PRT become-AN.PRT chair-GEN covering-3poss eskimiş. wear out-Miş.PST 'The covering of the chair which has been used a lot is worn out.' (16) Dede'nin grandfather-GEN olabileceğini

bu sözü neden söylemiş this word-ACC why say-Miş.PRT merak etmişti.

be:POT-ACAK.PRT-3POSS-ACC

WOnder-MISTI.PLUPERF

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

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

36

Éva Agnes Csatô

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

Non-finite Miş-items can be combined with sentence operators such as the negation particle değil 'not' (18) or with a necessitative form of the auxiliary verb ol (19). In all these cases, the meaning conveyed by the Miş-item is postterminality, whereas no indirective meaning is desig­ nated. (18) Ölmüş değil. die-Miş.PRT not 'It is not the case that he has died / died.' (19) Gelmiş olmalı. come-Miş.PRT be-NEC 'He must have come.'

Postterminal non-finite Miş-items can function as embedded predica­ tives, see (20) (cf. Drimba 1976). The Miş-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 vol­ ume for more about this absolute adverbial use. (20) Rüstem pabuçlarını çıkarıp bağdaş Rüstem slippers-PL-3poss-ACC take off-iP.coNV cross-legged kurmuş oturuyordu. Set-MIŞ.PRT Sİt-IYOR.DI.PST 'Rüstem had taken off his slippers and was sitting cross-legged.'

The postterminal meaning of Miş-participles may be lexicalised in nominal forms, for instance, dolmuş 'filled' meaning 'taxi or boat which only departs when it is filled up with passengers'. 4. The suffix

MIŞ

and the copula particle IMIŞ

If the predicate of a sentence is a nominal category, copula particles may be attached to it to mark different viewpoint, tense and modat val­ ues. The copula particle IMIŞ occurring with nominal predicates (in-

Turkish MIS- and mış-items

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 har­ monic form -(y)mlş, it is significantly different from finite Miş-forms of lexical verbs, which are formed by attaching the -mis suffix imme­ diately to the primary stem of the lexical verb. Note also that a cliti­ cised IMIŞ is unaccentable, i.e. cannot carry high pitch, whereas the suf­ fix Mis is accentable. Thus, the main morphological difference between MIS and the cop­ ula particle IMIŞ is that the former, but not the latter, can be attached to primary verb stems as, for instance, anla- 'understand' + mlş = an­ lamış 'has (apparently) understood' (cf. *anla- + imiş = *anlaymış). The copula particle can only be added to nominal stems as, for ex­ ample, baba 'father' + imiş = babaymış 'is apparently the father' or the lexicalised verbal noun anlam 'meaning' + imiş = anlammış 'is appar­ ently 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. anlıyor [understand-iYOR.PRES'] + imiş = anlıyormuş 'apparently / obviously un­ derstands'. The main semantic differences between MIS and IMIŞ concern tem­ porality, postterminality and indirectivity. Compare example (21), containing a nominal predicate and the copula particle IMIŞ, and exam­ ple (22), containing a verbal predicate based on a finite Miş-item. (21) Ali

hastaymış.

Ali

İII-IMIŞ.PART

'Ali is / was / has (apparently) been ill.' (22) Ali Ali

hastalanmış. become İ11-MIŞ.PST

'Ali has (apparently) become /became ill.'

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

38

Eva Agnes Csatô

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 be­ fore the speech event. The differing properties of MIS and IMIŞ can be summed up as shown in the following table. Table 1. Properties Attachable to primary ver­ bal stems

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

Finite forms of lexical verbs based on MIS yes

The copula particle IMIŞ no can only be added to nominal stems and extend­ ed deverbai nominal stems) no (IMIŞ

yes

postterminality no viewpoint meaning anteriority no temporal meaning can express indirectivity grammaticalised marker of indirectivity

Both MIS- and iMiş-items express indirectivity. For details on the no­ tion of indirectivity, see Johanson (this volume). Whereas the copula particle denotes indirectivity in all its occurrences, Miş-items convey this semantic notion only when they are used as finite verbs. Indirectivity designated by finite Miş-items and the copula particle IMIŞ conveys reportive, inferential or perceptive meanings (see Johan­ son, this volume). For instance, example (21) may be interpreted as re­ portive (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). e. Ali is ill (I took his temperature and saw that he has a fever).

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

Turkish MIS- and mış-items

39

ber of different verb forms based on nominal forms of lexical stems, e.g. -(I)yormuş [YOR.PRESENT+IMIŞ], -(V)rmlş [AORIST.PRESENT+IMIŞ], mAktAymlş [MAKTA.PRESENT+IMIŞ], -(y)AcAkmlş [PROSPECTIVE+IMIŞ]. All these forms share the basic semantic properties of the iMiş-items and express indirectivity. The temporal reading of the complex forms may be defined by a preceding suffix. See, for instance (23), in which IMIŞ 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, IMIŞ is cliticised to a postterminal Miş-form, and the form is therefore interpreted as anterior. The copula particle IMIŞ itself, how­ ever, does not mark any temporal idea, but only adds the notion of in­ directivity. (23) Siz de göreceksiniz, you also see-PROSP-2PL kalacakmışsınız.

çünkü aynı because same

yerde place-LOC

Stay-PROSP-IMIŞ.PART-2PL

'You will also see it, because (as I have been told) you will stay at the same place.' (24) Çok para kazanmışmış. much money earn-Miş.PRT-iMiş.PART 'He has (reportedly) earned much money.'

5, The suffixes MISTI and MISTIR 5.1. MIŞTi-items Finite Miş-items can, as we have seen, indicate both postterminality and indirectivity. Some complex finite suffixes based on Mis have be­ come grammaticalised with a function that cannot be described as the sum of the functions of the simple suffixes. Such complex forms are MISTI and MISTIR.

MiŞTi-items are based on the simple Mis-suffix and the copula parti­ cle 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

Éva Agnes Csatô

(25) Ben geldiğim zaman, sen gitmiştin. I arrive-DiK.PRT-lSGPOSS time you leave-MişTi.PLUPERF-2so 'When I arrived, you had (already) left.'

Turkish MişTi-items, unlike English pluperfects, can also be used to emphasize the actual or psychological 'remoteness' of the event. In (26), the speaker uses the MIŞTi-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 yıl önce Türkiye'de bir yd I this-ABL 4-5 year ago Turkey-LOC one year Japonca dersi almıştım. Japanese class-3poss take-MJŞTi.PLUPERF-lsG 'I took a course in Japanese for one year in Turkey four or five years ago.'

Whereas the MIŞTi-item in (25) can be interpreted postterminally, the MişTi-form in example (26) does not necessarily convey a postterminal viewpoint. Miş-items, on the other hand, always denote a postterminal viewpoint. Another important difference between MISTI- and Miş-items in­ volves the category of indirectivity. MIŞTi-items never indicate any indirective meaning. 5.2. MiŞTiR-items Complex Turkish MIŞTiR-forms are based on the combination of the suffix MIS with the suffix -DIr (< auxiliary verb *turur). MiŞTiR-items are used to refer to events in the past, i.e. they are items indicating an­ teriority. The function of MIŞTiR-forms also varies depending on the discourse type they are used in. In non-fiction, MIŞTiR-forms are often used as unmarked past forms which do not convey any specific modal meaning; see example (27). (27) Anadolu doğu Anatolia East ülkelerin country-PL-GEN

ile batı and West yolu road-3poss

arasında ticaret yapan between.POSTP commerce do-AN.PRT olduğu için be-DiK.PRT-3poss because.POSTp

" '

Turkish MIŞ- and mış-items

41

doğu ve batıdan birçok istilâlara uğramıştır. East and West-ABL several invasion-PL-DAT undergo-MişTiR.PST Örneğin tüccar, zanaatçı, işçilerden başka asker for example merchant artisan worker-PL-ABL other soldier ve memurların da yerleşme merkezleri and administrator-PL-GEN also settle down-iNF centre-3poss olmuştur. İşte bin yıldan beri Anadolu'ya become-MişTiR.PST thus thousand year-ABL since Anatolia-DAT egemen olan Türkler bu yoldan gelmiştir. sovereign be-AN.PRT Turk-PL this road-ABL come-MişTiR.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 MIŞTiR-forms may vary be­ tween assertion and presumption (I assert that ...; I presume that...); see (28). This semantic 'devaluation' is also typical of adverbial ex­ pressions such as 'surely, certainly'. (28) Magazin yazarı sordu: weekly writer-3poss ask-Di.PST Halanız evde kalmış bir kadın mıydı? aunt-2PL.P0ss house-LOC stay-Miş.PRT a woman Q-COPULA.PART.DI.PST Hiç evlenmemiştir", dedi. not at all get married-NEG-MiŞTiR.PST say-Di.PST. 'The journalist asked: ' "Was your aunt a spinster?" "I am sure she never mar­ ried", he said.'

The readings may also vary according to the person of the speaker. When used in the first person, a MlŞTlR-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' (yıllarca), 'in my life' (hayatımda, ömrümde), 'until now' (şimdiye kadar), 'each time' (her defa) (Johanson 1971: 299). See example (29) and (30). In the latter, B makes an inference about himself on the basis of the observation of A.

42

Eva Agnes Csatô

(29) O balkonlu odaya rüyalarımda hep ' that balcony room-DAT dream-PL-ISG.POSS-LOC always girmiş çıkmışındır. enter-Miş[TiR.psT-1 SG] leave-MişnR.PST-1 SG 'In my dreams, I have entered and left again and again that room with a balco­ ny.' (30) A. "Dün çok düşünceli duruyordun. Ne oldu?" yesterday very pensive stand-iYORDi.psT what become-Di.PST B: "Yorulmuşumdur." gettired-MiŞTiR-lsG 'A: "You were very pensive yesterday. What happened?" B: "I must have gotten tired.'"

In the second person, MISTIR is often used to convey a presumptive reading; see example (31). (31) Herhalde duymuşsundur. surely hear-MişTiR.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 regu­ larity 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 'Miş-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 vol­ ume). Csato, Éva Agnes 1999 "Zur Phasenstruktur ungarischer Aktionalphrasen", in: Walter Breu

Turkish MIS- and mış-items

43

(ed.) Probleme der Interaktion von Lexik undAspekt (ILA). Tubingen: Niemeyer, 75-89. Drimba, Vladimir 1976 "La détermination predicative en turc de Turquie", Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 48: 49-64. EUROTYP Questionnaire 2000 "The Perfect (PRF) Questionnaire. Eurotyp Project. European Science Foundation", in: Östen Dahi (ed.) Tense and aspect in European lan­ guages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Johanson, Lars 1971 Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Asp ektsystems. (Studia Turcica Upsaliensia 1.) Upp­ sala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Johanson, Lars 2000 "Viewpoint operators in European languages", in: Östen Dahi (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 -mis-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—Accusa­ tive, 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, IYOR.NOM— Nominal form (extended verb stem) based on the suffix -IYOR, IYOR.PRES—Present form based on the suffix -IYOR, LOC—Locative, MIŞ.PRT—Participle based on the suf­ fix -MIŞ, MIŞ.PST—Past form based on the suffix -MIŞ, MISTI.PLUPERF—Pluperfect based on the complex suffix -MIŞTI, MISTIR.PST—Past based on the complex suffix -MIŞTIR, NEC—Necessitative, NEG—Negation, PART—Particle, PASS—Passive, PL— Plural, PLUPERF—Pluperfect, POSS—Possessive, POST—Postterminal, POSTP—Post­ position, POT—Potential, PRES—Present, PROSP—Prospective, PRT—Participle, SG— Singular.

Direct and indirect experience in Salar Arienne Dwyer 1. Introduction Evidentially 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 (T see/hear/taste/ smell/feel/do') or indirect ('I hear it reported / I infer / I 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 ('* told y to..'.), and non-factive complements of cognition O 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 (Givön 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 ernes ar i. (No affirmative indirect form is attested in these three texts, but one can extrapolate ar (/).)

Direct and indirect experience in Salar 47 Table I. Salar verb suffixes/clitics with indirective oppositions affirmative Anterior I: preterite Anterior II: terminal Anterior III: experiential Copula Existential Imperfective I: pres.-dur.

Direct negative

affirmative

Indirect negative

-dji

-mA-dji

-mis

-mA-mis

-GAn

-mA-GAn

-mis

-mA-mis

-GAn var (i)-dïr var

-GAnjox-tïr ernes, emes-tïr jox, jox-fir

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

-GAn jox-a emes-a jox-a

-Ba(r)

j ox-fir

-Ba(r)

jox-a

(G=ğ/ff/G/g; B=b/p; A=a/ä)

2.1. Anterior 2.1.1. Anteriors I, II dji : -mis; -GAn : -mis Salar preserves the Old Turkic indirectivity distinctions for anterior events: events are marked as directly experienced with -dji (< 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, -dji and -GAn mark assertions within the speaker's direct experience, while -mis marks those events experi­ enced indirectly by the speaker, and are thus associated with first-per­ son subjects, as in the following example of an elderly man relating his wartime experiences: ( 1 ) piser kucara bardai- kucara barsa, u gasolin digän maxuo şarjlar anda Gasmis ta, ular da kucara gelmiş. [152.31,33]5 We 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; predict­ ably, the default markers are indirective -mis and a, as in the following typical story opening:

48

Arienne Dwyer

(2)

nenosur var a. bowusur varar a. ... incfoi awucuxnigi abası vursen adşiuniği hellt bidja 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 in­ terrupted by dialogue, which is marked by directives: (3)

idjaniği jahtuğuni 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, Sarigh 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 ba­ sis for the Salar experiential past: direct -GAn var (neg. -GAn joxt'ir) < Turkic experiential past -GAn + existential bar, indirect -GAn vara (neg. -GAnjoxa) < -GAn + bar + indirective clitic a (see 2.2 below). (4)

a. men bedjina varğan var b. u bedjina varğan var a e. u bedjina varğan joxtir/joxa

'I 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 construc­ tions over -GAn var/vara compositae: (5)

a. men ani bedjina I (s)he-ACC Beijing-DAT 'I heard s/he went to Beijing'

varmis go-ANT.iND

de istedji CNJR hear-ANT.DiR

Direct and indirect experience in Salar 49 b. men istisem u bedfoina I hear-C0ND-lSG (s)he Beijing-DAT 'I hear/heard (s)he went to Beijing.'

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 direc­ tive, 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)di'r (< 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, ex­ plicit 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 miniği tiut suxum (s)he my-GEN Tibetan friend-I.POSS '(S)he's my Tibetan friend.' idır

i

dır be-DiR

'Is that so?'

[Hân 1983] [53.183]

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

asmanda neccä jultus vara? 'How many stars are in the sky?' [Hân 1983]

(9)

ren xe ren bir ira bele.

'People are all the same.'

[53.198]

(10) ajso, sen futan ira mu?

'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 problem­ atic, until we consider that Salar has borrowed the back-vocalic Chi­ nese exclamatory particle a, which also occurs utterance-finally. The Salar indirective marker may have become back by analogy with the exclamatory particle.8 Sarigh 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 a; Sarigh Yoghur er is an emphatic ('certainly'), is associated with certain verb forms (mostly the future-G9,ş ), and can be negated with the Turkic negative infix -m(A)-, as in -Goş-mer): (11) a. duhtGaş-er b. duhtGdş-mer

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

( 12) seran namardjal kun sen saGds satda cüğe gelej dro (-gelğaş dro), buğan neğe gelmegen er? [Chén—Léi 1985] 'Seren Namerjal comes every day to the district at eight, why hasn't he come today?'

Although it is likely that both Salar a and Sarigh 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 fol­ lowing, 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, bupiserniği gl, gelgänni şl djaıjı ira, otırğujüra. indji anığı susını cänpin a. pişer darjzığa vursa, andağı su mundağı su bir zünzmı darjzığa vursa, ağırlığı 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 neg­ ative existentials, and therefore display the {-Dir : -a] opposition: di­ rect = V +joxdir, indirect = V +joxa. (14) a. men I b. men I e. u (s)he

cuxur now piti write piti write

pitibar write-DUR ioxtir not-DiR joxa not-iNDiR

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

3. Discourse-pragmatic factors Speakers choose socially meaningful speech styles based on the situa­ tion and its participants. The social and pragmatic intentions of the par­ ticipants and the type of communication mode ("genre") to a large ex­ tent determine the choice of indirective markers. These factors may re­ sult 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 fac­ tors 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 clear­ ly direct experience. In one conversation, a ninety-year-old woman is being interviewed by a much younger Salar man she has not met pre­ viously, who asks her about veiling practices long ago: (15) a. seler ki'ci voğanda you-PL small when 'When you were young, did b. daxan ixua wear not-iNDiR

getu daxanbar o head.covering wear-iMP INT you cover your heads?' 'No, we didn't.' [83.72-73]

52 Arienne Dwy er

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 (Oholda... ' Once upon a time...',... siuz 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 dia­ logic discourse. Examples (16)—(18) are excerpts from a conversation between a fa­ ther, his adult son, and his son's friend. In (16), the friend asserts his own age indirectly (with a comparative construction, and a confirma­ tive 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 mark­ ing 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 jusuğa vaxsa, bir djadax ira ba. Father: sışijia. Friend: sanşivu [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: seniği abarj seni sışl volmis debar. Your dad said you're forty. Son: ä:? Father: u sünşlsı volbar debar. Friend: pin sigliramu? Son: euvara, sangla.

pini tag sişt 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 in­ direct, reflecting the uncertainty of the information, or a sudden reali­ zation ('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: seniği aba be, vucarj volğanda liuşi girmady ba? 'Your father, he wasn't yet sixty-nine when he passed away, was he?' Friend: liuşisı volmis. 'He was sixty-four.' [53.119-121]

54 Arienne Dwy er

Indirectivity marking in conversations is thus very topic- and speakerdependent. Those conversations which involve the deferential nego­ tiation of information (such as the above) strongly favor indirect forms. Where the certainty or source of information is not being nego­ tiated 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 indirec­ tive 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), di­ rect forms are overwhelmingly favored. These timeless truths consti­ tute information of unquestionable certainty, even if the source of in­ formation is nebulous, and even if the assertion is counterfactual: (19) mundan gelgäsi, kimni alğuz uluğ alğusa disa? ikki sodjina alğuz uluğ alğusa dir i. narjniği jolina disa? asmanda bulut joxmasa, rahmät joxtur dir i. zimında sodji joxmasa, urux joxtur dir i. [1.44^8] '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 dis­ course, generally under two circumstances. The first is in utterances with second-person referents, out of deference; note how second-per­ son sän is associated with indirective ar i while first person miniği is associated with directive adir i: (20) ullı etse, qulax sän Gonaxnigi ar i. lombä §ı miniği ojciniği adır 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- an­ swer; an indirective question requires an answer with parallel marking, on stylistic grounds: (21) S'iba teiän ma mexelugu isinde, dzßgue dziga şi naıj ar i? 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 prop­ osition to be factive, neutralizes the indirective sense of ar. Pragmati­ cally, / 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 indi­ rect forms. Narratives may be punctuated by direct forms {-GAn, -Ar) in sudden change of state. These interruptions in the narrative se­ quence tend to be marked unbounded experiences (hence the experien­ tial -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 large­ ly related to foregrounding and backgrounding. 3.3. Foregrounding/backgrounding Hopper and Thompson (1980) showed a probabalistic correlation be­ tween realis and foreground, and irrealis and background. Salar dis­ course 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 indirec­ tives, at least in narrative discourse. In the following historical narrative presented overwhelmingly with indirect forms, direct forms appear occasionally to foreground current­ ly relevant information:

~w 56 Arienne Dwyer (22) su fala cix gelcänä asnijigua tamamiS. wujyä isinda oraxni orğur orğur boğdajni orğur. wujiga slcfeiünda, jigua su taynadjinänjogan etmiş 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 [§\] has been grammaticalized as a topic-mark­ er. 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) piserniği ardjina jiraxni gelganniği ğl sisi ga sejxej gelgän. [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 (idi'r/ira) is almost always ab­ sent: şi appears to have retained its copular sense from Chinese: (24) u jedjisi §i axman xa Garamanniği oğlı. '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 xd Garamanniği jedji oğlı idır/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 be­ low, sänbai djia 'thirty households' is marked off as a topic by dedjinän 'saying' ; the second utterance uses the Chinese topicalizer §v, neither have the expected Turkic copula utterance-finally: (25) sänbai d$ia dedynän, beliği ji gor/ [Q_]. piser §l ba gorjnığı isinda ğljiga goıj [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 ir­ relevant 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 quota­ tions 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 cor­ relation 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 report­ ed/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 be­ tween 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 over­ all textual coherence by partially neutralizing the sense of those indi­ rectivity markers required by morphosyntax but that are otherwise out of place. Notes 1 • The Salars are most likely Oğuz-Turkic speakers who migrated from Transoxiana to Amdo Tibet in the 13th century. Settling on the banks of the Yellow River in

58 Arienne Dwy er

2. 3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

what is today Qinghai province, they intermarried with Tibetans and later Mus­ lim 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). Given (1984: 286, 318). Manipulative complements are those which have an im­ pact on self ('want, intend, try,...') or others ('order, tell, ask...'). Liü and Lin (1980) assert that Salar marks "definiteness" (indirectivity) in the du­ rative (def. -bar, indef. -bd) and the future (def. -Gur, indef. -Gar). My data sug­ gests 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, Hân 1988, Hân 1989). This material must be treated with extreme cau­ tion, 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 > ğ > 0 (cf. genitive -ni ~ -niği < -ni + ki); final nasal deletion, nasality spreads onto previous vowel Vn > V (cf. sequential -d3İnen~-d3İne). Another possible origin of modern Salar indirective a is the Written Mongolian copular auxiliary a-. (Liü—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, ren­ dering 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 ani: a distinction, e.g. tara malGa manga mbi/mba 'That hat is mine (direct/indirect).' (In Salar: vu zorax miniği dir/ira 'id.') (Liü—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 war­ rant such a claim. Although unmarked foregrounded information is typical of créole languages, Salar cannot be considered a créole, for it is not a grammatically reduced or prag­ matically/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 créole 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 Zongzhèn—Lei Xuänchün 1985 Xïbù Yùgùyû jiânzhî [A concise grammar of Western Yugu [= Sarîgh Yoghur]]. Bëijïng: Mınzü. 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. Given, Talmy 1984 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: < • Benjamins. Hân Jiànyè 1983 "Sâlâyü jùzî fenlèi" [A classification of Salar sentences]. Qïnghài mınzü xuéyuàn xuébào 1: 68-76. 1988 "Tän Tùérkèwén" [On written Turki]. [Unpublished MS.] 1989 "Cöng wénxiàn zFliào kàn Säläyü de fäzhän biànxuà" [Observing changes in the development of Salar from documentary material]. Xibëi mı'nzû yânjiû 2: 173-182. Hopper, Paul J.—Sandra A. Thompson 1980 "Transitivity in grammar and discourse", Language 56: 251-299. Liu Zhàoxiông—Lin Liânyün 1980 "Bäoänyü hé Sâlâyülî de quèdîng yü fêiquèding yüqi" [Definite and indefinite mood in Baonan and Salar], Minzû yüwen l: 23-28. Tenisev, É. R. 1976 "Otryvok iz Istorii salarov" [A fragment from The History of the Salärs], 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—interroga­ tive, 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. Tndirectivity' 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 'En appears to P'. This means that a narrated event E" 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 P 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. Resultative 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, P 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: 'En is inferred by P'. The basis of knowledge is pure reflection, logical conclusion. • Reportive uses: 'En 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. Nei­ ther 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 ac­ tional phrases, it may denote qualities acquired as a result of the trans­ gression 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)

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

(2)

İcyînmis men kencimin lose-Mis I young-POSslSG-ACC 'I have lost my child.'

(3)

Bu yörügüg belgülüg qïlyalï this explanation-Ace 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 interpre­ tation clear.'

Turkic indirectives

61

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 'En 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., P may be an eyewitness of it. With respect to the source of knowledge in the scheme 'En appears to P', three types of uses of ermis may be distinguished: • Perceptive: 'En is perceived by P'. • Inferential: 'En is inferred by P'. • Reportive: 'En is reported to P'. The perceptive use cannot be derived from the reportive or inferen­ tial 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 ' * forms' express nontestimonial content has often led scholars to overlook the perceptive uses. Most grammatical accounts of ermis favour non-testimonial in­ terpretations and disregard the perceptive ones. Consider cases such as the following in the East Old Turkic inscriptions: (4)

Süsi üc birj ermis. army-POSs3sG three thousand be-Mis Biz iki big erdimiz we two thousand be-PAST-İPL

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' ("soil ... gewesen sein"; Gabain 1950: 114). However a more natural interpre­ tation of ermis would be 'was [as we saw]', 'turned out to be', 'ap­ peared to be'. There is no need to translate the content as reportive ev­ idence. A perceptive meaning ('as we experience') is also found in Old Uyghur sentences such as: (5)

Bu yêr 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. er(i) '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 erine '(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 ('I wonder'), e.g. Karakhanid Ol kêlir mü erki 'I wonder whether he will come?'. Compare the Tuvan politeness particle irgi used in questions, e.g. ... bar irgi be? 'I 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 E" 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 be­ comes 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 par­ ticipant of the narrated event. Some person referred to in the discourse may be the subjective ego that establishes the fact, e.g. Turkish Ali bakıyor ki eşek ölüyormuş I ölmüş 'Ali looks [and sees that]: the don­ key is dying/has died'. What is characterized is thus the relation be­ tween 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/En. This establishment may be interpreted contextually in various ways. However, reference is not made to the way in which En is acknowledged. Translation equivalents for this very broad notion include English evidently, obviously, it appears that; French évidemment, comme P constate, German offensichtlich, wie P 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 us­ ing 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 wit­ nessed the event. Perceptive uses of indirective copula markers in sen­ tences with first-person subjects may be compared to English expres­ sions such as 'I 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. Yazyan 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 interprétable 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. Yazi'p turur (lit. 'stands having written') '(S)he has written', Ölüp turur ('stands having died') '(S)he has died', Yati'p 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 sys-' tern, 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 T have gone', Karachay Aytyansa 'You have said', Crimean Tatar Alyanmi'z 'We have taken it', Kumyk Barmayanman T have not gone', Tuvan 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 Kêptir 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 -mis. It is a past item capable of expressing indirectivity by virtue of its postterminality (Buder 1989: 68-79), e.g. Min manna kelbitim T have [obviously] come here', but it is not a non-testimonial item signalling that P 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 T have lost my beloved one'. This type is similar to the Per­ sian perfect type mentioned above (yapm'is = karde (ast) 'has done') and has probably developed due to Persian influence. The Turkish finite item -mis 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 -mis expresses that the speaker has not witnessed the event di­ rectly. This incorrect definition of the relation has caused much confu­ sion. The definition of -mis 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 -mis has developed into an indirec­ tive that may also be used historically, in an event-oriented way. It covers both perfect and preterite functions, e.g. Gitmiş '(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 free­ ly with specific time expressions. The item -DI, lacking a pure postter­ minal 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 -mis were made. First, there are sig­ nificant differences between the finite and the nonfinite -mis, since only the former may have indirective functions. It was observed that the finite -mis 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 ex­ perienced the event consciously, the interest may focus on posttermi­ nal effects of the event, or the indirect view may be motivated by sur­ prise, caution, modesty, etc. -mis can be used to summarize events in a complexive way, without any evidential shades of meaning concern­ ing the source or the nature of experience (Johanson 1971: 291). In perceptive uses of -mis, 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. Yaşgünü toplantısını ne güzel an­ latmışsın 'How nicely you have described the birthday party [as I can just read]', Misafir baktı saatine. 'Benimki durmuş... ' dedi 'The guest looked at his watch. Mine has [as I become aware of] stopped, he said', Ali gelmiş 'Ali has [as I see] come', Yemek çok güzel olmuş 'The food is (has turned out) very good [as I can taste]', Çok büyümüşsün 'You have grown a great deal [as I see]'. Note, however, that -mis also covers high degrees of focality, in­ cluding cases where a property of the subject is focussed on, e.g. in participial uses such as giyinmiş 'dressed', tutulmuş 'occupied'. Sen­ tences such as Bu masa tutulmuş 'This table is occupied' or Çok güzel giyinmişsin 'You are very beautifully dressed' do not express more indirectivity than the corresponding English sentences. Whereas Turk­ men 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. Oğlum yeni evlenmiş. 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 -mis 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. Qap'ïyï 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 mean­ ing of indirectivity. In written Turkish, the addition of -Dir to -mis creates an indicative past item in -mistir. The formal and functional re­ lation between Gitmiş '(S)he has evidently gone, evidently went' and Gitmiştir '(S)he went, has gone' is similar to the one obtaining be­ tween 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, -mistir is a presumptive item, e.g. Git­ miştir '(S)he has presumably gone, presumably went' vs. Gitmiş '(S)he has evidently gone, evidently went'. The same relation is ob­ served 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 Şu anda okuyordur with the stem -(0)lyor, Turk­ men Ol hœdir oqoyànnïr '(S)he is probably reading now' with the in­ traterminal participle in -yÄn. 5. Copula particles in later Turkic languages Whereas East Old Turkic exhibits one indirective copula particle er­ miş, many later Turkic languages—e.g. modern ones such as Turk­ men, 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 look­ ing 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 oc­ curs in languages lacking a simple postterminal -mis. In several Turkic languages, erken {eken I 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 P that', e.g. Chuvash Valkilnë 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 P is informed that P infers, concludes that P perceives that ('as P is told') ('as far as P understands')('as P sees, hears, etc.')

5.2. Perceptive uses of erken The particle erken is thus 'evidential' in the etymological sense of the word (êvidens <— êvidére 'see clearly') signalling awareness of a revealed fact, indicating that an event is apprehended, perceived, noticed, discovered, recognized, e.g. Uyghur Öyide yoq iken '(S)he turns / turned out not to be at home', Bu sorpa ya/siken 'This soup is [as I taste] good'. It can also mean reception as a mental impression, implying that something is inferred, concluded, understood, mentally grasped. Translation equivalents include English obviously, evidently, it appears I appeared that, it turns I turned out that, it proves I proved fo, it comes I came to light that, German offenbar, offensichtlich, wie sich herausstellt(e), French apparemment, il se montre I s'a montré que, Russian vyjasnaetsja / vyjasnilos', okazyvaetsja I okazalos . Chaghatay èkendur is often used in a perceptive sense, e.g.

78 Lars Johanson (6)

Qavgunci yègirme yègirme bes kisi èkendur. persecutor twenty twenty five person ÈKENDUR Biz sekiz kisi èdik. we eight person be-PAST-İPL 'The persecutors were [as we saw] 20 or 25 men. We were eight men.'

The first sentence may be compared to the East Old Turkic sentence cited above as (4): Süsi üc birj ermiş 'Their army appeared to amount to three thousand'. (7)

Bir kuruh kéldiik. one kuruh [linear measure] come-PAST-İPL Fanim kişisi yangan èkendur plunderer person- POSS3SG return-PART ÈKENDUR 'We advanced two miles [and saw]: the enemy had withdrawn.'

In the last example, yangan èkendur is not a simple pluperfect but adds a meaning of perceptive indirectivity (cf. Schönig 1997: 277, 293 ). The following examples from an Afghan Uzbek text demonstrate how erken may be used to mark the content of perception: (8)

Usu to%tagan djâjini kordi ki that stop-PART place-poss3sG-ACC see-PAST3sG that bdr masdjidni bsr ujide turar ek'an, one mosque-GEN one house-poss3sG-LOC stand-PRES ERKEN ujini taginda bar jertola house-POSs3sG-GEN bottom-POSs3sG-LOC one cellar ha:r ek'an, existing ERKEN usa â.lip ba.ryan rierselemi that take-CONV go-PART thing-PL-ACC usa jerge qojar ek'en.L.-l that place-DAT put- PRES ERKEN Erte bilen I...I usa oyri morning with that thief turgan djâjge bardi. stay- PART place-DAT go-PAST3sG Qarasa-ki usa oyri usa masdjitni Look-cOND-that that thief that mosque-GEN mullasi ek'an mullah-POSs3sG ERKEN (Jarring 1938: 76)

Turkic indirectives

79

The passage might be translated as follows: 'He saw the place where he was staying [and established:] He was [as he saw] in a house belonging to a mosque. Under the mosque there was [as he saw] a cellar, where he [= the thief] used to put away the things he had taken /.../• In the morning he /.../ went to the place where the thief was staying. When he looked, [he saw that] the thief was the mullah of that mosque.' Markers of the erken type may be reinforced by expressions meaning 'evidently', often based on verbs of perception such as 'see' and 'look', e.g. qarasaki in the passage just quoted, qarasaq (lit. 'if we look') in sentences such as Karakalpak Qarasaq, olar qoyïsï eken 'They turn / turned out to be neighbours' and kör erne (lit. 'I see') in Karachay-Balkar Ol ketgen köreme '(S)he has evidently left'. The type erken should be distinguished from the presumptive-dubitative type erkin, e.g. Chaghatay èkin, Tuvan irgin and combinations with interrogative particles such as Uzbek mikin, mikan. These items—probably contaminated with and influenced by erken '(while) being' (Gabain 1945: 149)—are used in questions with the same meditative, sceptical, timid, rhetorical readings (T wonder') as the East Old Turkic erki discussed above, e.g. Uzbek Èndi nimà qïlamïz ekän? T wonder what we shall do now'; see Kleinmichel (1997). 5.3. Absence of a competing item However, the cooccurrence of the types erken and ermis in one and the same system is sometimes limited. Thus, Uzbek émis is mainly used in the literary language and in dialects (Kononov 1960: 272). In standard Uyghur, -mis is restricted to statements in the sense of 'allegedly', 'it is claimed that', often used ironically, whereas it is still used as a broader indirective item in certain Eastern Turki dialects. Some Turkic languages only possess one combined indirective copula particle in which the two semantic types coincide. The situation in Yakut (Buder 1989: 89-109) is analogous to the one in East Old Turkic. The particle ebit, which unlike -Bit is not a past item, conveys the meaning 'as it turns / turned out' (Korkina 1958: 145). The combinations -Ar ebit (with the intraterminal stem in -Ar) and -Bit ebit (with the

80 Lars Johanson

postterminal stem in -Bit) are often used to represent contents of per­ ception, e.g. Kelbit ebitter 'They have evidently come', Gosa sulbu oyon turda. Tula körünne. Cugas kura:nax buocuka turar ebit. Ol Höhe ïtïnna 'Gosa suddenly jumped up. He looked around. An empty barrel stood [as he saw] nearby. He climbed onto it' (Buder 1989: 99). In the West Oghuz languages Azerbaijanian and Turkish, imis is an indirective copula particle of the East Old Turkic ermis type, never used deverbally and not capable of carrying pitch accent. It is normally suffixed, e.g. Turkish -(y)mlş in Gülmüş (<- gül 'rose') 'It is apparently arose'. The copula particle is often confused, sometimes even in Turcological literature, with the simple indirective finite suffix -mis, which is a déverbal suffix, capable of carrying pitch accent, formally identical with the participle suffix -mis, e.g. Turkish Gülmüş (<- gül- 'laugh') '(S)he apparently laughed'. While -mis vacillates a good deal with re­ spect to indirectivity, the copula particle imis is a semantically stable indirectivity marker. Finally, imis is, like its equivalents in other Tur­ kic languages, temporally indifferent, while -mis is not. In the mono­ graph mentioned above, the notion of indirectivity was said to be sig­ nalled in a consistent way by the atemporal -(y)mlş, whereas it appears less consistently with the temporal item -mis: "Das nichttemporale imiş des Türkeitürkischen signalisiert in pertinenter Weise die modale inferentielle Idee, die beim temporalen miş als nichtpertinente Nuance auftritt" (Johanson 1971: 64). In spite of all these obvious differences, many linguists refer to both -miş and -(y)mlş as "the suffix -miş", which makes a precise functional analysis impossible. The idea that "the suffix -miş" may be added to both verbal and nominal stems is often repeated even in modern typo­ logical literature. The semantics of the Turkish copula particle -(y)mlş is often mis­ understood, sometimes even referred to as a "dubitatif (Bazin 1966: 281). It is important to realize that -(y)mlş never conveys the postterminal view which is typical of -miş. Thus, the combination of -(y)mlş and the intraterminal stem in -(0)lyor allows an intraterminal view of the event, e.g. Yazıyormuş '(S)he is / was evidently writing'; cf. Azerbaijanian Yaz'irmi's. Furthermore, -(y)mlş combines with -miş

Turkic indirectives

81

stems to signal indirective postterminality in an unequivocal way, e.g. Turkish Yazınışmış '(S)he has / had reportedly written'; cf. Azerbaija­ nian Yazmïsmïs. The uses are thus very similar to the uses of East Old Turkic ermis, subsumable under the general notion of indirectivity based on various sources such as report, logical conclusion and direct perception, e.g. Turkish Ali bunu biliyormuş 'Obviously [judging from hearsay, infer­ ence or appearance] Ali knows / knew this', Azerbaijanian Dünyada nêje alcağ adamlar varmïs 'There are [obviously] so many scoundrels in the world'. 5.4. Distribution of Turkic indirective copula particles A rough comparison of the distribution of indirective copula particles yields the following picture: East Old Turkic Chaghatay erkendur Many modern languages eken ~ èken ~ iken Yakut Turkish

ermis ermis émis ~ émis ~ imis ebit imiş

6. Turkish indirectives Trying to sum up the situation in Turkish, we may first state that a ba­ sic opposition obtains between items signalling indirectivity, e.g. gel­ miş 'has obviously come / obviously came', geliyormuş 'is obviously coming / obviously comes', etc., and unmarked items such as geldi 'has come / came', geliyor 'is coming / comes'. As demonstrated in Johanson (1971), grammarians have had serious problems when trying to pinpoint the semantics of -mis and imiş with respect to epistemic modality. The markers are certainly epistemic in the sense that they concern the dimension of experience, but their task is not to express the speaker's attitude to the truth of the propositional content or the foreign origin of the speaker's knowledge. The source of knowledge is not criterial for their use.

82 Lars Johans on

The indirective items can also mark statements based on direct ex­ perience, perception of an event or its effects, of a fact which shows itself, turns out or proves to be the case, which becomes evident, obvi­ ous, manifest, visible, clear, open to a conscious subject's senses and/ or mind. This meaning of -miş and imiş cannot be derived from their reportive or inferential meanings. This use of imiş is found in sentences conveying a perceptional con­ tent, e.g. Ali pencereden baktı: misafir geliyormuş 'Ali looked through the window [and saw that]: a visitor was coming', Şu tablo ne güzelmiş 'How beautiful that picture is!' In a Turkish sentence such as O kız şarkıyı iyi söylüyormuş 'That girl sings [as it appears / turns out, as is evident] the song well', -(y)mls is used in the same way as Uyghur (i)ken in the corresponding sentence U qiz na%sini ya%si eytidiken. As for the simple -mis, the content it marks is not necessarily based on a foreign source or logical conclusion. The use of -mis in Çorba çok güzel olmuş 'The soup is [as I perceive by tasting] very good' is based on an indirective meaning of 'as I perceive' or 'as is evident to me'. It may be interpreted as a normal postterminal use, i.e. as based on per­ ception of effects after the transgression of the relevant limit of ol- 'be­ come/come into being / turn out'. The use in a sentence such as Ahmet gelmiş 'Ahmet has come' can even be based on direct perception of the event itself; compare the similar use of Uyghur -(I)ptu in Exmet keptu. The use of indirectives can, as we have seen, often be interpreted in terms of sudden discovery, unexpectedness, surprise, new knowledge, perception contrary to one's expectations, etc. In the current discus­ sions concerning "the suffix -miş,, it is often claimed that the 'admirative' or 'surprise' use, in which the speaker expresses surprise vis-à-vis an unexpected situation, represents the main or central value from which all other values (reportive, inferential, ironical, etc.) de­ rive. This trend started with some highly valuable contributions by Aksu-Koç and Slobin, dealing with Turkish indirectivity as a cognitive phenomenon. The indirectives were taken to emphasize the "external­ ity of the process to the speaker's awareness", to allow to narrate "in­ directly and nonconsciously experienced events" (Aksu-Koç—Slobin 1982: 182) and to mark that the speaker's mind is not prepared for the

Turkic indirectives

83

information in question, i.e. to convey new information which is not yet part of the speaker's integrated picture of the world (Aksu-Koç— Slobin 1986: 160). These fine observations on particular uses of Turkish indirectives are basically in keeping with the suggestions offered in Johanson 1971. It is, however, not possible to interpret the reportive and infer­ ential uses as deriving from a central notion such as 'surprise'. DeLancey (1997) claims that the Turkish "evidential perfect", in which he incorrectly includes -(y)mlş, constitutes an obligatory grammatical category, with 'mirative' and unmarked forms in paradigmatic con­ trast. The decisive factor is allegedly that the information conveyed is new or surprising to the speaker. This is obviously at variance with the fact that so-called 'hot news' is typically expressed by the past marker -DI, not by -mis or -(y)mlş. The use in compliments such as Kızınız çok iyi piyano çalıyormuş 'Your daughter plays the piano very well' is claimed to follow directly from the alleged 'new knowledge' interpre­ tation, the implication being something like 'No matter how high my expectations might have been, what I just heard exceeded them'. It rather seems that the additional information offered by -(y)mlş is not contrariness to the speaker's expectation, but simply 'as I hear', which follows from the notion of indirectivity. If we want to establish a relatively stable common "central mean­ ing" for both -mis and -(y)mlş, we should focus on notions from which a certain range of particular meanings can be derived. Features such as 'surprise', 'relative novelty', and 'discovery contrary to expectation' are not necessary elements of indirectives in Turkish or other Turkic languages. 7. Areal distribution According to DeLancey, "Turkish is part of a recognized Old World evidential belt which also includes Albanian, Bulgarian-Macedonian, and Georgian" (1997: 36). This is a statement that stands the facts on their heads. In reality, Turkish is part of a Turkic "indirective belt", which has exerted influence on many neighbouring languages as a re­ sult of intensive contacts. There is thus indeed "some areal effect in the

84 Lars Johanson

distribution". Stable indirectives play central parts in all Turkic languages, but are marginal in Indo-European. If they nevertheless appear in certain contact areas such as the Balkan, Caucasian and Central Asian areas, we certainly have reasons to look for Turkic models for them. See, for example, Johanson (1996b) and (1998). Though these problems will not be discussed here, it should be stressed that several languages of the Balkan area, particularly Bulgarian and Macedonian, display indirectivity systems very similar to the Turkic ones. Former perfects have acquired markedly indirective functions, and there are temporally indifferent markers of indirectivity such as Bulgarian bil, which exhibits close functional similarity to Turkic erken and ertnis. The complex Bulgarian system is, as DeLancey admits, not easily analysed as a straightforward evidential or 'mirative' pattern. The Albanian so-called admirative, which goes back to a postterminal but is now also used narratively, displays the typically indirective nuances of emotional distance found in Turkic indirectives. The indirectivity system of northern Tajik varieties is much more developed than those of western varieties of Persian, certainly due to influence from Uzbek. Similar tendencies are found in the use of the perfect of some Kurdish varieties spoken in Turkish surroundings. References Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A. 1988 The acquisition of aspect and modality. The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A.—Dan Slobin 1986 "A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish", in: W. Chafe—J. Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. (Advances in Discourse Processes 20.) Norwood, N.J.: Ablex 159-167. Bazin, Louis 1966 "Les classes du verbe turc", Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 54: 265-285. Bazin, Louis—Jacques Feuillet 1980 "L'opposition constatation / non-constatation en turc et en bulgare", Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 16: 9-15.

Turkic indirectives 85 Buder, Anja 1989 Aspekto-temporale Kategorien im Jakutischen. (Turcologica 5.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Clauson, Sir Gerard 1972 An etymological dictionary ofpre-thirteenth century Turkish. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related prob­ lems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeLancey, Scott 1997 "Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information", Linguistic Typology 1: 33-52. Demir, Nurettin 1997 "Die Vergangenheitsform auf -(y)ik in anatolischen Dialekten", in: Â. Berta (ed.), Historical and linguistic interaction between Inner Asia and Europe. (Studia Uralo-Altaica 39.) Szeged, 65-79. Gabain, Annemarie von 1945 Ozbekische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Lesestücken und Wörterverzeichnis. Leipzig—Wien: Otto Harrassowitz. 1950 Alttürkische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Lesestücken und Wörterverzeichnis, auch neutürkisch. (2nd edition.) Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. Haugen, Einar 1972 "The inferential perfect in Scandinavian", The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17: 132-139. Isxakov, Fazyl G.—Aleksandr A. Pal'mbax 1961 Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija [Grammar of the Tuvan language]. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Vostocnoj Literatury. Jarring, Gunnar 1938 Uzbek texts from Afghan Turkestan. Lund: Gleerup, Leipzig: Har­ rassowitz. Johanson, Lars 1971 Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1990 "Zur Postterminalität türkischer syndetischer Gerundien", Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher N. F. 9: 137-151. 1993 "Zur Entstehung historischer Präterita im Türkischen", Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları?!: 119-127. 1994 "Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora", in: R. Thieroff—J. Ballweg (eds.), Tense systems in European languages. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 247-266.

86 Lars Johanson 1995

"On Turkic con verb clauses", in: M. Haspelmath—E. König (eds), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms — adverbial participles, gerunds. (Empirical approaches to language typology 13.) Berlin—New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 313-347. 1996a "Terminality operators and their hierarchical status", in: B. Devriendt—L. Goossens—J. van der Auwera (eds.), Complex structures: A functionalist perspective. (Functional Grammar Series 17.) Berlin—New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 229-258. 1996b "On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives", in: N. Boretzky—W. Enninger—Th. Stolz (eds.), Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen. (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 24.) Bochum: Brockmeyer, 84-94. 1996c "Altaische Postterminalia", Acta Orientalia Hungarica 49: 257-276. 1998 "Zum Kontakteinfluß türkischer Indirektive", in: N. Demir—E. Taube (eds.), Turkologie heute — Tradition und Perspektive. (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 48.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 141-150. 1999 "Grenzbezogenheit in Aspekt und Lexik am Beispiel türkischer Postverbialkonstruktionen", in: W. Breu (ed.), Probleme der Interaktion von Lexik und Aspekt (ILA). Tübingen: Niemeyer, 129-139. Kleinmichel, Sigrid 1997 "Zu ékan und -kin im Usbekischen", in B. Kellner—P. Zieme (eds.), Studio Ottomanica. Festgabe für György Hazai zum 65. Geburtstag. (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 47.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 103-126. Kononov, Andrej N. 1960 Grammatika sovremennogo uzbekskogo literaturnogo jazyka [Grammar of the modern Uzbek literary language]. Moskva—Leningrad: Nauka. 1980 Grammatika jazyka tjurkskix runiceskix pamjatnikov (VII-IX vv.) [Grammar of the Turkic runic documents (7th-9th centuries)]. Leningrad: Nauka. Korkina, Evdokija I. 1958 "Formy prosedsego vremeni glagoli v jakutskom jazyke", in: Trudy jakutskogo filiala. Vypuskl. Obscestvennye nauki. Jakutsk, 118-161. Lazard, Gilbert 1985 "L'inférentiel ou passé distancié en persan", Studia Iranica 14: 27—42. 1996 "Le médiatif en persan", in: Z. Guentchéva (ed.), L'enunciation médiatisée. Louvain—Paris: Editions Peeters, 22-30.

Turkic indirectives

87

Schönig, Claus 1997 Finite Prädikationen und Textstruktur im Babur-name (Haiderabad-Kodex). (Turcologica 31.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Slobin, Dan I.—Ayhan Aksu 1982 "Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential", in: P. J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins, 185-200. Windfuhr, Gemot L. 1982 "The verbal category of inference in Persian", in: Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne 2. (Acta Iranica 22.) Leiden: Brill, 263-279.

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: ACC—accusative, COND—conditional, CONV—converb, DAT—dative, GEN—genitive, PAST—simple past, PART— participle, PL—plural, poss—possessive, PRES—present tense, SG—singular. The transcription, particularly of older Turkic languages, is simplified and does not always'mirror the author's opinion on the actual pronunciation.

Reflections on -mis in Khalaj Filiz Kıral 1. Introduction This article aims to provide a general overview of the use and function in Khalaj of the unit -mis, the copula ä(r)mis (< är- 'be' + -mis) and compound forms with ä(r)mis. These observations are based on lan­ guage material recorded between 1994 and 1998 in the Khalaj village of Baharestan, formerly called Kharrab, situated near Ashtian. The Turkic language Khalaj is spoken by approximately 30,000 people in Central Iran today. In contrast to the other Turkic languages and dialects of Iran, which belong to the Oghuzic branch of the Turkic language family, Khalaj is spoken in an isolated enclave. The Khalaj people are believed to be the descendants of non-Oghuzic Arghu tribes who fled to Central Iran after the Mongol incursion in the 13th century.1 The Turkic languages and dialects of Iran are heavily influenced by Persian. The political, social and cultural dominance of Persian, Iran's sole official language, as well as the traditional multilingualism of the Iran-Turks have fostered this development. On all linguistic levels we can thus observe language contact phenomena resulting from the copying of structural features from spoken Persian into the respective Turkic variety. The impact of Persian on Khalaj has been more pro­ found than its influence on the other Irano-Turkic languages and dia­ lects, such as the Khorasan-Turkic dialects, spoken by roughly 2 mil­ lion in northeastern Iran, or Azerbaijanian, spoken by about 15 million in the northwest. Among all the Turkic languages spoken in Iran, Azerbaijanian enjoys the greatest amount of prestige, and its Tebriz variety serves the Iran-Turks as a lingua franca. Consequently Khalaj, too, has copied structural features from Azerbaijanian. Up until the investigations carried out by Gerhard Doerfer and his associates, Khalaj was actually considered to be an Azerbaijanian dia­ lect.2 Doerfer not only showed that Khalaj is not Oghuzic at all, but that it is also one of the most archaic Turkic languages.

90 Filiz Kıral

2. Persian influence in Khalaj I would like to present some general remarks concerning structures in Khalaj which show particularly strong Persian influence. The inten­ sive language contact with Persian has led to phonological changes such as the lowering or delabialization of [ii] and [o] and the labializa­ tion of the long vowel [ä]. Beside an abundance of single lexical units, complex units containing grammatical elements are also extensively copied.3 Moreover, different from the other Turkic languages and dia­ lects of Iran, where grammatical units are copied as parts of larger blocks,4 we find that Khalaj goes one step further by copying certain grammatical units in isolation. For example, Persian indefinite -/ is added to Turkic words, such as kin-i 'a day', and the Persian prefix bican also be combined with Turkic nouns and pronouns, as in bi-kisi 'without woman', bi-sän 'without you' (Doerfer 1988: 97). Another area which has undergone heavy Persian influence is that of complex sentences, which are mostly introduced by the copied polyfunctional particle ke or conjunctions such as vaqti ke 'when', con ke 'because' etc. and which introduce right-branching clauses. Such copies of Per­ sian conjunctors are frequent; they constitute an areal-typologically distinctive feature of all Irano-Turkic languages and varieties. Further­ more, genuine Turkic strategies for constructing complex sentences using subordinative nonfinite elements have been substantially re­ duced in these languages. In contrast, however, we find that those grammatical elements which create sentence-hierarchical modifications, such as case-mark­ ing, possessive suffixes, diathetical marking, etc., are formed by means of genuine Turkic elements. The Turkic verbal system has also been influenced by Persian but to a far lesser extent than those structures mentioned above. Copies from the Persian verbal system are limited to selective copies, which means that rather than Persian grammatical material being copied, Turkic elements enter into combinations and acquire or discard func­ tions in accordance with corresponding Persian structures. For in­ stance, modal constructions in Irano-Turkic display combinational and semantic structural features of the underlying Persian structures,

Reflections on -miş in Khalaj

91

which are formed with modal auxiliary verbs. Another example of Turkic verbal elements adopting functions of Persian patterns is the use of optative forms in modal constructions and in complex sentences where Persian employs the subjunctive. We shall see that the unit -mis in Khalaj has been influenced by Persian in a similar way. 3. The unit -miş in Turkish In Turkish, -miş is used both as a finite and nonfinite unit. In its nonfinite use, -miş is employed in relative and constituent clauses, where it denotes relative anteriority and is postterminal, i.e. the event is viewed "after the transgression of its relevant limit" (Johanson 1996: 86).5 As a finite predicative unit, it conveys, apart from anteriority and postterminality, indirective nuances which can be interpreted as infer­ ential, reportive, hearsay, and the like. As a postterminal indirective marker, -miş is in opposition to the anterior nonindirective -di past, with -miş acting as the marked and -di as the unmarked form. Howev­ er, in fairy tales, fables, etc. -miş is often used as a narrative tense to express the action itself without conveying indirectivity, a use which Johanson has termed the historical use of -miş. Note that in complex finite verb forms constructed with -miş and the copula particles idi or -dir, these complex units do not contain such shades of indirectivity. In written Turkish, -miş forms combined with -dir can additionally carry constative, resultative nuances with the meaning T conclude that... ' (see Csatö, this volume). In contrast to the unit -miş, the copula particle imiş, which can be combined with a number of aspectotemporal units, is temporally indifferent and always serves as a marker of in­ directivity (Johanson 1971, 1994).

4. The unit -mis in Khalaj 4.1. Nonfinite -mis In Khalaj, nonfinite use of -mis in relative clauses is rare. The predica­ tive potential of the nonfinite verb form marked by -mis is greatly lim­ ited, and -mis appears almost exclusively in constituent clauses or in

92

Filiz Kıral

nominalized forms. Its function can be compared to that of an adjective attribute similar to the Persian perfect participle in -(y)e, which also can be used nominally. Compare the following Persian and Khalaj ex­ amples: ketäb xände vs. ketäb hoqimis [book read-pp] 'well-read; a learned person', jahän dide vs. jahän kermis [world see-PP] 'worldlywise, widely traveled; a cosmopolitan'. The predicative potential of nonfinite verb forms with -mis in rela­ tive clauses was already quite restricted in Old Turkic; therefore, the above-mentioned use of -mis in Khalaj could be archaic. Persian influ­ ence may have contributed to the fact that Khalaj, unlike e.g. Turkish, did not further develop -mis in its nonfinite uses. In cases where Turk­ ish employs relative clauses with -mis, Khalaj has relative clauses which are copies of Persian patterns. We observe this limited use of nonfinite -mis in all Turkic languages and dialects of Iran. Persian participles have largely forfeited their verbal features and adopted characteristics of adjectives and nouns. These structural fea­ tures may have been transferred onto the equivalent unit -mis in Kha­ laj. In both Persian and Khalaj these morphological units, the perfect participle -(y)e and the -mis unit respectively, can be used in com­ pound finite aspectotemporal units. This may be an additional factor leading to the identification of -mis with Persian -(y)e. Interestingly, we find the opposite development in northern Tajik dialects, which have intensive contact with Uzbek and show participial constructions modeled after the Turkic type (see Lorenz 1964). 4.2. Finite -mi's In Khalaj the finite use of -mis, negative -mädük, preserved from Old Turkic, displays combinational and semantic structural properties of its Persian equivalent consisting of the perfect participle + copula, e.g. gofte ast 'has said'. Doerfer (1988: 176) points out that in Khalaj the use of finite -mis deviates from that of Turkish, and that Khalaj verb forms with -mis are always just to be translated into German as perfect forms. As shown above, Turkish finite -mis, apart from denoting ante­ riority and postterminality, can also convey indirective nuances. In contrast, the Persian perfect tense has not grammaticalized inferential,

Reflections on -miş in Khalaj

93

reportive, hearsay or similar nuances, but such readings are possible. Johanson (1996: 87-88) explains this circumstance: "It is a well-known claim that so-called "perfects" often get more or less clear readings of indirective evidentiality. [...] such readings typically emerge from the viewpoint value of postterminality [...] Postterminality and indirectivity are closely connected, since postterminals present an indirect perspective on the event." (For the relationship between perfect and inferential, see Comrie 1976: 108-110.) Persian, like other Indo-European languages, expresses notions of indirectivity by means of modal adverbs such as mesl-e inke 'it seems that', zäheran 'appar­ ently', ehtemälan 'probably', be har hâl 'certainly', säyad 'maybe' or additions such as fekr mikonam [thought AUX-PRSISG] 'I suppose', senidam ke [hear-PSTİSG] 'I heard that'. Khalaj appears to use -mis strictly as a postterminal form; indirec­ tive connotations are expressed by modal adverbs mostly copied from Persian. The following example is taken from a description of the Per­ sian Passion Play; the text discourse is aorist-based: (1)

näzr samïsallar nahär verigälär nahäri-rä ke qayïmïsallar vow AUX-PF3PL lunch give-OPT3PL lunch-iNDEF-ACC which make-PF3PL ämäde samïsallar vierirlär bu jämiyätkä ki kälmisällär prepared AUX-PF3PL give-HAB.PRs3PL this people-DAT who come-PF3PL a'zädärluq passion play 'They have made a vow to distribute lunch. The lunch which they have made, prepared at home they give to the people who have come to the Passion Play.'

Typically, the order of the constituents in Khalaj corresponds to that of their Persian equivalents. What is noteworthy in example (1) is not only the postverbal position of the directional reference kälmisällär a'zädärluq, but, just like in colloquial Persian, the missing dative marker, which is obligatory in less heavily influenced Iran-Turkic va­ rieties, e.g. Azerbaijanian. The anecdote from which the next passage was taken is ufz-based. The informant frequently employs the -mis form within dialogues in this narrative (2c and 2d), a usage that would imply indirective notions in Turkish:

94 Filiz Kıral (2) a. oyulqa hädi sân manim äskämi kiermädiy? son-DAT say-PST3sG you my donkey-posslsG-Acc see-NE0-PST2sG 'He said to the boy: "Haven't you seen my donkey?"' (2) b. oyul hädihämun äskäyi ke cap kiezi son say-PST3sG that donkey-iNDEF whose left eye-POSs3sG kurarti va bod hadaqï sällärti blind-cop.psT3sG and right foot-POSs3sG lame-cop.PST3sG 'The boy said: "That donkey whose left eye was blind and whose right leg was lame?'" (2) e. här xeiyli xoshal uoldio hädi - hiyä hu nisänluqlar man very happy be-psT3sG he say-PST3sG yes this description-PL dorost-e dorostar sän mänim äskämi niedä kiermisäy? right-EZ right-cop3sG you my donkey-posslsG-Acc where see-PF2sG 'The man became very happy and said: "Yes, these descriptions are exactly right. Where did you see my donkey?'"

Note the negation of -mis in example (2d) kiermädkäm 'I haven't seen', which shows contraction of the middle syllable before vowelinitial suffixes: (2) d. oyul hädi - man sänin äskäy kiermädkäm son say-PST3sG I your donkey-POSs2sG-ACC see-NEG-pFlsG 'The boy said: "I haven't seen your donkey.'"

As the examples reveal, the -mis forms themselves do not convey indirectivity. This is further supported by the fact that they are often in the first person, a usage that carries a strong notion of inferentiality in Turkish. The following is an excerpt from the biography of an elderly woman; the narrative is di-based: (3)

ävväl bidik oylumqa kisi almïsam vä ortanc first great son-POSSlSG-DAT wife take-PFlsG and middle oylumqa kisi almïsam son-POSSlsG-DAT wife take-pFİSG 'First I chose a wife for my eldest son, then I chose one for my middle son.'

The following example again illustrates the use of this form as a purely postterminal unit, this time in the first person plural: (4)

sa'ädäti näsib olmäs bularla äsnä olmusäk fortune good become-PF3sG they-with acquaintance become-PFİPL 'We have had the good fortune of making their acquaintance.'

Reflections on -miş in Khalaj

95

The examples cited above demonstrate the postterminal use of the -mis past, a use which Johanson (1971: 272) has termed the diagnostic di­ mension of the narrative perspective, similar to the English or Persian perfect tenses. Turkish would employ the -di past in these cases. The fact that Khalaj forms show no traces of indirectivity points to Persian influence. We encounter the perfective use of -mis in all Turkic languages and varieties of Iran. It is also typical of Eastern Turkish dialects, which, of course, are transitional dialects to Azerbaijanian. The following is an example from Azerbaijanian, which has -mis in the non-third per­ sons and -(y)ib[di] in the third persons: (5)

man indiyeyjax Almana jetmämisäm I now-DAT:until Germany go-NEG-PFİSG 'Until now I have never been to Germany.'

The next example shows that, like in Persian, in Azerbaijanian the copula is not obligatory; as a matter of fact, forms such as gedib [goPF3SG] 'he has gone' instead of gedibdi [go-PF-cop3sG] predominate, comparable to Persian colloquial rafte [go-PF3sG] instead of rafte ast [gO-PF-COP3SG]. (6)

vä mänä bä'zi seyläri tä'rif eiiyib ki cox mänä and me some thing-PL-ACC description AUX-PF3SG that very forme jälebdi interesting-cop3sG 'And he told me some things that are very interesting for me.'

Moreover, the use of the unit -(y)ib in Iran-Azerbaijanian is greatly re­ stricted: It no longer functions as a converb used in verb serialization or auxiliary verb constructions, which it does in northern Azerbaijan­ ian and Turkish. This functional reduction lends further weight to the hypothesis that semantic properties of the Persian perfect have been copied onto Irano-Turkic -mis. Khorasan-Turkic dialects have similar forms, perfective -(y)ip forms also being frequently used in the first and second persons, which is possible in Azerbaijanian although much less frequent. The next example demonstrates this use in Kho­ rasan-Turkic:

96 Filiz Kıral (7)

bir pärinin sövdasîna düsüpsän (Tulu 1989:79) a fairy-GEN love-ross3sG fall-PF2sG 'You have fallen in love with a fairy.'

The functional reduction of this unit is also apparent in Khalaj. In fact, I have yet to encounter it in my language material—neither as a converb nor as a finite aspectotemporal unit. For the Irano-Turkic languages and dialects in general, we can say that the loss of indirectivity as a separate verbal category in the respec­ tive postterminal forms constitutes an areal-typological criterion. These languages use -mis and corresponding forms {-(y)ib) to mark low-focal postterminality. (For the different degrees of focality, see Johanson this volume.) 5. The copula ä(r)mis The Old Turkic copula particle ermis (er- 'to be' + -mis) is a marker of indirectivity, but different from -mis, it is not a postterminal unit and can denote either the past or the present (see Johanson this volume). Indirective copula particles of this type exist in most Turkic languages, e.g. temporally indifferent imis in Turkish. For Khalaj, where Old Tur­ kic ermis is formally preserved, the reverse is true: The Khalaj copula ä(r)mis is used postterminally and contains no nuances of indirectivity. Khalaj speakers use the forms of ä(r)mis analogously to those of Per­ sian bude 'has been'. Thus Khalaj would appear to have copied seman­ tic features of Persian and either to have relinquished or never in the first place developed Turkic features of inherent indirectivity. The next example illustrates the postterminal noninferential function of Khalaj ä(r)mis. Note that this sentence definitely does not contain any nu­ ances of hearsay, irony or doubt, which its formal correspondence in Turkish definitely would. (8)

Xomeyni bizüm rahbarimiz amis Khomeini our leader-posslPL COP-PF3SG 'Khomeini was our leader.'

The informant herself rendered this sentence into Persian as:

Reflections on -miş in Khalaj

97

Xomeyni rahbar-e mâ bude Khomeini leader-EZ our COP.PF3SG

Qashqay, spoken in southern Iran, is one of the most heavily Per­ sian-influenced Turkic languages and uses imis in a similar way as a marker of postterminality.6 (9)

man onaltï onyeddi yasïndaymïsam ki I sixteen seventeen year-P0Ss3sG-L0C-C0P.PFİSG when izdiväj elämisäm marriage AUX-PFISG 'I was sixteen seventeen years old, when I married.'

In Iran-Azerbaijanian, in contrast, the copula imis acts as an indirective marker and is temporally indifferent: (10) onun mäsini var imis his car-poss3sG-Acc exist COP.INFR3SG '(I have heard that) he has / had a car.'

5.1. Compound tenses with ä(r)mis Compound tenses with imis in Azerbaijanian, as e.g. gidärmis 'he must have always gone', also carry strong inferential implications. In Khalaj, on the other hand, even in compound tenses ä(r)mis does not mark indirectivity, unlike comparable units in other Turkic languages. Doerfer (1988: 206) states for Khalaj that compound tenses with ä(r)mis do not convey indirectivity and seem to be used like their Per­ sian correspondences. It is, however, noteworthy that there are Persian compound tenses which have been described as inferential past tenses in the literature (e.g. Windfuhr 1982; Lazard 1985). The compound tense of the type ët-misamis [do-PF-cop.PF3sG], which Doerfer compares to the Persian form karde bude-ast [do-pp COP.PF3SG COP.PRS3SG] 'er hatte getan' [he had done] is a matter of de­ bate. Jensen (1931: 159) says of the Persian form that it is only used in the modern language, where it usually expresses an assumption about an action occurring in the past. He cites the following example: karde bude-am 'ich muß wohl gemacht haben [I must have done]' and refers

98

Filiz Kıral

to Phillott (1919: 523), where the following example of the putative in­ ferential use of this verbal form is found: u morde bude ast ke in kâr va: g e' sod, which Phillott renders as 'he must have been dead when that happened'. Jensen's interpretation does not seem to convince Doerfer (1988), who comments: "weil uns einige Ausführungen Jensens nicht nachprüfbar sind (so hat das Plusquamperfektum zu­ mindest im C. nicht den Sinn einer Vermutung—hat es den im P.?)" ['because we cannot verify Jensen's remarks (at least in Khalaj, the pluperfect does not convey conjectural notions—does it do that in Per­ sian?)'] (Doerfer 1988: 206). As Persian inferential verb forms, Windfuhr (1982) lists, besides the form karde bude ast mentioned above, the perfect aorist mi-karde ast, which Doerfer (1988: 206) correlates to et-ärmis 'er hat getan [he used to do] ', and the perfect form karde ast. In addition to these forms, which he calls passé distancié, Lazard (1985) further notes the progressive form dâste mikarde-ast 'était en train de faire [was doing]'. The next two examples from my material demonstrate the use of ä(r)mis as a nondirective marker in the (relatively rare) compound tense of the type -misämis (perfect form -mis + ä(r)mis): (11) hiyä sän xär häyyoruy man o sözü hämisamisam yes you true say-PRs2sG I that word-ACC say-PF-cop.PFlSG 'Yes, what you say is true, I had said that.' (12) bullar ängir bu xabaru ruznämaca hoqimisamislar ke they yesterday the news-Ace newspaper-LOC read-PF-cop.PF3PL that danesjular mäsini cap uolmisamis student-PL car-poss3so left become-PF-cop.PF3sG 'They had read the news in the newspaper yesterday that the students' car had turned over.'

The next example shows ä(r)mis as part of the compound tense -äyöramis (present form -äyör + ä(r)mis), which functions similarly to Persian bude and does not denote indirectivity. Doerfer (1988: 183) notes that this form is seldomly used. (13) äskäyi ke uorda kecäyörämis boydasi donkey-iNDEF that there pass-PRS-cop.PF3sG basket-P0ss3sG var amis exist-coP.PF3sG 'The donkey that had been passing by there had a basket [with hay].'

Reflections on -miş in Khalaj

99

The final two examples contain ä(r)mis in the compound tense -(ä)rämis (aorist form -(ä)r + ä(r)mis): (14) Kamrän bu moddatcä ki Tehräncamis kärgärlik Kamran this time-LOC when Teheran-LOC-cop.PF3sG work ietärämis AUX-HAB.PRS-COP.PF3SG

'Kamran used to work during the time when he was in Teheran.' (15) mäyä yipax häramis u neccä yïlamis me lie say-HAB.PRS-cop.PF3so he how many year-cop.PF3sG niimazi hoqumazamis prayer-ACC read-NEG.HAB.PRS-cop.PF3sG 'He had lied to me, it had been years since he had performed his prayers.'

As noted above, like Khalaj ä(r)mis, Qashqay imis is not used as an indirective marker but rather displays strong similarities to Persian bude, also when used in compound tenses. 6. Summary In conclusion, the Khalaj materials reveal that the finite unit -mis sig­ nals low-focal postterminality and does not convey indirectivity. The copula ä(r)mis, whose equivalent units in other Turkic languages act as nonpostterminal indirective markers, has evolved in Khalaj to a postterminal nonindirective marker by taking on Persian structural characteristics. Attached to compound tenses, ä(r)mis also lacks any notion of indirectivity. The use of the nonfinite unit -mis is quite re­ stricted—comparable to the Persian perfect participle with -(y)e; it ap­ pears almost exclusively in constituent clauses or in nominalized forms. Notes 1- For the origins of the Khalaj people and their language, see Doerfer 1987: 418419. 2. While conducting field research among the Khalaj, I observed that in contrast to the women, most male Khalaj speak Azerbaijanian fluently. This may account for the initial classification of Khalaj as an Azerbaijanian dialect.

100 Filiz Kıral 3. The terminology used here in the description of language contact phenomena is adopted from the Code-Copying Model developed by Johanson (1992). 4. See Kıral in press for restrictions governing copied Persian units in Iran-Azer­ baijanian. 5. For a thorough account of the Turkish aspectotemporal system, see Johanson 1971. 6. For the postterminal use of imis in Qashqay, see also Soper 1987: 379.

References Boretzky, Norbert—Werner Enninger—Thomas Stolz (eds.) 1996 Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehr­ sprachigen Situationen. (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwan­ delforschung 24.) Bochum: Brockmeyer. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related prob­ lems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doerfer, Gerhard 1987 Lexik und Sprachgeographie des Chaladsch. Kartenband. Wies­ baden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1988 Grammatik des Chaladsch. (Turcologica 4.) Wiesbaden: Otto Har­ rassowitz. Jensen, Hans 1931 Neupersische Grammatik, mit Berücksichtigung der historischen Ent­ wicklung. (Indogermanische Bibliothek, Erste Abteilung, 1. Reihe, 22.) Heidelberg. Johanson, Lars 1971 Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkei­ türkischen Aspektsystems. (Studia Turcica Upsaliensia 1.) Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1992 Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten. (Sitzungs­ berichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J. W. GoetheUniversität Frankfurt am Main 29:5.) Stuttgart: Steiner. 1994 "Türkei türkische Aspektotempora", in: R. Thieroff—J. Ball weg (eds.), 247-266. 1996 "On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives", in: Norbert Boretzky—Wer­ ner Enninger—Thomas Stolz (eds.), 84-94. Kıral, Filiz in press Syntaktische Einflüsse des Persischen auf das gesprochene Aserbaid­ schanisch von Iran. (Turcologica.) Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Lazard, Gilbert 1985 "L'inférentiel ou passé distancié en Persan", Studia Iranica 14: 27-42.

Reflections on -miş in Khalaj

101

Lorenz, Manfred 1964 "Die partizipialen Wendungen—ein Unterscheidungsmerkmal des Tâğikischen gegenüber dem Persischen", Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 10: 133-139. Phillott, D. C. 1919 Higher Persian grammar. Calcutta [No indication of publisher.] Soper, John David 1987 Loan syntax in Turkic and Iranian: The verb systems of Tajik, Uzbek, and Qashqay. Los Angeles: University of California. Thieroff, Rolf—Joachim Ballweg (eds.) 1994 Tense systems in European languages. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Tulu, Sultan 1989 Chorasantürkische Materialien aus Kalät bei Esfaräyen. (Islamkundliche Untersuchungen 128.) Berlin. Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1982 "The verbal category of inference in Persian", Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne II, Acta Iranica 22. Leiden. 263-287.

Abbreviations ACC—accusative, AUX—auxiliary, COP—copula, DAT—dative, EZ—ezafe, GEN— genitive, HAB—habitual, INDEF—indefinite, INFR—inferential, LOC—locative, NEG— negative, OPT—optative, PF—perfect, PL—plural, POSS—possessive, PRS—present tense, PST—past, SG—singular.

• lA

Indirectivity in Gagauz Astrid Menz 1. Introduction Gagauz belongs to the Oghuz branch of the Turkic languages. It is so close to Ottoman Turkic that it is sometimes considered a Turkish dialect. It is spoken nowadays mainly in the southern part of the Republic of Moldova. According to the 1989 census there were about 200,000 Gagauz people living in the former Soviet Union; most of them, about 153,000, in the territory of the Moldavian SSR.1 Since December 1994 they have had their own autonomous territory Gagauziya or Gagauz Yeri within the Republic of Moldova, consisting of 27 towns and villages. The Gagauz settled there at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century when they migrated from Bulgaria. In 1957 the Gagauz language was established as a written language in the former Soviet Union, but was not integrated into the curriculum until 1959 to 1962. Gagauz was, however, not a "real" written language in the sense that it was never used in everyday life or for official use. There are only a small number of professional writers who publish in Gagauz. Since the breakdown of the Soviet Union the situation has been changing. Within the autonomous region, the Gagauz language is part of the curriculum and obligatory for all pupils irrespective of their ethnicity.2 There are two Gagauz newspapers and radio and television broadcasting in Gagauz. Before their migration to Moldavia, the Gagauz lived for centuries mainly in the northeastern part of Bulgaria, where a smaller group of Gagauz still live today.3 Since Gagauz has been spoken for centuries in regions surrounded and socially dominated by the Slavonic languages Bulgarian and Russian,4 many typological differences between Turkish and Gagauz are to be found, mainly on the syntactic and the lexical level. On the morphological level, on the other hand, changes due to language contact are relatively scarce: the morphological inventory itself has not

104

Astrid Menz

changed as a whole. As a result of changes on the syntactic level, however, some déverbal participle and gerundial forms are remarkably infrequent. 2. The aspecto-temporal inventory of the Gagauz language Few investigations into the aspecto-temporal system of the Gagauz language have been made. Dmitriev (1932) only pointed out some of the aspecto-temporal forms and dealt mostly with morphological differences between Gagauz and Turkish. Pokrovskaja (1964) listed in her Gagauz grammar a complete inventory of aspecto-temporal forms, mainly focussing on morphology, too, but giving short explanations of the meaning of the individual forms, illustrated by many examples. Those aspecto-temporal forms relevant to our theme are shown under Table 1 below.5 Table 1. Inventory of aspecto-temporal suffixes in Gagauz Intraterminal

Anterior

Prospective

focal -er

low focal -(°)r

-di

+postterminal -mis

-(y)ejek

PRS

AOR

PST

INFR/PF

FUT

Combinations with idi

-nrdi Combinations with imis -{°)rmis Combinations with -dir -Ordir

= (anterior oriented) -diydi -misti = (indirective) -mismis = (presumptive) -mistir

-{y)e]ekti -(y)e]ekmis -(y)ejektir

As can be seen, Gagauz has an inventory of aspecto-temporal and modal forms which at first glance very much resembles that of Turkish. It has two intraterminal present tense forms, one in -er which denotes events that are in progress, a focal intraterminal, e.g. sindi gider [now go-PRs3sG] 'He is going now', but can also denote a more habitual meaning, e.g. gejä gündüz isleerim [night day work-PRS:lSG] T work all day and night', or can even be used to describe past events in a narrative, see example (1) below. The second intraterminal present tense form in -(°)r, which Pokrovskaja (1964: 184) calls the indefinite future

Indirectivity in Gagauz

105

tense, has a broader function. It can be used to denote modal shades of volition or possibility, events that habitually take place or to denote common knowledge, as in proverbs such as Kazma kuyu aalemä, kendin düsärsin [dig-NEG:iMP2sG pit people-DAT self-POSs2sG fall-AOR: 2SG] 'Don't dig a pit for other people, you will fall into it yourself. It cannot be used to denote an event that is in progress: it is non-focal. Gagauz, however, lacks a form that is comparable to Turkish -mekte, which is a relatively recent renewal for an intraterminal present tense form signalling high focality. The prospective form with future reference in -(y)ejek mainly functions modally to denote an event that can or shall take place, e.g. sindi gelejem sizä [now come-FUT:lSG you-DAT] T will come to you now' (meant as a threat). As anterior forms, Gagauz has -di and -mis, the former denoting a past event, the latter denoting anteriority while signalling indirectivity. Besides these cited forms, combinations between the basic inventory and the past copula particle idi, or the modal copula particle imis, or the conditional copula isem are possible. Only the focal intraterminal form in -er is not compatible with either of the copula particles, and of course -di is not compatible with imis. Combinations between the copula -dir and the habitual present tense, the future tense, and the mw-past are also possible. Unlike Turkish, Gagauz lacks periphrastic aspecto-temporal forms like -mis ol-, mis bulun- and the like. For this article, only material from the language of Moldavia has been investigated, mostly data from the spoken language gathered in August 1995. Sporadically, material from the written language and the sample published by Moskov (1906) is also cited, as well as data from Bulgaria (Zajaczkowski 1966) for comparative purposes. 3. Indirectivity markers in Gagauz 3.1. Finite predicates in -mis As in Turkish, Gagauz predicates in -mis denote postterminality and anteriority, signalling at the same time indirect evidentiality. The modal connotations can be interpreted as hearsay, reportative, inductive,

106 Astrid Menz

and the like. As in Turkish, -mis can also be used "historically" to di­ rectly refer to an event in narratives and is (for example) very frequent in the fairy tales recorded by Moskov and in the written language. As an example of the inductive use, I cite example (1) below, which is from a recording of an informant telling a story from his childhood. He starts with dz'-past forms and then shifts to the focal intraterminal forms; only that which he assumes his mother was thinking is ex­ pressed by a mis-past form: (1)

yet koper ärd'ina anenin haberi olmer ani flesh tear off-PRs3sG afterwards mother-GEN idea-P0ss3 AUX-NEG:PRS3SG that o zarar eder buna da she hurt AUX-PRS3SG that one-DAT too 0 sanm'is ani souk tel (Text 1, 129-130)6 she think-iNFR3sG that cold wire 'Flesh tore off afterwards (but) mother has no idea that she is hurting him. She thought (presumably) that the wire was cold.'

Example (2) from a conversation demonstrates the reportative shade of meaning conveyed by the -mis form. Here, the second informant is ex­ plaining or repeating the gist of the story that the first informant has just told, in case I had not understood. (2)

1 : /.../ ban uzandïynan almaa aldı altımdan Skemnejii I reach out-coNV take-iNF take-psT3sG under-possl:ABL stool-DiM:ACC ban basasaa düştüm. I...I 1 headunder-DATfall-PST:lsG 2: mamunun altından cekmis skemnii (Text 3,86; 91) mother-GEN under-POSs3:ABi_ PU11-INFR3SG stool-ACC ' 1 : /.../ When I reached out to take (it) she took the stool out from under me. I fell down head over heels. 2: She pulled the stool out from under (my) moth­ er.'

A purely postterminal use of the mis-past without any modal connota­ tion as demonstrated in example (3) is scarce in my spoken language material, whereas it does not seem to be uncommon in the written lan­ guage. (3)

var sindi gagauz manastïrï Dobrujada ban gittim exist now Gagauz monastery-POSs3 Dobrudscha-LOc I go-PSTlsG

Indirectivity in Gagauz

107

gördüm onu müzey yapmışlar ama daaïlïr. (Text X) see-PSTİSG it-ACC museum make-PF:3PL but fall apart-AOR3sc There is now a Gagauz monastery in Dobrudscha. I went and saw (it). They made it into a museum but it is about to fall apart. '

3.2. Combinations with the modal copula particle imis As mentioned above, the modal copula particle imis, which serves as an indirectivity marker, can be combined with most of the basic aspectotemporal forms and is always enclitic. This may be why Pokrovskaja (1964: 225) confuses it with the mw-past. Although she shows that the enclitic modal copula particle -mis is derived from imis, she neverthe­ less calls it a past tense marker. Only its combination with the focal in­ traterminal form in -er is, as mentioned above, excluded. Imis can also serve as a modal copula in sentences with nominal predicates, in which case in my material it denotes doubt or irony, see (4) and (5). As Johanson (1971, 1994) has illustrated for Turkish, imis mainly signals indirectivity and is indifferent with respect to temporality. This is in my opinion also true of Gagauz. Example (5) clearly shows no reference to anteriority, whereas the anteriority in (4) can be inferred from the context. (4)

insanîn yasamasından bilinir ani ii adammış (Text X) man-GEN life-POSs3:ABL know-PASS:AOR3sG that good man-cop.iNFR3sG 'From the life of the man it is known that he was supposed to be a good man (speaking about Stalin A. M.).'

(5)

nacionalist bir müzeymis nationalistic one museum-C0P.iNFR3sG 'It is supposed to be a nationalistic museum.'

(Text X)

The use of -Ç)rmis, the low-focal intraterminal form combined with the modal copula particle imis, appears very often both in my material and in the written language. Pokrovskaja (1964: 225) says that this form denotes either a long-lasting event taking place in the present, or a long-lasting uncompleted event in the past, both with the modal con­ notation of hearsay. This, she argues, comes from the double meaning of the suffix -mis, denoting both indirectivity and resultative past ("perfect").

108 Astrid Menz

The combination with the low focal intraterminal form in -(°)r, i.e. -{°)rmis, almost always denotes in my material a habitual event, indi­ cating at the same time modal connotations of hearsay etc. Depending on the context, anteriority can be inferred. (6)

/.../ gagauzja bütün Bulgaristan I.../ konusarmïs Gagauz all Bulgaria speak-AOR:cop.iNFR3sG rus türk savasına dak (Text X) Russian Turkish war-POSs3:DAT up to 7. ../all of Bulgaria used to speak Gagauz up lo the Russian-Ottoman war.'

(7)

/.../ okudum neste kazaklar neyi sevärmislär/.../ read-PST:lsG thing Kazakh-PL what-ACC like-AOR:cop.iNFR3pL Ozamano büükusta askermis (Text X) then he great master soldier-cop.iNFR3sG T read this, thing, that the Kazakhs used to like. /.../ Then he (the man who can do that) was said to be a master soldier.'

Pokrovskaja (1964) also cites examples for the combinations -iy)e]ekmis, the prospective form plus imis and -mismis, the postterminal -mis plus imis. This combination with the prospective form, she writes, de­ notes either a prospective event which the speaker knows about from hearsay, as in example (8) below, or a hypothetical event with past ref­ erence in the apodosis of conditional constructions, see example (9). Since her only example for this conditional use is from a fairy tale and I have also only detected examples of this type in fairy tales (as in (10)), it is likely that this use is restricted to narratives in mispast-based discourse, in which -mis is used historically and not diagnostically. Outside /w's-past-based narratives, one would expect unreal conditional clauses of this type to occur with the past copula particle idi, e.g. adam vermeyeydi para ne soy olacaktı. (8)

Büün gelejeymis (Pokrovskaja 1964:228) today come-FUT:cop.iNFR3sG 'CeroflHX [OH], 6V;ITO 6H, npH#eT, (cKa3an, HTO npn^eT, anpH^eT JIH - TOHHo He H3BecTHo) He will probably (as I heard) come today.'

(9)

O adam vermeyeymis para o zaman ne soy that man give-NEG:opT:cop.iNFR3sG money that time what sort olajëym'is? (Pokrovskaja 1964: 228) became-FUT:cop.iNFR3sG 'What would have happened, if that man hadn't given money?'

i

Indirectivity in Gagauz

109

(10) Bir vakïtta varmış, bir vakïtta yokmuş, eer one time-LOC exist-cop.iNFR3sG one time-LOC not exist-cop.iNFR3sG if olmayaymis, sölenmeyjeymis. (GL, 11) become-NEG:oPT:cop.iNFR3sG tell-PASs:NEG:FUT:cop.iNFR3so 'Once upon a time, nonce upon a time, if it hadn't happened, it couldn't be told.'

There is no example in my material of the combination of the prospec­ tive form in -(y)ejek and imis . The form -mismis, on the other hand, denotes postterminal evidentiality, as in (11). According to Pokrovskaja (1964: 228) this form ap­ pears exclusively in the third person as in example (11), cited from her book. In my material I found only one instance of the -mismis form: (12), where it occurs in a
sabaalen gitti altıda Cadïra Ida burda indi [...] in the morning go-PST3sG SİX-LOCC-DAT and here get off-PST3sG da pindi Y. ozaman svatya demismis git[-] and get on-PST3sG Y. then motheT-in-law say-PF.cop.iNFP.3sG go-iMP (Text 3, 222-225) 'X. went to Cadi'r(-lunga) at six o'clock in the morning. And here [...] X. got off and Y. got on. Then the mother-in-law said (to her): Go [...]'

3.3. Combinations with the copula -dir Besides -mis and imis the copula -dir can, according to Pokrovskaja (1964: 229), be used for presumptive evidentiality. As I found no ex­ ample of this modal use in my data collection and in written sources only a few examples for -dir used as a copula in nominal clauses with affirmative meaning, it does not seem to be very frequent. According

110 Astrid Menz

to Pokrovskaja (1964: 229) it combines with the habitual intraterminal form in -(°)r,7 the prospective form, and the -mis-past as in (13)—(15), and expresses presumptive modality. Pokrovskaja does not mention cases comparable to the use of assertive -mistir in Turkish, which lacks indirective nuances. She cites only one example for -mistir which has, however, a modal reading, as can be seen in (15) (Pokrovskaja 1964: 229). (13) Ldazïmsa, o gelirdir bizimnän. necessary-cop.COND3sG he come-AOR3sG:cop we-GEN:with 'If it is necessary, he will certainly come with us.' (14) Bizim Koli ekmek ta unuttu, gelejektir ekmek almaa. we-GEN K. bread too forget-PST3sG come-FUT3sG:cop bread buy-iNF 'Our Koli forgot the bread, he will certainly come to get it.' (15) Kalmamïsïktïr biz ii vak'ida. stay-NEG:iNFR-İPL-cop we good time-DAT 'Apparently we didn't stay for the good times (i.e. we didn't live to see the good times). '

In Zajaczkowski's material on Gagauz in Bulgaria, there are many ex­ amples for the use of -mistir that clearly have no modal reading; see for example (16) taken from Zajaczkowski (1966: 97). (16) Papaz okur sofrayi ani hazïrlanmïstïr [...] priest bless-AOR3sG table-ACC that prepare-PASs:PF3sG:cop 'The priest blesses the table that has been prepared /.../'

4. Modal adverbs Gagauz has some modal adverbs that express doubt or assumption. Particular to Gagauz is alle(m) or allelä(m) 'probably, certainly etc'.8 This adverb functions much like the copula -dir in Turkish, in that it can either denote assumption as in (17) and (18), or can be used as an affirmative particle as in (19). There are not many examples in my ma­ terial, however, alle in verbal clauses always precedes the predicate, which is always in the di-past.

Indirectivity in Gagauz (17) Näanda elek, maazada aalem where sieve cellar-LOC probably 'Where is the sieve, probably in the cellar.'

111

(Pokrovskaja 1964: 265)

(18) aile geldi avsamdan da sindi gidecekler probably come-PST3sG evening-ABL and now go-FUT:3PL 'She probably came in the evening and they will go now.'

(Text 3,226)

(19) xalizdänbu kïz şeytan yavrusu, allelem. (Pokrovskaja 1964: 265) really that girl devil child-POSs3sG certainly 'They thought to themselves: that girl really is the devil's daughter.'

Sansın and sanki 'as if, on the other hand can be used both with di- or mis-past Example (21) shows that the adverb in combination with the mis-past makes the modal shade more explicit. (20) ban sanki cok tuzlamadïm mï I as if much season-NEG:PST:lSG Q 'Haven't I used too much salt?'

(Text X)

(21) sansın dilini kesmislär as if tongue-poss3:ACC cut-iNFR:3PL 'As if they had cut out her tongue.'

(Text X)

(22) sansın sade onnar gagauzlar as if only they Gagauz-PL '[They pretend] as if only they were Gagauz.'

(Text X)

Olmalï 'probably', formally a necessitative form of the verb ol- 'to be­ come', is used in Gagauz as an adverb. Whereas in (23) it follows the lexical verb and could thus be interpreted as a periphrastic construc­ tion, it can also come in sentence-initial position, i.e. olmalï öle annastïlar. (23) saadïja da kresnicaya da bisey vermedi dir/.../ godfather-DAT and godmother-DAT and a thing give-NEo:psT3sG say-PRs3sG öle annastïlar olmalï (Text X) so agree-PST:3PL probably 'She says, that she didn't give a thing to the godfather or the godmother. They probably agreed upon it.'

112 Astrid Menz

5. Conclusion Among the modal adverbs, sansın is the most frequent in my material, whereas alle and olmalı appear only sporadically. Altogether, modal adverbs are quite rare both in my material and in the written language. The forms in -mis and imis, however, are very common. Although Gagauz has been heavily influenced by Russian, which has no com­ parable modal forms in its verbal system, Gagauz has not changed in this respect. As Gagauz was spoken in Bulgaria until about 200 years ago, this might be an explanation for the stability of the Gagauz evi­ dential mood. As Johanson (1996) has shown, the Bulgarian system of marking indirectivity much more closely resembles the Kipchak Tur­ kic type and differs from the Oghuzic type in certain respects. Never­ theless, that a socially dominant language like Bulgarian has grammaticalized evidential verbal forms at all could have contributed to the re­ tention of similar categories in Gagauz. On the other hand, changes in the verbal system seem to occur relatively late in a contact situation and only under the heavy influence of a socially dominant language, see Johanson (1992). The very rare use of the copula -dir, however, could be due to the fact that Russian does not have an equivalent. Notes 1. About 44,000 Gagauz live in the Odessa oblast of the Ukraine; smaller groups live in Kazakhstan and the Caucasus region. Outside the territory of the former Soviet Union, smaller groups of Gagauz live in Bulgaria, Romania and Greece, where their number is uncertain. 2. Furthermore, Gagauz has been accepted as an official language within the auton­ omous region, alongside with Moldavian and Russian by the Law on the Special Juridical Status of Gagauzia, adopted on 23 December 1994. 3. For a discussion of the questionable ethnogenesis of the Gagauz people, see e.g. Moskov (1904), Wittek (1952). 4. According to the 1989 census Romanian, the language of the largest ethnic group of the Republic of Moldova, is spoken by only 4% of the Gagauz, whereas Rus­ sian is a second language of about 80% of them. 5. Archimorphemes of the aspecto-temporal suffixes are given in their front vowel variants. (°) in the low-focal intraterminal form stands for either low illabial or

Indirectivity in Gagauz

113

high vowels after consonantal stems, (y) stands for the glide after stems ending in vowels. 6. Text and clause numbers refer to the material presented in Menz (1999). Text X refers to unpublished data from my material. 7. Note that the combination of the habitual present and the copula -dir is alien to Turkish. Pokrovskaja (1964: 229) cites only one example of this usage. Her ex­ ample is from the spoken language of Besalma. I could not find examples in my material or in the written sources, so it could either be a dialectal or idiolectical feature. 8. Pokrovskaja (1964) following Dmitriev's argument for Bashkir, says that alle is related to Arabic ilia 'unless, if not', which is in my opinion phonetically and semantically highly doubtful. In her review of Pokrovskaja (1964), Mollova (1966) shows that alle is related to Arabic Allahu a'lam 'God knows best'. The adverb allelem or allalem 'probably, certainly' is also found in Turkish dialects (see DS I, 224 a) and speakers claim that this word is a contracted form of Allahu a'lam (Bernt Brendemoen 1997, personal communication).

References Boretzky, Norbert— Werner Enninger—Thomas Stolz (eds.) 1996 Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrspra­ chigen Situationen. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Dmitriev, Nikolaj K. 1962 "Gagauzskie ètjudy", in: Nikolaj K. Dmitriev (ed.), Stroj tjurkskix jazykov. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo vostocnoj literatury, 251-270. DSI = 19932 Türkiye'de halk ağzından derleme sözlüğü 1: A. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınlan 211). Ankara: TDK. GL = Baboglu, N. I.—N. N. Baboglu, (eds.) 1992 Gagouz literaturasî : VIII-IX klasslar için (Ürenmäk kiyadï xem xrestomatija). Kisinev. Johanson, Lars 1971 Aspekt im Türkischen. (Studia Turcica Upsaliensia 1). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1992 Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten. (Sitzungs­ berichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J. W. GoetheUniversität Frankfurt am Main 29:5) Stuttgart: Steiner. 1994 "Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora", in: Rolf Thieroff—Joachim Ball­ weg (eds.), 247-266. 1996 "On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives", in: Norbert Boretzky—Wer­ ner Enninger—Thomas Stolz (eds.), 84-94.

] 14 Astrid Menz Menz, Astrid 1999 Gagausische Syntax: Eine Studie zum kontaktinduzierten Sprachwandel. (TurcoIogica41) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mollova, Mefküre 1966 "Quelques reflexions sur la grammaire de la langue Gagavuze de L. A. Pokrovskaja", Linguistique balkanique XI, 1: 139-144. Moskov, V. A. 1904 Narëcija bessarabskix gagauzov. (= Radloff, W. : Proben der Volkslitteratur der türkischen Stämme, X. Theil) S.-Peterburg'. Pokrovskaja, Ljudmila A. 1964 Grammatika gagauzskogo jazyka: Fonetika i morfologija. Moskva: Nauka. Thieroff, Rolf—Joachim Ballweg (eds.) 1994 Tense systems in European languages. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Wittek, Paul 1952 "Les Gagaouzes = Les gens de Kaykâûs", Rocznik orientalistyczny XVII, 1951-52: 12-24. Zajaczkowski, Wlodzimierz 1966 Jezyk i folklor Gagauzôw z Butgarii. Krakow: Polska AkademiaNauk.

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: ABL—ablative, ACC—accusative, AOR—aorist, AUX—auxiliary, COND—conditional, CONV—convert», COP—copula, DAT—dative, DIM—diminutive, FUT—future tense, GEN—genitive, IMP—imperative, INF—infinitive, INFR—inferential, LOC—locative, NEG—negative, OPT—optative, PASS—passive, PF—perfect, PL—plural, POSS—possessive, PRS—present tense, PST—past, SG—singular.

Between resultative, historical and inferential: non-finite -mis forms in Turkish Christoph Schroeder 1. Introduction This paper is an empirically based investigation of the aspecto-temporal and modal properties of Turkish non-finite verbal forms marked with the verbal suffix -mis} I call all forms 'non-finite' in which a verb marked with the suffix -mis is not the predicate of a sentence and ac­ cordingly, may not bear a verbal person marker. As pointed out several times throughout this volume (cf. Csatö, this volume and Johanson, this volume), there are two types of -mis in Turkish: The verbal suffix -mis, which is a past tense marker and may have perceptive, inferential and reportative uses, and the unequivocal­ ly indirective copula -(y)mlş. The past tense suffix is capable of high pitch and combines only with verbs, both in finite and in non-finite use. The clitic is incapable of high pitch and combines with finite verbs and non-verbal predicates (see Csatö, this volume and Johanson, this volume, for details). A few exceptions of non-finite use are discussed in sections 2.3.3. and 2.3.4. below. In my approach to the aspecto-temporal meaning of the past tense suffix -mis, I take Johanson's aspecto-temporal model as a starting point, -mis will be taken to indicate postterminality. That is, it en­ codes a viewpoint on an event which "envisages the event after the transgression of its relevant limit" (Johanson 2000). Postterminals are used to describe events as observed from an orientation point situated after their initium or finis (cf. Johanson, forthcoming: 61). Within this general concept, there may be different degrees of focus on the orientation point. A high focus on the orientation point looks at the event or process from the perspective of its state at the orientation point. Inferential, perceptive and reportative meanings may be con­ nected to the focal use of postterminality. A lower focus directs the perspective more to the event itself, away from the orientation point— a "historical" perspective in Johanson's terminology (ibid.).

116

Christoph Schroeder

I shall start with the assumption that within the relative anteriority to the event expressed by the (finite) matrix verb of the sentence in question, non-finite -mis forms also have a postterminal meaning. Furthermore, I assume that degrees of postterminal focality are construed by way of two factors: (i) The aktionsart of the verb marked with -mis and (ii) the context in which the non-finite -mis form appears. Possible candidates for the context are (i) certain lexical forms (adverbials, for instance) supporting a certain nuance of the postterminal reading of the -mis form, (ii) semantic and/or aspecto-temporal properties of the matrix verb of the respective clause, (iii) the syntactic function (phrasal, attributive, adverbial, and the like) of the (embedded) clause headed by the non-finite -mis form. This brings us to a description of the variations of aspecto-temporal meaning and its modal nuances possible with non-finite -mis forms. Here, some of the forces will be identified which motivate the construction of these meanings. This paper can only be a first step in this direction. I confine myself to concentrating on the way high postterminal focality, or, will in other words, a resultative meaning of non-finite -mis forms is construed. We will proceed by looking at non-finite -mis forms in different syntactic functions, starting with the adnominal use of -mis forms as attributive participles (2.1.), moving on to nominal forms (2.2.), then to adverbial uses (2.3.) and finally to periphrastic predicative constructions (2.4.). In the concluding Section 3.1 formulate some results. The examples I use are from various types of contemporary Turkish texts, including news texts (cf. the examples headed by "news"), fiction (headed by "fiction"), transcriptions from spoken Turkish (headed by "spoken"), part of which comes from television talk shows, and academic prose (headed by "academic").2 2. Non-finite -mis forms: Where to find them and what they mean 2.1. Adnominal The most frequent use of constructions headed by -m/j-marked non-finite verbs is that of attributive participles. As is well known, Turkish

Between resultative, historical and inferential

117

has a wide range of attributive participle forms, -mis forms are one type. But of course it is not enough simply to state that these forms may be used as participles. Rather, we have to describe their status within the system of attributive participles. Within this system, -mis participles can be described in two ways. First, they may be described in their aspecto-temporal meaning in relation to two other participle types, namely the aorist and the future participle. All these participles share three characteristics: (i) They are not morphologically marked as participles, but are simply formed by combining a verbal stem with an aspecto-temporal suffix, (ii) they show similar morphosyntactic behaviour in the noun phrase (cf. Schroeder 1998), and (iii), the head noun of the phrase in which these forms appear is always coreferential with the subject or with part of the subject of the event expressed in the participle. Second, -mis participles can be described in their morphosyntactic relationship to the types of participle which are morphologically marked as such, namely the participles formed with -En and those formed by means of the suffix -DIK or -EcEK plus the possessive suffix. In order to distinguish the two groups of participles, I will refer to those participles which are not overtly marked as such (that is, the aorist, future and -mis participles) as 'non-explicit participles' and to the others (that is, the -En and -DIKI-EcEKparticiples) as 'explicit participles'. We will start by investigating the aspecto-temporal meaning of -mis participles in relation to the other non-explicit participles, that is, the aorist and the future participles. 2.1.1. The aspecto-temporal meaning of the non-explicit participles 2.1.1.1. -mis participles In her monograph (1988) and in two papers on evidentiality written together with Dan Slobin (1982, 1986), Ayhan Aksu-Koç shows that -mis participles are resultatives. That is, these participles describe end states resulting from a process or event. Thus, the use of -mis participles is possible only with verbs or verb phrases which allow the pres-

118

Christoph Schroeder

entation of the event in terms of the state achieved by the entity under­ going some kind of change. This property of -mis participles has a number of consequences with regard to semantic and syntactic restrictions on attributive clauses formed with -mis participles. We may group these consequences under the heading of 'telicity requirement': (1)

-mis participles are phrases with inherently telic verbs or with telicized nontelic verbs.

Aksu-Koç (1988: 21) explains: "The -mis participle can form a parti­ cipial adjective freely only with achievement verbs, ... e.g. öl-müş adam 'dead man', but not *öğren-miş adam 'learned man'". See also Slobin and Aksu (1982: 189): "*öğrenmiş adam is not possible, be­ cause the verb 'learn' refers to a continuing process without a specified end state. However, öğrenmiş is acceptable if the clause limits the range of the process to some achievement, thus implying a resultant state: dilbilimi öğrenmiş adam 'a man who has learned linguistics'". We may add that, in a slightly different way, *doğ-muş bebek 'born ba­ by' is not acceptable, because without a complement telicizing the event, the focus does not lie on the result but the event is simply his­ torical. Accordingly, yeni doğmuş bebek 'a new-born baby' is accept­ able. Similarly, as Aksu-Koç (1988: 21) further explains, formation of the participle with other change-of-state verbs "is subject to con­ straints such as the following: if suffixed to change-of-location verbs, the source or goal location needs to be specified (e.g. New York'a git-miş adam 'a man who has gone to new York', but not *git-miş adam 'a man who has gone'); if suffixed to change-of-affective-state verbs where change is due to a causal source, this source needs to be specified (e.g. köpekten kork-muş çocuklar 'children who have been frightened by/of dogs', but not * kork-muş çocuklar 'frightened chil­ dren')". Furthermore, inherently causative verbs are passivized be­ cause with them, only the patient is affected by the result of the action. Thus cam kırmış adam 'a man who has broken glass' does not occur, while kırılmış cam 'broken glass' does. A further constraint which is again due to the 'telicity requirement' has gone unnoticed by Slobin and Aksu-Koç: If -mis participle clauses

Between resultative, historical and inferential

119

include (direct object or adverbial) participants, they are always non-topical. As a consequence, participants tend to have either indefinite-nonspecific reference or they are non-referential. Consider: (2)

süt dök-müs kedi milk spill-PST cat 'a cat which has spilled milk'

Here, the direct object süt 'milk' is non-referential and, accordingly, non-topical. As opposed to (2), (3) is not acceptable, because the direct object has a demonstrative which renders it anaphoric or deictic and accordingly gives it topical status: (3)

*o süt-ii dök-müs kedi that milk-ACC spill-PST cat 'the cat which has spilled that milk'

Note that the topicality-constraint does not exclude the definiteness of the noun phrase in question. It is true that personal pronouns and noun phrases with adnominal demonstratives never occur in -mis participle clauses. But definite non-anaphoric and non-deictic noun phrases are found. Thus, the participant may be a generic noun phrase and it may be a noun phrase with unique reference.3 Consider (4a), an utterance which occurred in a discussion on the equality of education for men and women in Turkey: (4) a. [academic] sehir-ler-de ilkokul-u bitir-mis erkek-ler town-PL-LOC primary=school-ACC finish-psT man-PL 'men who went to primary school in town'

The definite direct object ilkokulu refers to the institution of '(the) primary school' and not to a specific school which is established by linguistic means or is present in the speech situation. In contrast, (4b) is not acceptable: (4) b.? bu ilkokul-u bitir-mis erkek-ler that primary=school-ACC fmish-PST man-PL 'men who went to that primary school'

k

120

Christoph Schroeder

In a similar way, it is possible to have so-called başıbozuk construc­ tions with -mis participles. In these constructions, the participle clause contains a possessive-marked subject with a possessor which is coreferential with the head of the noun phrase and, accordingly, deleted or represented by the bound reflexive kendi 'self, cf. Lewis (1975: 259): (5)

[news] ben bunu yelken-i dol-mus bir gemi-ye benzet-iyor-um. I that-ACC sail-poss fill-PST a boat-DAT compare-PRES-lsG 'I compare that with a boat of which the sail is filled up.'

Possessive-marked noun phrases are always definite or indefinite-spe­ cific. As for their pragmatic status, however, they have to be classified as subordinate topics to their possessor (see the discussion in Hannay 1985: 57 and Schroeder 1999: 181). How can we relate the 'non-topicality constraint' to the 'telicity re­ quirement'? I suggest the following explanation: above we noted that -mis participles are possible only with verbs or verb phrases which al­ low the presentation of the event in terms of the state achieved by the entity undergoing some kind of change. This entity becomes the head of the construction and is what the construction is about, i.e., it is the topic of the construction. If, however, the construction included a top­ ical noun phrase, the event would concentrate on the involvement of that participant, hence the reading of the construction could only be historical but not resultative. There are, however, violations of the 'telicity requirement'—puta­ tive violations as well as real violations. As regards the putative viola­ tions, we find certain forms seemingly based on non-telic verbs. How­ ever, a closer look reveals that these forms are lexicalized as attributive participles in a resultative reading. For example olmuş, originally based on the verb ol- 'become', can only be read as 'ripe' when used as an attributive participle, and gelişmiş, originally based on the verb geliş- 'to progress', 'to grow', means 'developed', when in attributive participle position. As for a 'real' violation, consider the following emphatic utterance in which the noun heading a participle phrase is in the role of the pred­ icate:

Between resultative, historical and inferential (6)

121

[spoken] Ben kapici-mn oğl-u için okul okul dolaş-mış, I house=warden-GEN son-poss for school school wander-PST kapıcı-nın oğl-un-u okul-a yazdır-mak için house=warden-GEN son-POSS-ACC school-DAT register-iNF for mücadele ver-miş kişi-yim! fight give-PST person-İse 'I am a person who has walked from school to school for the son of the housewarden, who has fought to register the son of the housewarden for school!'

dolaş- 'wander' is not telic, nor is mücadele ver- 'fight' telic. Nor do the complements of the participle clause denote any telicity. Neverthe­ less the whole construction reads as a resultative predication about the subject ben T . Only in the context of emphatic predications of this kind may a non-telic clause be used attributively and read in such a way that the event has led to the resultant state the referent of the head is in. The ex­ ample is exceptional because -mis clauses usually are telic—but it shows that the telicity requirement does not have the status of a gram­ matical rule. This brings us back to the 'putative exceptions' men­ tioned above: their lexicalization in a resultative reading may in a similar way be based on their attributive use. We conclude that the telicity requirement has a restriction: -mis participle clauses may under certain circumstances be non-telic and still read as resultatives simply because they are used attributively. 2.1.1.2. Future participles With regard to future participles, the seemingly aspecto-temporal meaning is rather modal: future participles express potentiality, capa­ bility, necessity or obligation. Of course this is not to say that the future tense, when used with finite verbs, is not modal: Future tense must necessarily always be speculative.4 But there is a clear modal differ­ ence between a finite statement about a future state of affairs and the use of an attributive future participle, as in (7) or (8), where the empha­ sis lies on the necessity or potentiality of the action expressed in the participle:

lb

122

Christoph Schweder

(7)

[academic] Bundan başka, öğretim yan-ın-da from= that apart education side-Poss-LOC araştırma da yap-acak bir kurum-a gerek var-dı. research also do-FUT a institution-DAT necessity exist-DPST(3sG) 'Apart from that, there was a necessity for an institution that would next to the teaching also do research / be able to do research.'

(8)

[academic] Daha sonra kaz-ıl-acak bir alan-ın seç-il-me-sin-de more later dig-PASS-FUT a ground-GEN choose-PASs-N-POSS-LOC çok yararlı bir yöntem-dir. very useful a method-FACT 'It is a very useful method in the choice of a ground to be dug later on / which is planned to be dug later on.'

Thus the modalities expressed by the future participle are not excluded from the semantics of the finite future form—but with attributive fu­ ture participles, the modal meaning is central to its semantics.5 2.1.1.3. Aorist participles Similarly, attributive aorist participles have a primarily modal mean­ ing. They express the habituality or epistemic possibility of an event without any orientation in time ('non-focal', cf. Johanson 1994:255). Again, while (epistemic) possibility and habituality are also included in the meaning of finite aorist forms, finite forms may express a wider variety of meanings. Furthermore, it is typical of aorist participles to be impersonal passives or negated intransitives. Both negation and the non-existence of an actor through impersonal passivization strengthen the non-temporal reading of aorist participles in favour of a modal reading: (9)

[fiction] makina-yi çalıs-tır-ır bir düğme machine-ACC work-CAUS-AOR a button 'a button which makes the machine work'

(10) [spoken] giiven-il-ir eleman trust-PASS-AOR employee 'a trustworthy employee'

Between resultative, historical and inferential 123 (11) [news] vazgeç-il-mez, give=Up-PASS-NEG.AOR

gecik-tir-il-mez

hak-lar

delay-CAUS-PASS-NEG.AOR

right-PL

'rights which may not be given up or deferred'

2.1.1-4. Conclusions on the aspecto-temporal meaning of the non-explicit participles We may sum up the observations regarding the three attributive 'non-explicit' participles as follows: all three characterize an entity as being in a certain state which has a relation to a process or an event. In the case of the -mis participles, the state is defined through the result of a process or event. In the case of future participles, the state is defined through the potentiality of a process or an event to take place. And in the case of aorist participles, the state is defined through the habituality of a process or event to take place.6 2.1.2. -mis participles and explicit participles Let us now take a closer look at the relationship between -mis participles and those participles formed by means of an explicit participle suffix, i.e. -En and -DIK/-EcEK. For the purpose of this study, the following differences between 'non-explicit' participles and 'explicit' participles are important:7 • They differ with regard to their position within the noun phrase. 'Non-explicit' participles usually (not always) follow explicit participles. • Explicit participles are syntactically more free in that they may be 'headless'. Non-explicit participles on the other hand may not be headless or may only be headless in certain lexicalized and/or idiomatic constructions (cf. also 2.2.1.). * Explicit participles may be non-restrictive attributes, while the non-explicit participles always are restrictive attributes. * A further important difference arises between the -DIKJ-EcEK type of explicit participles and non-explicit participles: the non-explicit participles and the -En type of the explicit participles share the feature that the head noun of the phrase in which they appear is always coreferential with the subject or with part of the subject of the event ex-

124

Christoph

Schweder

pressed by the participle ('subject-orientation'). The -DIKJ-EcEK type of explicit participle on the other hand is only used in non-subject re­ lations between the attributive participle clause and its head noun ('non-subject orientation'). All in all, non-explicit participles can be described as being 'more adjectival' in their morphosyntactic behaviour than explicit parti­ ciples. Beyond that, aorist participles behave more adjective-like than future and -mis participles.8 The following scale may give a rough overview of the position of attributive participles relative to the other attributive constituents of the Turkish noun phrase: (12) The order of constituents in the Turkish noun phrase: [GEN] [explicit PRT] [non-explicit PRT (-m/f/future PRT)] [aorist PRT/adjective] head

The clearest indication of a categorical difference between explicit participles on the one hand and non-explicit participles on the other is the fact that at least two of the latter, viz. -mis participles and future participles, can be formed into explicit participle clauses. This is done by means of periphrastic combinations with the participle forms of the verbs ol- 'to be' and bulun- 'to be found', i.e. olan/olduK-ZolacaK- and bulunanZbulunduK-ZbulunacaK- in the head position of the respective participle clauses. Of these two forms, olan/olduK-l olacaK- may be used in combination with both future and -mis forms, while bulunan/ bulunduK-ZbulunacaK- can only be combined with -mis participles.9 When are olan/olduK-/olacaK- and bulunan/bulunduK-Zbuluna­ caK- used with -mis participles? The first answer to this question is syntactic: A -mis participle clause has to be represented as an explicit participle clause whenever the syntax does not allow a non-explicit participle, that is, when the clause is non-restrictive and/or when it is a headless construction. The use of a non-explicit participle is also im­ possible when the head noun is not the subject or part of the subject of the participle clause (but see note 5). This latter restriction renders dif­ ficult any attempt of an aspecto-temporal based answer to the question of the combination of explicit with non-explicit participles, with re­ gard to -DIKJ-EcEK participles. But we may attempt an answer within the paradigm of subject-oriented participles. Here, we see -mlş bulu­ nan and -mlş olan in opposition to each other with regard to their

Between resultative, historical and inferential

125

aspecto-temporal meaning: bulunan is used with a -mis form in order to enforce the resultative meaning when the lexical properties of the -mis participle or the semantics of the whole clause do not suffice for this reading. Consider the following example: (13) [news] Gürcistan lider-i 3 eylül Moskova'da Rusya lider-i Boris Yeltsin Georgia leader-POSS September MOSCOW-LOC Russia leader-poss ve ayrılıkçı Abaza lider-i Vladislav Ardzinba He and rebellious Abhaz leader-poss with yapü-ma-sı planla-n-mış bulun-an görüşme-ler-e make-PASS-N-POSS plan-PASS-PST be=found-PRT talk-PL-DAT katıl-ma-yacağ-ın-ı belirt-ti. take=part-NEG-N(FUT)-POSS-ACC declare-DPST(3so) 'The Georgian leader declared that he would not take part in the talks, which were planned to take place between the Russian leader Boris Jeltsin and the leader of the rebellious Abkhazians in Moscow on the 3 ld of September.'

Without the use of bulunan, the event expressed in the participle phrase could not be understood as a state resulting from a completed action, i.e., the actual 'planning' of the meeting would not be under­ stood as completed, because the meeting itself is to be held in the fu­ ture. Here, it is only by means of bulunan that we understand the action as completed and, accordingly, interpret the construction as resulta­ tive. On the other hand, olan is used in combination with -mis if the meaning of the -mis phrase is not resultative but low-focal posttermi­ nal in the sense of Johanson (forthcoming). Consider the following ex­ ample, where the event expressed by the participle clause has a 'histo­ ric' reading, due to the adverbial bu devirde 'at that time': (14) [academic] Bu devir-de yaşa-mış ol-an seyyah-lar-ın gUnlük-ler-in-den, that time-LOC live-PST be-PRT traveller-PL-GEN diary-PL-POSS-ABL köy kadin-lar-i-mn kendileri-ne karşı göster-dik-leri village woman-PL-POSS-GEN themself-DAT against show-N-POSS serbestliğ-e nasıl hayret et-tik-lerin-i oku-yabil-ir-iz. frankness-DAT how be astonished-N-POSS-ACC read-ABiL-AOR-İPL 'From the diaries of travellers who lived at that time we can read how aston­ ished they were about the frankness the women from the villages showed them.'

126

Christoph Schroeder

Due to the historic reading evoked by bu devirde 'in that time', the phrase would not be acceptable without olan: Ibu devirde yaşamış seyyahlar... We may sum up our discussion in the following way: In 'periphras­ tic participle constructions', olan forms -En participle clauses from -mis clauses. This may have different motivations: it may be used to form a headless construction and it may be used to form a non-restric­ tive construction. These motivations for the combination with olan are not restricted to -mis forms, but also occur with the future participles and with adjectives in general (though, not for aorist participles). But there is also an aspecto-temporal motivation for combining -mis forms with olan: In combination with olan, a -mis form may be a low-focal postterminal, and the restrictions on the clause or the verb as we gave them above for the 'more adjectival' -mis participles do not hold. In the domain of -En participle clauses, the combination of a -mis form with olan stands in opposition to the combination of a -mis form with bulunan, which in this domain is the strategy for forming participial clauses with a resultative meaning. Thus in a 'more adjectival' position (cf. (12) above), -mis parti­ ciples may only have a resultative meaning and the semantic and prag­ matic restrictions on the clause correspond. In the position of -En par­ ticiples, however, these restrictions do not apply. In this position, the resultative meaning may be enforced through the combination with bulunan, but apart from that, when in combination with olan, the meaning of the participle may be low-focal postterminal. 2.1.3. 'State ' constructions Having described 'non-explicit' participles in opposition to -En parti­ ciples and to explicit participles in general, the description of one fre­ quent type of construction has to be added: the use of participle and ad­ jective attributes headed by (mostly) locative-marked nouns such as durum-da, vaziyet-te, biçim-de, hal-de and sekil-de. They all more or less mean 'state', 'situation', or 'form' (with certain differences which I will not go into here). Mostly, these constructions are locative predi­ cates, as in (15), or predicative adverbials, in other words 'secondary

Between resultative, historical and inferential

127

predicates',10 as in (16)a. and (17). Sometimes they are also found in attributive function, as in (18), or as manner adverbials, as in (19): (15) [fiction] Ne kendim-in ne de baska-lar-ı-nın durum-un-u neither myself-GEN nor andother-PL-POSS-GEN situation-POSS-ACC gör-ecek hal-de-ydi-m. see-FUT state-LOC-DPST-1 SG 'I was in a state of being able to see neither my own nor anybody else's situa­ tion.' (16) a. [academic] Ceset kıvrı-lmıs bir durum-da göm-ül-müş, body bend-PST a state-LOC bury-PASS-PST(3sG) ' The body was buried in a bent position.' (17) Düşünceli bir hal-de ev-e thoughtful a state-LOC home-DAT 'She went home lost in thought.'

git-ti. go-PST(3sG)

(18) [fiction] El-iniz-de çalış-ır durum-da bir helikopter var. hand-POSS.2PL-LOC work-AOR state-LOC a helicopter EXIST 'You have a helicopter which works (is in the state of working).' (19) [fiction] Gör-düğ-ün-ü belli ed-er sekil-de benden uzaklaş-tı. see-N-POSS-ACC clear make-AOR form-LOC from=me withdraw-PST(3sG) 'He withdrew from me in a way which made clear what he had seen.'

The referents of these types of constructions are never entities, but the constructions predicate states of their subject or head nouns. These states are completely time-stable if the state noun has an adjectival modifier, as in (17). If the state noun has a -mis participle attribute, the state expresses a result of a previous event or process, as in (16a). With aorist participles, the state includes the possibility or habituality of an event or process, as in (18) and (19). And the combination of a state noun with a future participle includes the potentiality of an event or process, as in (15). Note that in this context of 'state predication', explicit participles may not serve as attributes of the state nouns. Only the 'more adjecti-

128

Christoph Schroeder

val' attributes such as non-explicit participles as well as adjectives are allowed. Thus, (16b), where the -mis participle form of (16a). is re­ placed by an explicit participle form, is not acceptable: (16) b. Ceset ? kıvrılan bir durumda gömülmüş.

In predicative use we note an opposition between -mlş durumda (which is the most frequent of these forms) and the periphrastic predi­ cative construction of a -mis clause combined with the finite form of the middle passive verb bulunmak 'to be found'. Both the verbal con­ struction in (20), and the nominal construction in (21) appear as lexical devices to focus on a resultative meaning of the -mis form: (20) [news] Rusya'nın para birim-i Ruble, Dolar karşı-sın-da Russia-GEN money unit-Poss Rubel Dollar against-Poss-LOC hızla iniş-e geç-miş bulun-uyor. fast decline-DAT go=into-psT be=found-PRES(3sG) 'In relation to the dollar, the Russian rubel is found to have gone into a fast de­ cline.' (21) [spoken] Türkiye, zirve-ye eriş-miş durum-da. Turkey, zenith-DAT reach-PST state-L0C(3sG) 'Turkey has reached the zenith.' (Turkey is in the state of having reached the zenith.')

There are, however, certain differences between the two types of con­ struction. First, the -mis clause formed with the nominal head is sub­ ject to the telicity requirement stated in (1) above, while the -mis clause headed by the verb bulunmak is not subject to such restrictions. Second, as a nominal predicate, the nominal construction is restricted with regard to the temporal and aspectual markings it may have, while the periphrastic verbal combination with bulunmak is not restricted the same way. Third, it appears that the choice of the nominal construction purely focusses on the resultative-stative reading, while the combina­ tion with the verb bulunmak has further semantic nuances besides resultativity. Johanson (1971: 313) describes these nuances as "unex­ pectedness" or "suddenness".

Between resultative, historical and inferential

129

2.2. Nominalizations There are two types of -mis forms forming the base for nominalized constructions. They occur as lexicalized forms (see 2.2.1.), they may form the base of certain derived forms (see 2.2.2.). 2.2.1. Lexicalized forms As I said above, -mis participles as well as aorist and future participles cannot be headless participles but have to be formed into -En participle clauses. Exceptions are formed by lexicalized or idiomaticized forms: dolmuş (full-PST), which is the name for a taxi or boat which only sets off when it has filled up with passengers, yazar (write-AOR) 'writer', and yiyecek (eat-FUT) 'food' may serve as examples for lexicalized constructions, inecek var mı (get off-FUT EXIST(3SG) INT) 'IS anybody going to get off?', remembered by anyone who has ever used a dolmuş taxi, is a good example for an idiomaticized headless future participle form. And as for -mis, we find idiomaticized headless constructions in which dative-marked -mis forms are arguments of the verb benzemek 'resemble' ox andırmak 'remind': (22) Hiç kız-mış-a benze-mi-yor-sun. not get=angry-PST-DAT resemble-NEG-PRES-2sG 'You don't look like you are angry.'

Note again that the aspecto-temporal meanings of these forms contain an overall stativity prevailing at the orientation point. The referents are characterized through what they habitually do (cf. the 'writer'), through the traces left on them as results of previous events or pro­ cesses (cf. the dolmuş and the construction exemplified in (22) above), or through what can potentially be done with them (cf. the 'food') or what they intend to do ('going to get off). 2.2.2. -mis as the base for derivations In addition, -mis forms are the only verb-based forms with an aspec­ to-temporal suffix which may form the base for a productive nominal

130

Christoph Schweder

derivation. They can be combined with -Ilk, which, amongst other functions, forms abstract nouns: (23) [fiction] Ez-il-miş-liğ-im-i onlarla paylaş-ıyor-um. suppress-PASs-PST-N-poss.lSG-ACC with=them share-PRES-lSG 'We share the characteristic that we are suppressed.'

Semantically, we see the orientation towards the entity which under­ goes change being neutralized; it is the result itself which becomes the entity. It is interesting to note, however, that in nearly all examples which I found of these constructions, the entity which undergoes change reappears in the form of a possessive marker on the respective noun. Thus, through the relation to the participant, the process or event character of the form remains prevalent. 2.3. Adverbial constructions One—so to speak "hidden"—adverbial use of -mis forms has already been pointed out, viz. participial constructions with locative-marked nouns referring to 'states' (see 2.1.3. above). Further adverbial uses of -mis forms include five construction types: i) combinations with converbal forms of olmak 'to be' or 'to become' (2.3.1.), ii) combinations with the converbal clitic -(y)ken, (2.3.2.), iii) combinations with the converbal suffix -CEsInE (2.3.3.), combinations with the similarity predicate gibi (2.3.4.) and iv) absolute adverbial uses of -mis forms (2.3.5.). 2.3.1. Combinations with converbal forms of olmak The two combinations of -mis forms with converbal forms of olmak 'to be' which I have found are -mlş olup and -mlş olarak. As for -mlş olup, which denotes a succession of events, I did not find enough examples to be able to comment it. As for -mlş olarak, it is known that, broadly speaking, -ErEk expresses a parallel of events or states, -mlş olarak al­ ways seems to have a resultative meaning, i.e., what is expressed by means of the converbal clause is a parallel between the event or pro-

Between resultative, historical and inferential

131

cess expressed in the matrix verb and a certain state resulting from a previous event or process in the converbal clause: (24) [fiction] Kendim-e myself-DAT

ol-an

giiven-i

o

an

be-PRT

trust-ACC

that

moment for

için yitir-miş loose-PST

ol-arak, be-coNV

usulca kapı-ya doğru yürü-dü-m. gently door-DAT direction walk-DPST-lso 'Having lost trust in myself for that moment, I gently walked to the door.'

We have to ask, though, whether this resultative meaning is a property of the -mis form or of the combination with olmak, or whether it is con­ strued through the specific converbal suffix. Note that due to the vio­ lation of the 'felicity requirement' in (24) above, the -mis clause would not be acceptable as a participle clause. This indicates that it is rather the converbal suffix which through its property of expressing parallel events or states triggers the resultative meaning. There are some examples where the meaning of a -mis form com­ bined with olarak seems to parallel the meaning of a combination of a -mis form with a state noun {halde, biçimde, şekilde, durumda), when the latter combination appears as a secondary predicate, kıvrılmış bir durumda 'in a bent position', cf. (16)a. above, has a close semantic parallel in kıvrılmış olarak, just as ... yitirmiş olarak 'having lost...' in (24) above may have a parallel in ... yitirmiş bir halde. However, as Johanson (1988: 140) has shown, -ErEk converbs may display an "adherential linkage" to the event expressed in the matrix clause. They can often be translated as instrumental subordinate clauses, and this instrumental/adherential relation does not prevail with -mlş durumda, -mlş halde, -mlş biçimde and -mlş şekilde. Thus with regard to their resultative meaning, the two construction types are analogous. But the converbal form can have an additional modal meaning, whereas the adverbial nominal construction has no such meaning. 2.3.2. The converbal form -(y)ken The converbal clitic -(y)ken combines with any form which may be a non-verbal predicate. That is, we find it in combination with the verb

132

Christoph Schroeder

stem plus an aspectual suffix (aorist, past {-mis) or future), or with a nominal, a locative-marked noun, or an existential predicate. Semantically, -(y)ken expresses a simultaneity of states or events realiter. As for combinations with verbal bases, we most often find it combined with the aorist. Combinations with a future-marked base have a stative meaning in that they focus on the potentiality of the action (cf. Yüce 1973: 43 ff.). Combinations with -mis are not necessarily resultative-stative. -(y)ken is also used with -mis phrases formed from nontelic verbs or from non-telicized phrases. Used this way, it may focus on the very recent realization of the event. Thus, in contrast to the use of -mis in attributive participle clauses, -mis in combination with -(y)ken may express again other, non-focal aspects of postterminality. Consider the following example: (25) [fiction] Hafifçe kalk-mış-ken

otur-du.

slightly get=up-psT-coNV sit-DPST(3sG) 'Having got half-way up, he sat down again.'

The verb base of the converb is non-telic, and since the matrix verb is also a verb of movement and there is an identity of subject, the event expressed in the converb has to come to an end when the event ex­ pressed by the matrix verb starts. Thus we have a simple follow-up of events and the event expressed in the -mis phrase is low-focal postterminal. 2.3.3. The converbal suffix -CEsInE Like -(y)ken, -CEsInE also expresses a parallel of states or events, but a non-factual one. We find it combined with -mis forms and with aorist-marked forms. The combinations with -mis have a strong infer­ ential reading: (26) [fiction] Birzafer kazan-mış-casına sevinçli-ydi. a victory win-PST-coNV pleased-DPST(3sG) 'He was as pleased as if he had won a victory.'

Between resultative, historical and inferential

133

Again we see that the meaning of a -mis form heavily depends on the semantic and syntactic context within which it occurs. The inferential meaning evolving in the combination with -CEsInE is the product of the following two components inherent in the semantics of -CEsInE. First, -CEsInE expresses a state which parallels the state or event expressed in the matrix clause—and this contributes to the resultative reading of the form in question. Second, the state expressed by means of -CEsInE is nonfactual—and this gives the resultative an inferential meaning. Inferentiality in this sense, then, is to be understood as a cat­ egory deriving from the inference of a process from its prevailing re­ sult.11 Note that -CEsInE also allows the combination with forms that have the indirective clitic -(y)mlş: (27) [Yüce 1973: 63 (O. Kemal, HÇ 183: 9)] Bir çok sey-ler bil-iyor-muş-casına gül-dü. a lot thing-PL know-PRES-iNDiR-coNV laugh-DPST(3sG) 'He was laughing as if he knew a lot of things.'

2.3.4. Combinations with the similarity predicate gibi 'like' In their meaning, combinations with the similarity predicate gibi parallel the use of -CEsInE when they are used adverbially. That is, the g/èj'-construction expresses a nonfactual state which parallels the state or event expressed in the matrix clause. Consequently, like in the use of -CEsInE, -mis forms in combination with gibi may have an inferen­ tial meaning: (28) [fiction] Kolonya-si-nin alkol-ü düşük ol-duğ-u halde aftershave-POSS-GEN alcohol-poss low be-PRT-POSS though yüz-üm şapla-n-mış gibi yan-ıyordu. face-poss. 1SG smack-PASS-PST like burn-iMPF(3sG) 'Even though there was not much alcohol in the aftershave lotion, my face burned as if it had been smacked.'

Note that that like -CEsInE, gibi also allows the combinations with the indirective clitic -(y)ml§:

134

Christoph

Schroeder

(29) [fiction] Göz-ler-im-i kapa-di-m, uyu-yacak-mış gibi eye-PL-Poss.lsG-Acc close-DPST-lsG sleep-FUT-iNDip. like görün-dü-m. look=like-DPST-lSG 'I closed my eyes and looked like I was about to go to sleep.'

The combination with gibi and the combination with the converbal suffix -CEsInE are the only embedded constructions in which the indi­ rective clitic may be used. 2.3.5. Absolute adverbial uses of -mis forms There are two types of absolute adverbial uses of -mis forms. The first is the ungoverned absolute use. The second is the verb-governed use as a secondary predicate, that is, the use with certain verbs which may take a secondary predicate as their complement. 2.3.5.1. Ungoverned absolute use of-mis forms With 'ungoverned absolute use of -mis forms' I refer to the use of -mis forms exemplified in the following: (30) [fiction] Ben hirs-im-i al-ama-mis, delice bağır-ıyordu-m:... I anger-POSS.lsG-ACC tame-iMPOSs-PST like=mad Cry-PROGR.DPST-1SG 'I could not tame my anger and cried like mad: ('Not being able to tame my anger I cried:...') (31) [Watters 1993:549] Odam-da uzan-mıs gazete oku-yordu-m. room-LOC stretch-PST paper read-PROGR.DPST-lsG 'Stretched out in my room I read the paper.'

The forms are clause integrations in which the clause headed by the -mis form receives its interpretation for subject and (past) tense from the marking on the finite verb (cf. Watters 1993: 549f.). This is tradi­ tionally subsumed under the label 'Suffixabwurf (cf. Johanson 1971: 71-72), it is economically motivated and common also with other

Between resultative, historical and inferential

135

combinations (see the overview given in Kissling 1960: 115). The * forms are postterminal in the broad sense and have a resultative reading only when the respective lexical-semantic or phrase conditions apply—as, for example, in (31). These conditions, however, are not restrictions as we find in the attributive use of -mis forms. 2.3.5.2. -mis forms as (predicative) complements We find absolute -mis forms as complements of two classes of verbs: i) verbs of intellectual perception, i.e., verbs like görünmek 'seem (somehow)', zannetmek 'to take, regard or gather (something or somebody to be somehow)', hissetmek 'to feel (somehow)', bulmak 'to find (something or somebody to be somehow)', and ii) with Stative verbs such as kalmak 'to remain', durmak 'stand', and the middle passive bulunmak 'to be found', plus some other verbs, such as uyumak 'to sleep' and the passive of 'to find', bulunmak. Next to -mis forms, these verbs may take all kinds of adjectives as their (predicative) complements. The complement may not leave the position immediately preceding the governing verb and the union of verb and complement may also be said to form a compex predicate, similar to the periphrastic forms we discuss in 2.4. below. Due to the semantics of the governing verbs, the resultative meanings of the -mis forms seem to prevail. However, with verbs of perception there may also be an inferential nuance added to the resultative meaning: (32) [fiction] Boyn-un-da koyu leke-ler ol-ma-sa, body-POSS-LOC dark spot-PL be-NEG-coND kitap oku-r-ken uyu-ya kal-mis zanned-il-irdi. book read-A0R-C0NV sleep-DAT remain-PST believe-PASS-iMPF(3sG) 'If it wasn't for the dark spots on her body, she would have been taken to have fallen asleep while reading.'

On the other hand, in combination with the Stative verbs, the interpretation is always resultative. That is, through its meaning the respective verb focuses on the state resulting from a previous action:

Ü,

136

Christoph Schroeder

(33) [fiction] Burada kısıl-mış kal-mıstı. here become=silent-PST remain-PLUP(3sG) 'Here he remained stunned.' (34) [fiction] Ajan-lar-ımız-dan biri bu soru-ya cevap ara-r-ken agent-PL-POSS.İPL-ABL one this question-DAT answer search-AOR-coNV öldür-ül-müş bul-un-du. kill-PASS-PST

find-PASS-DPST

'One of our agents was found dead after looking for an answer to that ques­ tion.'

The use of bulun- in (34) is semantically close to the grammaticalized use of this stative verb as a middle passive form, where it enforces the stative—and therefore resultative—reading of -mis forms in predica­ tive and attributive use, cf. the discussion in 2.1.2. above, als well as (20) and the following example:12 (35) [ficton] Zaten teklif-in-i kabul et-mis bulun-u yordu-m. anyway proposal-POSS.3sG-ACC accept-PST be=found-PROGR.DPST-lSG 'I have accepted his proposal anyway.'

;>:-

2.4. Periphrastic predicative combinations Further constructions with non-finite -mis forms include complex predicative forms in combination with (i) finite verbs such as the above- mentioned bulunmak and the verb olmak 'to be', (ii) the simi­ larity predicate gibi 'like' in predicative function, (iii) state nouns, and (iv) the nominal negator değil. We already pointed out the resultative character and its nuances with respect to the combinations of -mis with the stative verb bulun­ mak, cf. (13), (34) and (35). There is not much to add about gibi-constructions, either. In principle, their predicative and adverbial uses have similar inferential-resultative or purely modal meanings—we have discussed these meanings with regard to the adverbial use, cf. the examples given in 2.3.4. above. As for the combinations of -mis forms with finite forms of olmak, Johanson points out that the aspecto-temporal meaning of these forms seems to be strongly dependent on the

Between resultative, historical and inferential

137

aspecto-temporal and modal markers on the governing verb, as well as on the aktionsart of the dependent verb, its transitivity, and the lexical properties of the clause in question. Thus, resultative meanings are possible among other postterminal aspects; furthermore, modal mean­ ings may prevail. For example ipso facto modalities may combine with the resultative aspect, triggered through specific clause combinations and the use of adverbial connectors such as böylece 'this way ', cf. (36) (cf. Johanson 1971: 311, 1994: 263), and a suppositive modality may lie in the combination with the future form of olmak, cf. (37): (36) [academic] Böylece bağımsız bir Türk sanat-ı kavram-ı doğ-muş ol-du. this=way independent a Turkish art-poss concept-poss born-PST be-DPST(3SG) 'This way, an independet concept of Turkish art came into being.' (37) [academic] Köy-ler-in-e dön-müs ol-acak-lar. Village-PL-POSS-DAT return-PST be-FUT-PL 'They will have returned to their villages.'

In combinations with the nominal negator değil, again a resultative meaning prevails. It may be the nominal property of the negator which focalizes the meaning of these constructions onto the state resulting from the fact that the event or process has not (yet) taken place: (38) [fiction] Umud-um-u tümden yitir-mis değil-di-m. hope-POSS-lsG altogether loose-PST NEG-DPST-1SG 'I haven't lost (my) hope altogether.'

Often the resultative reading is strengthened by the use of a time ad­ verbial such as henüz 'still', cf. (39) or şimdiye kadar 'up to now', which explicitly establishes a relation to the point of orientation: (39) [spoken] Bugün bu ülke-nin nükleer atık-lar-ı-nın var-dığ-ı rakam today this country-GEN nuclear waste-PL-Poss-GEN arrive-PRT-poss amount henüz belirle-n-mıs değil. still specify-PASS-PST NEG(3SG) 'Today, the amount of nuclear waste in that country is still not specified.'

) 138

Christoph Schroeder

3. Conclusions As with the finite -mis, the non-finite -mis is not resultative per se. A resultative meaning is, however, included in the general postterminal meaning of -mis, just as a low-focal postterminal meaning is possible, and in certain contexts an inferential meaning also. Perceptive and reportative meanings of -mis, which are attested in finite forms (see Johanson, this volume, and Csatö, this volume), could not be found. It is, however, only in the use of -mis forms as attributive participles that the stative-resultative meaning of -mis forms does not have any additional modal nuances such as inferential readings, readings of "suddenness", instrumentality, ipso facto and others. Furthermore, it is only in the use of -mis forms as adjectival participles that an exclusively stative-resultative reading of -mis forms is possible—even in those examples where, judging from the lexical or clausal properties of the -mis form, other, low-focal postterminal readings would be possible, too. This shows that the resultative meaning is not necessarily derived from properties of the clause or of the phrase, but that it is a property of the syntactic function of the -mis form and its position within the noun phrase. As attributes in the position of adjectives, these (non-explicit) participles are interpreted as stative or time-stable modifiers. Resultativity is the stative nuance of postterminality, in the same way as the potentiality of an event is the stative nuance of prospectivity and habituality the stative nuance of intraterminality. Outside of this central adjectival use, that is, embedded in an -En participle clause, or in a converb clause or as a verb complement, the meaning of the -mis form is not restricted by syntactic function, thus low-focal postterminality is possible, just like modal nuances and the like. Resultativity, then, has to be explicitly denoted. In the construction of a resultative meaning, again the verbal strategy, i.e. the combination with the stative verb bulun-, allows further modal nuances. The nominal strategy on the other hand, i.e. the combination with nouns broadly expressing "states", is a better candidate for the expression of resultative meaning. Further investigations will have to show whether we may speak of a grammaticalization of these state phrases in the

Between resultative, historical and inferential

139

construction of a resultative meaning in predicates and secondary predicates.13 An inferential reading combines with the postterminal reading of the non-finite -mis form of the following contexts: (i) in combination with the non-factual converb suffix -CEsInE, (ii) in combination with the similarity predicate gibi, and (iii) in predicative complements to verbs like görünmek 'seem (somehow)', zannetmek 'take/regard/gath­ er (something or somebody to be such and such)'. These constructions do not convey assertions as such. Thus they are in accordance with Comrie (this volume) and Johanson (this volume), who state that indirectives/evidentials can only occur in asserted sentences. But embed­ ded constructions in which the inferential readings occur question the /actuality of the event expressed in them, and this may well be the rea­ son why they allow the inferential reading. Furthermore, we have seen that out of the three embeddings allow­ ing an inferential reading of the -mis form, two constructions, viz. the combination with -CEsInE and the combination with gibi, also allow the indirective clitic -(y)mlş. Thus the free adverbial embeddings which allow the inferential reading also allow the purely indirective construction.The bound predicative complement, on the other hand, where an inferential reading is possible, does not allow the indirective. Notes 1. This article further develops thoughts I was given the opportunity to present at the colloquium on "Types of Evidentiality in Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages" at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, April 9-12, 1997.1 am grateful to the lively audience for discussing my presentation with me, and especially to Winfried Boeder for numerous inspiring remarks, including the thought expressed in endnote 5. The research which led to the present article was made possible by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Association) for the project entitled "Attributive Verbal Constructions in Turkish and in the Transcaucasian Languages" established at the University of Oldenburg, Germa­ ny. 2. In collecting the data, the "FLEXX" program, developed by Gerjan van Schaaik (Istanbul/Amsterdam) for corpus analyses of Turkish texts, was of invaluable help. Also, I owe the "fiction" and "academic" parts of the corpus to Gerjan van

140

3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

Christoph Schroeder Schaaik, while the "news" part was prepared by a team led by Kemal Oflazer (Ankara). See Schroeder (1999: 13 ff.) for a discussion of 'unique reference'. See for example the discussion in Comrie (1985: 44). It is, incidentally, typical of the future participle that it is object-oriented, i.e., that it describes what can potentially be done with something or what things po­ tentially do rather than describing what people potentially do. Consider the pas­ sive reading of (morphologically non-passive) future participles in instances where an invariable non-referential object is characterized through something that is usually as well as potentially done with it: yak-acak odun sat-acak mal otur-acak bir sandalye burn-FUT wood sell-FUT goods sit-FUT a chair 'wood to burn' 'goods to sell' 'a chair to sit upon' See Haspelmath (1995) for a cross-linguistic survey of attributive participles which leads to a similar aspecto-temporal system. I shall confine myself to listing the differences without further explications. See Schroeder (1998) for a thorough analysis. Consequently, Erkman and Ozil (1998: 102), in their classification of attributive participles in Turkish, group aorist participles under the heading of "(déverbal) derivations which have partially lost their subordinate clause status" ("yan tümce niteliklerini kısmen kaybetmiş olan türevler"). Note that olan may also be used in combination with adjectives. Beyond that, I have no explanation for why aorist participles are excluded from the combina­ tion with olan. Note also that both ol- and bulun- also form periphrastic predica­ tive constructions with future and -mis forms. See Section 2.4. A secondary predicate is an adverbial which does not modify the verb but pred­ icates something about the subject or object of the sentence in question (cf. Ni­ chols 1978; Aarts 1995). To give an example from English: In 'A. came home drunk', drunk does not describe the manner in which A. came home, but predi­ cates a certain state about the subject. Cf. the discussion of the relationship between resultatives and inferentials in Comrie (1976: 108) as well as in Johanson ((2000); this volume). Further grammaticalized uses of the middle passive form include the use as an existential verb, as in a., and as a connecting participle with locative attributes, as in b.: a. [fiction] Her memlekette, her devlette iyi insan kötü insan bulun-ur. good people bad people be=found-AOR(3sG) 'There are good people and bad people in every country, in every state.' b. piyasa-da bulun-an para market-LOC found-PRT money 'the money on the market'

Between resultative, historical and inferential

141

13. Note that the issue here is the aspectual notion of a resultative meaning in sec­ ondary predicates. It should not be confused with the relational notion of 're­ sultative secondary predicates' ('he licked the plate empty1) where the ob­ ject-oriented secondary predicate expresses the result of the action expressed by the finite verb. The latter is a completely different matter and, besides, its occur­ rence is extremely restricted in Turkish.

References Aarts, Bas 1995

"Secondary predicates in English", in: B. Aarts—C. F. Meyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description. Cam­ bridge: University Press, 75-101. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan 1988 The acquistion of aspect and modality. The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: University Press. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan—Dan Slobin 1986 "A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish", in: Chafe, Wallace—Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. (Advances in Discourse Pro­ cess, Vol. XX.) Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 159-167. Boeder, Winfried this volume "Evidentiality in Georgian". Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985 Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, this volume "Evidentials: Semantics and history". Csatö, Éva Agnes this volume "Turkish MIS- and iMiş-items. Dimensions of a functional analysis". Erkman, Fatma—Şeyda Ozil 1998 Türkçede niteleme/sıfat işlevli yan tümceler. İstanbul: Simurg. Hannay, Mike 1985 "Inferrability, discourse-boundness, and sub-topics", in: A. M. Bolkestein—C. de Groot—J. L. Mackenzie (eds.), Syntax and pragmatics in functional grammar. (Functional Grammar Series 2.) Dordrecht: Foris, 49-63. Haspelmath, Martin 1993 "Passive participles across languages", in: Barbara Fox—Paul J. Hop­ per (eds.), Voice. Form and function. (TSL 27.) Amsterdam: Ben­ jamins, 151-179.

142

Christoph Schroeder

Johanson, Lars 1971 Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitiirkischen Aspektsystems. (Studia Turcica Upsaliensia 1.) Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1973 "Sprachbau und Inhaltssyntax am Beispiel des Türkischen", Orientalia Suecana XXII: 82-106. 1988 "On the renewal and reinterpretation of 'instrumental' gerunds in Turkic", Oriens 31:136-153. 1994 "Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora", in: Rolf Thieroff—Joachim Ballweg (eds.), Tense systems in European languages I. (LA 308.) Tubingen: Niemeyer, 247-266. 2000 "Viewpoint operators in European languages", in: Osten Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in European languages. (Empirical Studies in Language Typology.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. this "Turkic indirectives". volume Kissling, Hans Joachim 1960 Osmanisch-tiirkische Grammatik. (Porta Linguarum Orientalium, Neue Serie III.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lewis, G.L. 1975 Turkish grammar. (Reprint with corrections.) London: Oxford University Press. Nichols, Johanna 1978 "Secondary predicates", Berkeley Linguistic Society 4: 114-127. Schroeder, Christoph 1998 "Vom Partizip zum Adjektiv im Türkischen", in: Winfried Boeder— Christoph Schroeder—Karl Heinz Wagner—Wolfgang Wildgen (eds.), Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft. In memoriam Johannes Bechert. Tübingen: Narr, 303-318. 1999 The Turkish nominal phrase in spoken discourse. (Turcologica 40.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Slobin, Dan I.—Ayhan Aksu-Koç 1982 "Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential", in: Paul Hopper (ed.), Tense-aspect: between semantics and pragmatics. (TSL 1.) Amsterdam: Phil.: Benjamins, 185-200. Watters, James K. 1993 "An investigation of Turkish clause linkage", in: R. Jr. Van Valin (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 535-560. Yüce, Nuri 1973 Gerundien im Türkischen. Eine morphologische und syntaktische Untersuchung. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mainz.)

Between resultative, historical and inferential 143

Abbreviations ABIL—abilitative, ABL—ablative, ACC—accusative, AOR—aorist, CAUS—causative, COND—conditional, CONV—converb, DAT—dative, DPST—definite past (non-postterminal), FACT—factive, FUT—future, GEN—genitive, IMPF—imperfect, IMPOSS— impossibilitive, INDIR—indirective (-(y)mlş), INF—infinitive, LOC—locative, N— nominalizer, NEG—negative (nominal and verbal), PASS—passive, PL—plural, PLUP—pluperfect (combined tense), poss—possessive, PRES—present, PRT—(ex­ plicit) participle, PST—past (postterminal), SG—singular.

Iranian languages

Indirectivity in Kurmanji Christiane Bulut 1. Introduction 1.1. Kurmanji as an object of linguistic research For more than a thousand years, Turkic languages have been in intensive contact with structurally different languages; mutual influences have led to a number of language contact phenomena—on the lexical, morphological and syntactic level. With regard to Turco-Iranian language contact, the Turkic influence has been held responsible for certain changes in the tense-aspect system of a number of Iranian languages, which led to the formation (grammaticalization) of the so-called inferential categories. Mediative or inferential categories of the verb morphology have been described by Windfuhr (1982) and Lazard (1985) for Modern Persian. Soper (1987) mentions the existence of a similar "mood" for Tajik, which may have originated under Turkic influence, as well. In all probability, this is the case with some complex verb forms in Kurmanji, too. As an object of linguistic investigation, Kurmanji presents some widely known problems: As there is almost no written tradition, it is generally difficult to comment on the development of certain forms from a diachronic perspective. There seem to be considerable differences between the numerous dialects; yet only very few descriptions of the existing varieties are available. A received standard began to develop roughly 100 years ago. The relationship between this standard, which was created by Kurdish intellectuals who spent most of their lives in exile, and the spoken language has so far not been an object of research. Another important factor is the educational background of the Kurdish linguists: Most of them received their entire training in Turkish, which, in all probability, has deeply influenced their whole attitude towards grammar.

148

Christiane Bulut

1.2. Aims of this paper One of the central issues of this paper is the question whether Kurmanji has grammaticalized categories of indirect evidence.1 It is a linguistic universal that certain aspects of the past tenses which express dissociation from the narrated event allow more or less vague interpretations of "indirectivity" (Johanson 1996: 85-86), or, in other words, that universal covariance between the perfective aspect and inference exists (Willet 1988: 85). As Comrie (1976: 110) has pointed out: "the semantic similarity ... between perfect and inferential lies in the fact that both categories present an event not in itself, but via its results". Since little research has been done on the tense-aspect system in Kurmanji, we will have to describe form, function and connotations of the perfect and related forms. That makes it necessary to determine under which circumstances the perfect can be applied: What are the criteria which make a speaker choose a perfect form, how can related forms within the tense-aspect system, e.g. simple past and imperfect, be characterized, and what is the relation between them? Are indirective qualities inherent in the Kurmanji perfect, or are additional means (adverbs, modal verbs etc.) necessary to express these notions? (1) We will therefore try to give a—highly provisional—description of the forms pertaining to the notions of tense/aspect in Kurmanji, contrasting the functions of preterite, imperfect and perfect. As most of the recent literature on Kurdish grammar is in Turkish, our survey includes the labels of the corresponding Turkish categories. (2) In most recent grammars, the Kurmanji perfect is more or less identified with the Turkish perfect in -mis, where the indirect aspectual value of postterminality is reinterpreted and grammaticalized as indirective meaning. We will examine the characteristics generally attributed to the Turkish perfect to see whether they apply to the Kurmanji perfect as well. (3) Furthermore, we can presume the existence of a set of complex verb forms which are marked for inferentiality. These complex forms—supposedly used to express intraterminal indirect evidentials (the so-called intraterminal indirectives, cf. Johanson 1996) in Kurmanji—derive from the perfective and contain an additional durative marker. (4) The morphological inventory of the complex forms based on the perfect shows some striking parallels to the Modern Persian structures, which Windfuhr (1982, 1990) and Lazard (1985) have discussed. Obviously, they have counterparts in Tajik (Soper 1987) as well. As there is evidence that the development in Kurmanji is not

} İndirectivity in Kurmanji

149

an isolated one, these forms will be compared with similar tendencies to express evidentiality in other Iranian languages (Modern Persian, Tajik). (5) The final question is whether the grammaticalization of indirectivity has to be seen as an areal phenomenon, or rather a result of—as has been supposed—contact with Turkic languages, which have a well-established system of evidentials.

1.3. Sources Elicited data on the perfect have been obtained by using the Eurotyp Typological Questionnaire for Perfect (= Q.)- Spontaneous speech of several native speakers (from the Lake Van and Urmia region) has been checked as well. Most examples stem from written sources, e.g. folklore texts, contemporary grammars and textbooks, and translations of European literature into Kurmanji; all data have been discussed with various native speakers. 2. The perfect 2.1. Tenses pertaining to the notion or category "past" 2.1.1. Morphology of past tenses in Kurmanji As is the rule with Iranian languages, Kurmanji verb morphology seems to differentiate a dichotomy of past and non-past (cf. Lyons 1968: 305). Subcategories pertaining to the past—whether indicative or irreal—are formally derived from the so-called past stem (derived from the infinitive), whereas present tense and related moods are de­ rived from a different, often lexicalized stem, the so-called present stem. The inventory of the indicative past tenses consists of preterite, im­ perfect, perfect and pluperfect. With intransitive verbs, the past stem combines with the respective tense marker and a personal suffix which agrees with the agent in the direct case. The past tenses of transitive verbs differ with regard to verb/agent agreement rules: With no direct object expressed, the verb seems to be in the unmarked 3 SG, while in other constellations it agrees with the personal features of the patient.2 Past tenses are formed either from the past stem, or from the parti-

150

Christiane Bulut

ciple. Tenses based on the past stem take the following endings. After stem final consonant, the endings are -im, -i, -0 (SG) and -in (PL), af­ ter stem final vowel, they have the form -m, -yi, -0 (SG) and -n (PL). Tenses based on the participle take the copula endings, cf. Appendix at the end of this paper. So far, there is no single terminology denoting the different tenses in Kurmanji; yet, most of the recent grammars and textbooks show a similar identification of the Kurmanji tenses with the—supposedly— corresponding categories of the system of past tenses in Turkish. In the comparative survey of past tense paradigms in Turkish and Kurmanji in Table 3, we use the Kurdish labels applied by Baran (1988 [1991]) and Ciwan (1992). Only very rarely can hints at the existence of another category of the past tense be found; Barnas and Salzer (1994: 155-156) mention two progressive forms, one pertaining to the present, the other, which is relevant in this context, pertaining to the past tense.3 This past progres­ sive consists of (1) durative prefix di-, (2) past stem, (3) personal suffix and (4) an additional unit -e, denoting action in progress, e.g. min dınıvısande T was busy writing/ about to ... '. [A Turkish equivalent would be yazmaktaydım.] 2.1.2. Function of the past tenses

^

A comprehensive definition of the pragmatic/functional characteristics of the Kurdish past tenses is given by McCarus (1958: 58-60) for Sorani.4 Very much like the corresponding Turkish categories, imperfect and pluperfect are restricted to specified functions which clearly show that they do not play a role in an aspecto-temporal opposition: The imperfect names a past progressive action, or rarely a past habitual action. In a contrary fact-to-fact situation it has conditional meaning, as egine 'exinkay 'other­ wise, you would have drowned'. (1958: 58) Like the preterite, the past perfect names a single action completed in the past time, but it characteristically implies a subsequent action also in past time. (1958: 61)

In other words, besides its modal function, the imperfect denotes durativity, habituality or iterativity of an action in the past, whereas the

Indirectivity in Kurmanji

151

pluperfect expresses relative anteriority within a past context. With the perfect and preterite, though, McCarus' definitions rather seem to hint in the direction of an aspecto-temporal opposition: (The preterite) names a single completed action in the past tense; it cannot signify a progressive or habitually repeated action. (1958: 58) The present perfect names not so much an action as a state or condition resulting from a completed action. The preterite names a single action completed in the past westam 'I stood up' ;(...); and the present perfect names a condition in present time resulting from a completed action westawim T am in the condition of having stood up' = 'I am standing, I am afoot' (...), hatuwe 'he has come, he is here'. (1958: 60)

The main difference between preterite and perfect, thus, lies in the per­ spective from which the action is viewed. While the preterite refers to a single action which took place in the past, the perfect stresses the fact that this action has been completed—a viewpoint value which Johanson (1971) has termed "postterminal". If the perfect is applied to de­ scribe the "state or condition resulting from a completed action", the action has already transgressed its relevant limit. This implies that— very much like in Turkish and many other languages—the speaker may infer from results or traces to the action or event which presuma­ bly has taken place. Statements in the perfect may thus carry connota­ tions of inference or indirect evidence. 2.2. Simple past vs. perfect—an aspectual opposition in Kurmanji and Turkish? Kurdish grammarians dealing with the substantial differences between simple past and perfect heavily rely on descriptions of the Turkish tense-aspect system. In most recent descriptions I have had access to, the simple past is more or less identified with the Turkish preterite in -DI, while the perfect is generally interpreted like its Turkish equiva­ lent in -mis, cf. Bali (1992), Baran (1991), Ciwan (1992), Sağnıç (1991), etc. Though there are obvious similarities between these two tenses in both languages, the prevailing identifications may go too far. Bedirkhan's definition (1986), though not very precise, seems to show less Turkish influence:

152

Christiane Bulut

Das Präteritum hat bald die Bedeutung eines deutschen Präteritums, bald die des Per­ fekts: ez ketim 'ich fiel, bin gefallen'. Die Bedeutung des Perfekts entspricht unge­ fähr der des deutschen Perfekts. (1986: 123) Die Unterschiede im Gebrauch des Präteritums und des Perfekts sind oft ziemlich ungenau: sie sind abhängig vom Gebrauch, der üblicherweise in den verschiedenen Dialekten sowie in der heutigen Schriftsprache gemacht wird. (1986: 277)

An older grammar by Kemal Badıllı explicitly denies evidential qual­ ities in the Kurmanji perfect (1965 [1992]: 141): Öğrenilen geçmiş zaman kipi: Kürmanççanın bu kipini Türkçenin öğrenilen geçmiş zaman kipi ile tercüme etmekteyiz. Türkçede öğrenilen geçmiş zaman kipinin ifade ettiği şek, şüphe, terredüt ve nakil anlamları Kürmanççanın bu kipinde yoktur. Kür­ manççanın bu kipi daha ziyade Farsçanın yakın mazi [mazi-i karip] sığasının ifade ettiği anlamı ifade eder. 'The 'reported past tense': We usually translate this Kurmanji verb form with the Turkish reported past tense. Yet, the Kurmanji verb form has none of the connota­ tions of doubt, uncertainty, hesitation and report inherent in the Turkish reported past tense. The meaning of the respective Kurmanji tense is very similar to that of the Per­ sian 'near past'.'

Yet, definitions influenced by Turkish grammar obviously set in quite early, as reflected, for instance, in Kurd Reşid's Rêzmana zimanê Kur­ mana (1956: 87-88, 93-98):5 Eğer me kırın û buna pişk bı çavê xwe ditıbe, yanjijı buna wi bawerbm, emê bibêjin: çûm, hatim ... Eğer me kırın û buna pişk bı çavê xwe ne ditıbe, yan ji ji buna wi ne bawerbin, yan ji di çaxek dûrtır de qewimibe, emê bibêjin: çùme, hatime ... 'If we have seen an action or a state pertaining to the past with our own eyes, or if we believe in its existence, we use the preterite ... If we have not seen an action or a state in the past with our own eyes, or if we do not believe in its existence, or if it happened a long time ago, we use the perfect.'

Reşid uses the standard definition of Turkish grammar to describe the opposition in the use of preterite and perfect in Kurmanji. The crucial point of his characterization of the Kurmanji perfect would thus be: (1) non-witnessedness, (2) non-commitment on behalf of the speaker and (3) the notion of distant past.6Ciwan (1992: 116) explains the func­ tions of simple past and perfect in a very similar way, adding that the speaker—when using the perfect—may have obtained his knowledge

Indirectivity in Kurmanji

153

by report, or that he was not aware of the event when it actually hap­ pened; consequently, he labels the preterite as dema boriya diyar ( 'wit­ nessed past') and the perfect as dema boriya nediyar ('unwitnessed past'). These terms seem to be a mere translation of the corresponding Turkish labels görülen geçmiş zaman and öğrenilen geçmiş zaman which, as will be demonstrated below, mirror a far too narrow concept of the Turkish tenses, as well. Dema Boriya Diyar: Eylemin konuşma anından önce yapılıp bittiğini ve konuşan kesin olarak bunu bildiğini belirtir. ... Dema Boriya Nediyar: Eylemin konuşma anından önce yapıldığını, ama konuşanın eylemin yapılıp bittiğini tam olarak bilme­ diğini, ya da başkasından işitiğiniya da sonra farkettiğini bildirir. 'The witnessed past ('preterite') indicates that the action took place before the time of speech and that the speaker is certain about it. The unwitnessed past ('perfect') indicates that the action took place before the utterance was made; yet, the speaker is either not certain about it or he has learned about it from others/by report; he may also have realized at a later point [what actually had happened].'

According to Ciwan, the main contrastive difference between preterite and perfect seems to be the aspect of the unwitnessed event. His de­ scription adds two more criteria to the functional characterization of the perfect: (4) the information expressed in perfect forms may have been obtained by report rather than by the speaker's personal experi­ ence of (cf. the expression boriya bihisti 'hearsay-past' in Sağnıç 1991: 134), and (5) the perfect may denote unawareness on behalf of the speaker at the time the action took place. In short, contrastive char­ acteristics of preterite and perfect in Kurmanji seem to present a state of affairs very similar to that in Turkish. Table 1. Preterite and perfect Preterite: refers to a single, completed action witnessedness committedness

Perfect: refers to completed action: result, condition or state relative anteriority in the past non-witnessed ('judging by evidence') non-committedness to truth/existence of the reported event reported/second hand information unawareness at the time of action in progress

According to: McCarus (1958) Kurd Reşid (1956)

Ciwan (1992)

154

Christiane Bulut

Furthermore, in both languages the imperfect denotes repeated or habitual action in the past or background action in progress (= intraterminal); it is not part of an aspectual opposition. 2.3. Criteria of the perfect: theoretical prerequisites Taking the identification of the Kurmanji perfect with the corresponding Turkish forms as a starting point, we should check whether qualities of the Turkish perfect in -mis can be attributed to the Kurmanji perfect as well.7 As we have seen, McCarus' definition (cf. 2.I.2.) stresses the fact that the Kurdish perfect, very much like perfects in many other languages and the Turkish perfect form in -mis, expresses a completed action. The underlying view-point value of postterminality allows an indirect perspective, which often "creates an element of distance and uncertainty concerning the actual realization of the event" (Johanson 1996: 86). From such constellations (Willet's (1988) indirect evidence) various shades of meaning, as e.g. hearsay, inferential, admirative etc. can arise, for which Johanson (1996) introduced the cover term indirectivity} Postterminality and indirectivity are closely interconnected across languages (cf. Johanson 1971: 280-291). While e.g. the Persian perfect has a rather vague indirective shade, the indirect aspectual value of postterminality of the Turkish perfect in -mis is reinterpreted and grammaticalized as denoting indirectivity (Johanson, this volume). According to Slobin—Aksu-Koç (1982: 185), "in its use as a past tense morpheme, the particle [-mis] carries modal functions of inference and hearsay, and is pragmatically extended to the expressions of surprise, irony and compliments." The expression of surprise, another pragmatic derivate of the perfect, can also be found in e.g. the Albanian "mirative" (cf. Gretler 1987, DeLancey 1997). In our attempt to describe the functions of the perfect in Kurmanji, we will thus have to examine the criteria defined by Kurdish grammarians (cf. Table 1). We will also look at the additional pragmatic functions which Slobin—Aksu (1982) ascribe to the Turkish perfect in -mis, namely surprise and the "unprepared mind". The following examples demonstrate aspectual qualities of the per-

f Indirectivity in Kurmanji

155

feet, contrasting it with the preterite; they also show, how notions of surprise, inference, unawareness on behalf of the speaker, second or third hand report are rendered in Kurmanji. 2.3.1. Postterminality Example (1) from Q. (slightly altered) contrasts the use of preterite and perfect within the same context: (l)a. Min ew pirtûk xwend. I-OBL that book read-PST3sG 'I read that book.'

Q. (SOI)

(1) b. Min ew pirtûk xwendiye. I-OBL that book read-PF3so 'I read that book (all of it).'

Q. (S02)

Yet, in an unspecified constellation, preterite and perfect can be used alternatively: (2)

Wê pirtûkê Yaşar Kemal yazı kıriye/yazı kır. that-OBL book-OBL name write-PF3sG/write-PST3SG 'Yaşar Kemal wrote that book.'

Q. (S 19)

Especially in combination with intransitive change-of-state verbs, e.g. the initio-transformative verbs sit, stand, remain etc., the postterminal aspect yields a highly stative character; the focus of the perfect forms is on the state or condition arising from the action. Example (3) shows preterite as the normal narrative tense in propul­ sive function, depicting a series of actions which develop one after the other. In combinations with the finitransformative (Johanson 1971: 198 and 2000) verb hatin 'to come', a shift of the aspect considerably changes the meaning. While in the preterite, the focus is on the action in progress (namely 'come'), the postterminal viewpoint expressed in perfects rather stresses the state or condition arising from the action (that is: the fact that someone has arrived or is there). Thus in example (3) hatıne/rûnıştıne, the use of perfect definitely does not express sur­ prise or second-hand information; it is just a matter-of-fact statement

156

Christiane Bulut

that guests 'have arrived/are there and are sitting.' There are no indi­ rective meanings expressed in the perfect forms in (3) to (6): (3)

çûn

rûnıştın

h

odê.

Diya

Eysanê

divé:

go-PST3PL sit down-PST3PL PREP room-OBL mother-EZ name-OBL say-PFts3sG

"Eysanê, mêvanê bavé te hatme, rûnıştıne lı odê. " name-voc guest-EZ father-EZ your come-PF3PL sit down-PF3PL PREP room-OBL '... they went and sat down in the guest room. Eyşan's mother said: "Eyşan, your father's guests have arrived (are here) and have sat down (are sitting) in the guest room".' From a traditional Kurdish ballad in C. Celil (1994: 242) (4)

(5)

Qijika res lı ser darekê venıştiye raven on top PREP tree-iNDEF-OBL sit down-PF3sG 'The raven has sat down (is/was sitting) on a tree.' Lewendi (1992: 77—obviously a translation from Aesop's fables) Temasevanên

hêja!

spectator-EZ-PL

honored PREP problem-EZ-PL

Ji bo problemên

tekniki

programa

me

technical

program-EZ

our

rawestaye. stand still-PF3sG 'Due to technical problems, our programme is interrupted.' (Announcement of an interruption of programme on the Kurdish broadcasting channel.) (6)

Jar û simx ketiye, buy e wekemiriskek rûçıki. thin and pale fall-PF3sG become-PF3so like chicken-iNDEF plucked ('Mager ist sie [geworden] wie ein schwindsüchtiges, gerupftes Hühnchen.') 'She has become thin and pale like a plucked chicken.'

D. (1991:34/1980:28)

2.3.2. Surprise One indication for the expression of surprise may be the sudden switch from basic time of story telling, mostly preterite, to perfect, which im­ plies a change of the relevant viewpoint. Perfect alone is not a suffi­ cient marker of surprise. But it is compatible with the exclamation par­ ticles wey ('look!') in (7), Xwede ('By God!') in (9) or an exclamation ('!' = designating the intonational pattern) as in (8), emphasizing the notion of surprise.

Indirectivity in Kurmanji (7)

(8)

WeyJ Braziyê min ê Doktor ji hatiye. Look! nephew-EZ my the doctor too come-PF3sG 'Look! My nephew, the doctor, is here, too.'

157

Dılgeş (1992: 12)

Evarekê em ketin kanala Kurdistanê, le me dit Evening-INDEF we fall-PSTİPL channel-EZ name-OBL but we-OBL see-PP ku faşisten tırk kanal dagir kirine! that fascist-EZ-PL Turkish channel occupy-PF3PL (sic!) 'One evening we entered channel K., but than we saw that the Turkish fascists had ['have'] already occupied it!' Dîdar- Kovara Yekîtiya Ciwanên Kurd H Swêdê. Oktober 1996, Hejmar 19, p. 15.

Example (9) shows the perfect in a sentence (a) expressing surprise and (b) with inferential meaning; yet, inferentiality is not expressed by the verb form, but, as can be clearly seen, by an adverb (hetmen 'obvi­ ously'). (9) Context: The son of a pasha has married a beautiful girl: When she weeps, gold pours from her eyes, and when she laughs, flowers rain down her face. One day, after his beloved wife has disappeared, he is offered a basket of flowers and sees that they are very much like the ones she used to bring forth. Gelek kete §kê, go: (a) Xwede, ya, ew gulêne kuderê much fall-PST3sG-DiR doubt say-PST3sG God now that flower-PL where from hatinel Ve care di kuşke ma, go: (b) "Hetmen come-PF3PL this time in suspicion-OBL remain-PST3sG say-PST3sG Obviously dayka jina min ew gulêne dane mıroveki, ew ji mother-EZ wife-EZ my that flowers give-PF3PL* man-iNDEF-OBL he too hatiye ve dıfıroşe. " (*coincides with PST3PL-DIR) come-PF3sG and sell-PRs3sG 'He became very suspicious and said: "My God, where did these flowers come from?" A little later he reasoned, "Obviously the mother of my wife gave these flowers to some man and he comes and sells them now.' Kahn (1976: 142, transi. 152)

2.3.3. Inference Semanticaliy, inference is closely connected to the aspect of postterminality: the event described in the perfect has passed its relevant lim­ it. With transformative actional phrases, the speaker may infer from traces or results back to the event which caused them. The classic con­ stellation denoting inference occurs in the following sentence; it is also

15 8

Christiane Bulut

typical of the examples given in Turkish grammars to illustrate inferential qualities of the finite forms in -mis: (10) [Context: It is morning. A wakes up, looks out of the window and sees that the courtyard is wet] Baran hatiye/bariye. rain come/fall-PF3sG 'It rained (during the night)/it must have rained.' Q. (S13) (11) [Context: Investigating a burglary, seeing footprints beneath a window] Diz ve pencere da ketiye jor/hundur. thief this window-OBL POSP fall-PF3sG up/inside 'The thief [apparently] entered the house through this window.'

Q. (S53)

(12) Contrasting preterite <-> perfect in Q. (43) [Context: A comes from the kitchen very agitated and tells B what he has just seen happen:] Misk[ê] nanê me xwar I dixwar I dixwara mouse-OBL bread-EZ our eat-PST3sG eat-iMPF3sG eat-?psT-C0NT 'The mouse ate our bread.' Q. (S42) (13) [Context: A comes from the kitchen, where he has just seen the sad remains of the bread. He tells B what he assumes to have happened:] Misk[ê] nanê me xwariye mouse-OBL bread-EZ our eat-PF3sG. Q. (S43) (14) Nûnê min, niveki miskê xwariye.. bread-EZ our half-iNDEF-OBL mouse-OBL eat-PF3sG 'The mouse has eaten (13) our bread/ (14) half of our bread.'

Q. (S43)

Though native speakers produce the perfect in appropriate situations, it does not necessarily imply an inferential meaning. Asked about their intuition with regard to the use of the perfect, several informants said that "it stressed the fact that the action or event 'was over' (xelas buy. I would tend to see only the postterminal viewpoint expressed in these perfect forms, which may have a vague inferential connotation. Perfect is obviously not sufficient as a marker of real inferential statements; these need additional allusions, for instance adverbs (hetmen 'obviously', cf. (9), belkê 'maybe, probably', cf. (15)) or an explicit quotation verb like T suppose', as in example (16), below.9

I Indirectivity in Kurmanji

159

The family of the speaker has not received any news of their older son, who had left the village some years ago. This situation induces his mother to make the following conjecture (15) Diya mm go: Memet belkê miriye. M. (1993) mother-EZ my say-PST3sG name maybe/probably die-PF3sG 'My mother said: 'Mehmet must be dead by now/ is probably dead. (16) Ez weha texmin dikim ku ew jı bırçina mirine. I so suppose-PRS 1 SG that PRON3SG PREP hunger die-PF3PL Hespên xwe barkiri û girêdayi hıştıne û jı vê horse-EZ PL own loaded and tied leave-PF3PL and PREP this-OBL dinyayê wenda bûne. world-OBL disappear-PF3PL [Context: ..., you can't guess what I found. The skeletons of eight horses.] 'They had starved to death, I reckon. (272) They [apparently] left their horses, loaded and tied, and just disappeared off the face of the earth.' London (1994: 271/1995:20)

The following translations marked with (X) would have been fitting contexts for the use of an inferential perfect. Yet, in the examples be­ low, other strategies than the use of the perfect are applied to denote inferentiality, e.g. an impersonal modal expression like dibe ku 'it must be the case that' with the subordinated clause in the subjunctive in (XI): (XI) Dibe ku di rastkırına guldankan de, ew xwe bi xwe It must be that PREP rearranging-EZ flower-pot-OBL-PL POSP it by itself pê ve aliqi be. on it POSP be caught-pp be-suBj3sG ('Der Zipfel (des Vorhanges) muß an einem Zweig hängengeblieben sein, als ich die Blumentöpfe umstellte.') D. (1980: 18/1991:25) 'Maybe the corner (of the curtain) got caught on it while I was rearranging the flowerpots.'

A notion of unawareness on behalf of the speaker—at the time the process described has taken place—would offer a typical constellation for the use of the Turkish form in -mlş-lSG. Yet, the Kurmanji version in ex. (X2) paraphrases this context by using introductory ez bawenm T believe':

160

Christiane Bulut

(X2) Ez bawerim min serma h xwe xisti bü. I believe-PRSİSG I-OBL cold PREP self catch PLUP-3SG ('Ich muß wohl meinen Rücken erkältet haben.') D. (1980: 21/1991:28) 'It looks like I have caught a cold.' [cf. Turkish: Galiba soğuk almışım.]

2.3.4. Relative anteriority Stories are normally told in the simple past (preterite), while duration or habituality is expressed by the imperfect. In such a temporal frame, perfect very often denotes relative anteriority: It refers to events or ac­ tions which represent an earlier stage within the related time or have already been completed at that point, as in example (8). English em­ ploys pluperfect, instead. (17) Belki me di destpêkê de, merak dikir bê gelo wi Maybe we-OBL PREP beginning-OBL POSP wonder-iMPF3sG about QUEST.-PART. he-OBL jı şive û heta nuha çend Skotch vexwariye, le ev pırr PREP dinner-OBL and till now many Skotch drink-PF3sG but this very > zû hat jıbirkırın. «; quickly come-PST3SG forget-PST3PL 'At first we might have wondered how many Scotches he had consumed since dinner, but very soon all that was forgotten.' London (1994: 263/1995: 9)

2.3.5. Reported evidence: 2nd or 3rd hand report A sequence from a translation of Dostoyevski contains some examples of perfect forms denoting second or third hand report; yet, throughout the text, additional quotation verbs like e.g. dibêjin 'they say', etc. ap­ pear. (18) M in şerefmendıya xwe ne parastıye, dibe ku min ne I-OBL honor-EZ own NEG defend-PF3sG be-PRs3sG that I-OBL NEG xwestiye. want-PF3sG ('Ich aber hätte es nur nicht verstanden—oder vielleicht auch nicht gewollt— für meine Ehre einzutreten.') D. (1980: 30/1991:36) 'But I obviously did not defend my honour, maybe I did not even want to do so.' [cf. Turkish: Ben de şerefimi savunamamışım; belki de savunmak iste­ memişim.]

indirectivity in Ku rmanji

161

(19) Ji bo nun ji gotıye ev šerm û rûreşıyeke mezin e[...] PREP me also say-PF3sG this shame and loss of face-iNDEF-EZ big COP-3SG min mêvanperwenya wêjibirkinye,[...] me hospitality-EZ her forget-PF3sG ('Es sei eine Schande für mich [...] ich hätte das Gnadenbrot, das sie uns gege­ ben, vergessen.') D. (1980: 30/1991:36) 'She also said about me that it was a big shame that I had also forgotten her hospitality.' (20) Mirza Bukov bas kırıye ku bı yeke wekeminre ne zewuciye. Mister B. well do-PF3sG that PREP one-OBL like me POSP NEG marry-PF3sc ('Herr Bykoff sei durchaus im Recht, man könne doch nicht eine jede heiraten, die...') 'Mr. Bukuv had done well not to marry someone like me.'

2.3.6. Focality Another feature of perfects is the degree of focality they express. As discussed by Johanson (1996: 88), Turkish perfect forms in -mis have "left the focal stages of postterminality and developed into non-focal, event-oriented indirectives that are also used for narrative purposes". A characteristic example is the standardized beginning of fairy-tales: bir varmış, bir yokmuş 'there was and there was not' (cf. Johanson 1971:79-80). In contrast to the situation in Turkish, Kurmanji perfect forms rep­ resent a higher degree of focality; thus, they do not appear as the basic tense of narratives: The standardized beginning of fairy-tales in Kur­ manji is Hebû tunebû (There was ... and there was not') in the preter­ ite. There are of course exceptions to the rule;10 a fairy-tale in Baran (1991: 151), for instance, whose extraordinary use of tenses will be discussed below in example (27), begins with hebûye, a perfect form of hebûn 'to exist'. 2.4. Equivalents of the Turkish indirective copula particle imiş In contrast to the finite verb forms in -mis, the Turkish indirective cop­ ula particle imiş is a tense-neutral marker of indirectivity." It also takes part in the formation of the Turkish intraterminal indirectives,

i 162

Christiane Bulut

which, as we will see later, have been identified with some morpholog­ ically similar complex forms in Kurmanji.12 It must be stressed that there is no equivalent of the Turkish inferential marker imiş in Kur­ manji. Consequently, the German modal verb soil in (21) is translated with the indicative copula 'is'. In (22), soll haben (cf. Turkish 'var imiş'') is paraphrased in Kurmanji with an introductory quotation verb dıbejın 'they say' and heye 'has'.13 (21) Mere male karmendekê betale. Ez mzanim man-EZ house-OBL employee-iNDEF-EZ poor COP-3SG I NEG-know-PRSlSG ji ber çı ye, le haft sal berê ew ji kar havêtine. for what COP-3SG but seven year POSP he PREP work throw out-PF3pL ('Das Familienoberhaupt soll ein stellenloser Beamter sein—vor etwa sieben Jahren aus dem Dienst entlassen, man weiß nicht, weshalb.') D. (1980:29/1991:34-35) 'The head of the family is a poor employee; I do not know why, but he was dis­ missed seven years ago.' (22) Le dıbejın, lıvırpırtûkek pır baş heye. Min ew ne Butsay-PRS3PL here book-iNDEF-EZ very good exist-PRS3sG I-OBL it NEG xwendiye, le ew yen ku xwendine pesnê wê didin û , read-PF3sG but he the ones CON read-PF3PL praise-EZ its give-PRs3PL and dıbejın, bı stileke heri bılınd hatıye nıvısin. say-PRs3PL PREP style-EZ-OBL most high come-PF3sG write-INF ('Es soll hier jemand ein sehr gutes Buch haben, hörte ich, eines, das in sehr hohem Stil geschrieben sei.') D. (1980: 32/1991:37) 'They say that someone here has a very good book. I have not read it, but those who have praise it and say that it is written in a very refined style.'

2.5. Survey on functions of the perfect in Kurmanji We can sum up the different notions the perfect expresses as follows: Perfect-inherent + postterminality + relative anteriority

+ high focality

Examples completed action, the time focus is on the post- 1 to 6 terminal stage the perfect can be used as a marker of relative an- 8, 17 teriority (e.g. in translations of the English plu­ perfect) perfect is not applied as a narrative tense 27

Indirectivity in Kurmanji

163

- inference

inference needs additional means of expression; it is not even obligatorily denoted by perfect forms - surprise/unprepared surprise also needs additional means of expres- 7, 8, 9 minds sion, as e.g. exclamation marks (pertaining to in­ tonation) or exclamation particles (wey, Xwede) - unawareness on be- these constellations are paraphrased: 'I believe, I X1, X2 half of the speaker think/ gather' - second or third hand perfect appears; yet, the relevant propositions de-18 to 20 report pend on introductory quotation verbs somewhere in the context

In most constellations where the perfect is used, it does not seem to be a sufficient marker of indirectivity: Inferential statements can combine with [+ perfect]; yet, inferentiality needs additional means of expression: sentence-initial adverbs or conjunctions as hetmen 'obviously, apparently', example (9), belkê 'maybe, perhaps', example (15) or modal or quotation verbs, as e.g. ez wiha texmin dikim 'as I suppose' in example (16). [- perfect]: In other constellations, inference is expressed without the perfect. Here we find introductory modal verb forms, as e.g. dibe 'it should/could be that' combining with the subjunctive (cf. example XI). The situation is similar with second and third hand report, which may be expressed by the perfect; yet, perfect alone is not a sufficient marker for these constellations of indirectivity. With regard to the complex forms denoting indirective intraterminals (see below), I have mentioned the confusion surrounding the iden­ tity of the finite perfect marker -mis and the indirective copular particle imiş in Turkish grammars. It should be emphasized that Kurmanji does not possess an equivalent of imiş: the relevant constellations are para­ phrased with quotation verbs as in (22) dıbejın 'they say that' or trans­ lated with the copula 'is' as in (21). To sum up: We have seen a strong tendency in contemporary Kurd­ ish linguistics to identify the Kurmanji perfect with the Turkish finite forms in -mis. Owing to the general semantic connection between perfects and in­ directivity, a high compatibility of the perfect with some indirective constellations exists. Yet, "the indirective shades of meaning occur-

164

Christiane Bulut

ring with focal postterminals are vague and instable" (Johanson 1996: 86). Indirective shades of meaning need further, more explicit mark­ ers. We cannot find evidence for clearcut expressions of indirectivity in the Kurmanji perfect alone, as there should be according to the de­ scriptions in most contemporary grammars; real evidential statements are always introduced by adverbials, whereas second or third hand re­ port may be indicated by quotation words. With due caution, we can conclude that (1) indirectivity is still not grammaticalized in the re­ spective Kurmanji verb forms used by less educated speakers and (2) that the strong tendencies to ascribe such qualities to the perfect in Kurmanji can be attributed to an identification with the respective forms in Turkish. 2.6. The Kurmanji perfect in an Iranian context Generally, Iranian perfects seem to allow an interpretation of rather vague meanings of indirectivity; cf. the characterization of the perfect in Classical Persian by Edel'man (quoted from Soper 1987: 79): The perfect form is used on two planes. On the one hand, it indicates activity in the past having a result in the present; in this plane it emerges as a purely indicative tem­ poral-aspectual form. On the other hand, it can designate unobserved, out-of-sight (zaglazniy) activity in the past which the speaker finds out about from its conse­ quences or from someone else's remarks; in this plane one can speak of a nonindicative, hearsay modal sense of the perfect.

To express more clearcut shades of indirectivity, Kurmanji perfects have to combine with additional adverbs, particles or quotations verbs. To some extent, this may be true for Modern Persian perfects, cf. Windfuhr (1982, ex. 19: zăheran 'apparently' + perfect). The situation in Kurmanji shows some striking similarities to e.g. early Classical Persian-Tajik, cf. the following quotation from Soper (1987: 80), based on Efimov—Rastorgueva—Šarova(1982: 162, 172): In early Classical Persian-Tajik, the perfect, in a fixed context, that is, in a sentence with the words gô-ê 'as if, apparently', magar 'really?, perhaps', zann 'opinion, sus­ picion', or after the verbs guftan 'say' and pandaştan 'think, suppose', could be used to express logical inference, the communication of others' words, or an inference,

Indirectivity in Kurmanji

165

ex., gô-ê barânjâ kas-ê rafta ast 'apparently someone went (has/had gone) there.' In later Classical Persian, the perfect with the prefix mê- was used "particularly fre­ quently" to convey the words of someone else, in what is called an "auditive" sense: pas bar in taqrîr ma 'lûm şud ki pes az islâm si 'r-i Fârsî nîz mêgufta and 'thus from this account became known that before Islam they had also composed Persian poet­ ry'. (...) It is maintained by these scholars that later, in Tajik, this secondary function of the perfect to express an unobserved, hearsay, or inferential action became its primary function and the determining factor in the emergence of a complete, new mood in the verbal paradigm, (ibid., 178-180; Rastorgueva—Kerimova 1964: 73-75, Edel'man 1975: 393, 440-442)

As a result of the prevailing Turkic (Uzbek) influence, Northern Tajik has since developed an inferential use of the perfect. In a parallel situ­ ation, the strong influence Turkish exerts on Kurmanji may ultimately lead to similar developments in the area of perfect and intraterminal in­ directives. 3. Marked inferentiality: intraterminal indirectives Interestingly, most textbooks and grammars on Kurmanji ignore the complex forms denoting intraterminal indirectives. None of the well-known older dialect studies (Lerch, Makas, Le Coq, Blau, etc.) shows any trace of them. Furthermore, they are not mentioned in the famous grammars of Bedirkhan, Bakaev and Kurdoev; yet, they ap­ pear in a number of recent works by Kurdish authors from Turkey. Thus, one could speculate that they have been created under strong Turkish influence or, in other words, out of an urge to construct a well-balanced system of parallel forms, as obviously exists in Turkish grammar [cf. the Turkish opposition: X-hikayesi <-> X-rivayeti]. Turkish has a well-developed system of complex forms morphol­ ogically marked for indirectivity; these are used to present an event in its course. As an explicit marker the tense-neutral (present + past) indirective copular particle imiş14 appears, which combines e.g. with present, aorist, future, conditional and perfect (Lewis 1991: 110-125). It mostly conveys that the information given is based on hearsay (= reported evidence), and less often that it is based on inference (Lewis

166

Christiane Bulut

1991: 122). Two of these complex Turkish forms have alleged equiva­ lents in Kurmanji: (1)

the Inferential I (= -lyormuş -> present in -Iyor + imiş), e.g. geliyormuşum T am/was said to be X-ing, I gather that I am/was X-ing' (Lewis 1991: 110), which in most Turkish grammars is called şimdiki zamanın rivayeti ('reported present')

(2)

and the Inferential II {-mlş imiş -> perfect in -mlş + imiş), e.g. gelmişmiş 'he-is-said-to-be having come' (Lewis 1991: 124), in Turkish -misli geçmiş za­ manın rivayeti ('reported past in -mis').

3.1. Inferential I: Dema bonya berdevam a nedıyar In its morphological structure, the dema bonya berdevam a nedıyar 'unwitnessed continuous past tense', which we will call the Kurmanji Inferential I, is identical to the perfect, except that the form takes an additional durative prefix di-. With due caution, we can say that the morphological elements contained in this complex form resemble those of the Turkish şimdiki zamanın rivayeti, which, in its surface structure, also differs from the simple past only with regard to an ad­ ditional durative unit, namely -Iyor. Yet, there is one crucial difference in those complex forms in Turkish, as the element in -mis which they contain is the inferential marker imiş, which has no equivalent in Kur­ manji. Ciwan (1992: 119) describes the function of the Inferential I as follows: Eylemin, başka bir eylem yapıldığı esnada ya da geçmişte belli bir sürede sürekli olarak yapılmakta olduğunu, fakat konuşanın o dönemde bunun yapılmakta olduğunu bilmediğini, sonradan farkettiğini ya da başkaları tarafından bundan haberdar edildiğini belirtir. 'It indicates that the event [expressed in the Inferential I] took place while another event happened, or that the action stretched over a certain period in the past (-> in­ traterminal); yet, the speaker was not aware of the event at the time of its actual re­ alization; he may have realized it at a later point or he may also have heard about it from others.'

According to Ciwan, the main characteristics of the perfect are the ex­ pression of "unawareness/non-witnessedness/report". The Inferential I basically seems to denote very much the same degree of indirecţi vity, but has an additional element of duraţi vity or intraterminality. Ciwan

lndirectivity in Kurmanji

167

(1992: 119) is the only author to provide examples of the use of the In-» ferential I in his grammar, cf. examples (23 to 26): (23) Gava ku ew hatiye, min kitêb dixwendiye. When he come-PF3sG I-OBL book read-iNFR i 3SG {O geldiğinde ben kitap okuyormuşum.) 'I gather that I was reading when he came.' (24) Gava ku wi ez ditıme, ez dıçûme dıbıstane. When he-OBL I see-PFİSG I go-iNFRilSG* school-DiR {O beni gördüğünde okula gidiyormuşum.) 'I gather that/As I have been told I was on my way to school when he saw me.' (25) Di

zarotiya

xwe de

ew dıçûye

PREP childhood own POSP he go-iNFR i 3SG*

dıbıstane. school-DiR

{Çocukluğunda o okula gidiyormuş.) 'I gather that/In all probability he used to go/went to school when he was a child.' (26) Du sal berê wi mamosteti dikiriye. two year ago he-OBL teaching make-iNFR i 3SG (iki yıl önce o öğretmenlik yapıyormuş.) 'I gather/have heard that he used to work as a teacher two years ago.'

Though I have checked many sources, I have not been able to trace the actual use of intraterminal indirectives consisting of di- + "perfect". These forms are extremely problematic. If they combine with verbs in­ dicating direction, their surface structure can be analysed differently as well. In many cases, verbs indicating direction, as e.g. çûn, hatırı, dan, gotın ('go, come, give, say'), combine with a directive particle in -el-a if a postverbal indirect object or goal NP in the oblique case follows. Thus, the verb forms in examples (24) and (25) can be analysed as *dıçûme -> dı-çûm (go-iMPFİSG: 'I was going/used to go') + directive particle -ela and *dıçüye -> dı-çû (go-lMPF3sG: 'he was going/used to go') + directive particle -e/a.15 Another similar surface structure arises from combinations of the imperfect with the continuous particle -e, e.g. dı-çûm-e (DUR-go-PSTİSG + continuous particle 'I was just going', cf. p. 4 of this paper); both of these forms, however, are not marked for indirecţi vity.16 Yet, the existence of complex verb forms with a similar surface structure (though morphologically different) may have created a certain degree of acceptance for the formal features of the so-called

168

Christiane

Bulut

Inferential I. It may also be the case that these existing forms have been re-interpreted under the influence of Turkish intraterminal indirec­ tives, which makes a different interpretation of their morphological el­ ements plausible. One of the few texts which actually applies the Inferential I is a Kurmanji version of a well-known German fairy tale in Baran (1991: 151). He retells the Bremer Stadtmusikanten, using the perfect as a basic tense, while normally Kurmanji story telling is based on the simple past, see 2.3.6. Those of my informants not familiar with the identifi­ cation of the Kurdish perfect with the Turkish finite forms in -mis had the impression that e.g. hebûye meant 'something came into existence' and consequently translated it into Turkish as doğmuş ('was born'). Nor are the examples of the (potentially intraterminal indirective) complex forms Baran exhibits very enlightening: Whenever it comes to action in progress ('were sitting/have been seated/eating', and so on), he uses complex forms; bang dıkıriye, xuya dıkıriye, dixwanne, vedixwanne, xeber dıdane, dıgotiye etc. Less educated native speakers rejected the tense used for story telling here. (27) Li qiraxê danstanê malek hebûye û di pençirên PREP outskirts-EZ woods-OBL house-iNDEF exist-PF3SG and PREP window-EZ-PL wê da roni xuya dıkıriye. [...] Nêziki malê bûne, ne her posp light-OBL come forth-iNFR i 3SG near house-OBL be-PF3PL NEG dıkanine ku hundırda çı hey e, çı tune can-iNFR i 3PL CON inside-POSP what exist-PRs3sG what not exist-PRS3sG bibinin. Se gotiye:[...] Di hundırda se kes h dora see-suBJ3PL dog say-PF3sG PREP inside POSP three person PREP around sıfreki rûnıştıne, bı kêf dixwanne û vedixwanne. table-iNDEF-OBL sit-PF3PL PREP pleasure eat-iNFR l 3PL and drink-iNFR i 3SG Baran (1991:15) 'On the outskirts of the woods there was a house; and from its windows, light was pouring forth. They came near the house, but they could not see what was inside of it. The dog said: [...] Inside, three people were seated around a table, eating and drinking merrily." 7

3.1.1. An alternative form of Inferential I quoted in Bali's grammar Bali (1992: 218) neither comments on any of the inferential categories, nor does he provide examples with the relevant complex units in con­ text. Morphologically, the presumed equivalent of the Turkish verb

lndirectivity in Kurmanji

169

forms in -Iyormuş seems to consist of di-fpuR] + [PP of the respective verb in +i] + [bun 'was'], or, in other words, the form of the pluperfect combined with an additional prefix di-. Bali calls it dema niha ya gote got 'hearsay mode of the present' or dema niha ya riwayeti 'reported present', which is an exact translation of the Turkish term şimdiki za­ manın rivayeti, denoting intraterminal indirectives in -Iyormuş. According to Sağnıç (1991: 139), these forms pertain to the çirokiya dema nho ûfreha hevedudani 'compound form derived of the im­ perfect'. Consequently, they should be interpreted as consisting of an imperfect form, which combines with the past tense of bun 'to be'. In an Iranian context, this morphological analysis does not make much sense; it may have originated from an identification of the respective forms of bû- + personal marker 'was' with the representative of the Turkish category hikaye, idi + personal marker 'was'. Interestingly, Sağnıç remarks that the forms of the compound imperfect are restricted to four verbs, namely zanin 'know, can', vêyan 'want, must', wêrin 'dare' and karin 'can'. With regard to the durative marker di-, potential modal verbs seem to behave differently from the standard rules of verb morphology (cf. Bedir Khan 1986: 142): In the present tense, zanin 'know, can' appears without the durative prefix di- if it takes a direct object, or, in other words, if it is not followed by a subordinated verb in the subjunctive, e. g.: Tu Kurmanci zanil 'Do you know ['speak'] Kurdish?' In a re­ versed constellation, the absence of di- combines with the auxiliary function of karin 'can': Ez karım bêjim ku T can say that ...' Additional durative markers may also combine with the pluperfect of modal verbs: Without further explanations of morphological con­ straints, the pluperfect of vêyan/vin is given in the form dıvıya bû [DUR-want-PP-was] in Bedir Khan's grammar. It should be interpreted as "having either the meaning of an indicative imperfect18 or of the conditional II", e.g.: mm dıvıya bû T wanted ~ I would have liked/ wanted to' (Bedir Khan 1986: 179). (28) Bi vê

çûyinê,

min dıkarı bû

di ser hemû dine

PREP thİS-OBL gO-INF-OBL I-OBL Catl-INFR I 3SG PREP

all

WOrld-OBL

re POSP

derbas buma traverse-cONDi ISG 'Walking like this, I could have traversed all the world.' (Bedir Khan 1986:281)

170

Christiane

Bulut

Some examples of this second type of the alleged Inferential I can be found in translations of European literature. These complex units ap­ pear exclusively with modal verbs, mostly karın 'can' and zanin 'know'. To some extent, they seem to display inferential character, cf. ex. (29) to (30). In most constellations, though, they simply represent an imperfect, cf. ex. (31) und (32). Ex. (X3) to (X8) below show that Kurmanji uses particles or ad­ verbs,19 combined with the preterite, the imperfect or the pluperfect, instead of markers pertaining to verb morphology to render intratermi­ nal indirectives. In ex. (29), the Inferential 1 SG refers to the typical constellation of the 'unawareness on behalf of the speaker'. A woman is thinking about her former life in the city; looking back, she now realizes that at that time she was not conscious of her own attitude towards life: (29) Mm

digot,

qey ez h

I-OBL say-iMPF3sG as if I

tışteki

dıgerıyam

PREP thing-iNDEF-OBL seek-iMPFİSG

û

mın

and

I-OBL

dızanibû ku ezê bıbinım. Ez ne dıtırsıyam. know-iNFR i 3SG that I FUT part. find-suBJİSG I NEG fear-iMPF ISG 'Seemed I was looking for something and [apparently] knew I'd find it. I wasn't afraid.' -1* London (1995: 20/1994:271)

Second or third hand report: (30) Wi

hist

ku ez rûnım

he-OBL allow-PST3sG that I

min re

got

û

ve

liberwi

moment-OBL POSP PREP

bıhata[...]

zwianeki

şirin

ku parêzgerê mın"jı ber sedemekê

I-OBL posp say-PST3sG that lawyer-EZ my

nışka

bı

Mın

jı

sit-sUBJİSG and PREP voice-iNDEF-EZ sweet PREP

peyda bûbû"

PREP

jı

reason-iNDEF-EZ PREP

nedıkaribû.

he-OBL turn up-PLUP3sG NEG-can-iNFR i 3SG

got

ku mın dıkaribû

bêyi

come-coND 3sG I-OBL say-PST3sG that I-OBL can-iNFR i 3SG without

parêzgerê lawyer-EZ

xwe ji bersivbıdana. own also answer-C0ND3sG Il m'a fait asseoir et avec beaucoup de courtoise m'a déclaré que mon avocat, "par suite d'un contretemps" n'avait pu venir. [...] J'ai dit que je pouvais répondre seul. Camus (1942: 95-96/1995: 60) 'He told me to get seated and explained in a friendly tone that my lawyer, due to a momentary inconvenience that had appeared all of a sudden, had not been able to come. [...] I said that I could also answer without a lawyer.'

Indirectivity in Kurmanji 171 (31) ...,lê

bi

away eki

mın dıkaribû

bigota

ez ji ber

but PREP way-INDEF-OBL I-OBL Can-INFR I 3SG say-COND3SG I

PREP

(poşmanbûyine) hıneki aciz bum. repentance-OBL a little tired be-PSTİSG J'ai réfléchi etj'aiditqueplutôtqueduregretvéritablej'éprouvaisuncertainennui. Camus (1942: 101/1995:63) The Kurdish translation differs a great deal: '... , but I could have said that in a way I was tired of true repentance.' (32) Ez dikanm bêjim ku bı rasti havine pır zû ciyê I can-PRSİSG say-suBJİSG that really summer-OBL very quickly place-EZ [havine] gırt. Mın dızanibû ku bı hatına rojên summer-OBL take-PST3sG I-OBL know-iNFR i 3so that PREP come-iNF-EZ day-EZ-PL peşin en germe tışteki nû ê jı bo mın biqewimiya. coming the ones hot something-EZ new EZ PREP me arise-suB II 3SG Je peux dire qu'au fond l'été a très vite remplace l'été. Je savais qu'avec la montée des premières chaleurs surviendrait quelque chose de nouveau pour moi. Camus (1942: 117/1995:72) 'I can say that it soon became summer again. I knew that with the coming of the hot days something new would happen to me.'

3.1.2. Paraphrases for intraterminal indirectives Many constellations where the complex verb forms corresponding to Turkish -lyormuş could have been used are paraphrased differently: dışa min dengê hiskinê bıhist, mina ku yek and again I-OBL voice-EZ sobbing-OBL hear-PsT3sG as if someone dig ı riya. weep-PST3sG ('... dann hörte ich wieder Schluchzen, ganz als weine dort jemand.') D. (1980:29/1991:35) [A possible Turkish translation of the subordinated clause would have been: sanki biri ağlıyormus] '... and again I heard a sobbing, as if someone were weeping.'

(X3)...K

A possible intraterminal indirective (-Iyormuşum) in London (1995: 16) is paraphrased with imperfect + particle qey 'as if. Throughout the text, the imperfect alternates with forms of the supposed Inferential I, which exclusively appears in connection with modal verbs:20

172

Christiane

Bulut

(X4) Qey min dixwest ez paqij bim. Jı bo çı ? Min ji as if I-OBL want-iMPF3sG I clean be-suBJlsG PREP what I-OBL too mzanibû. Xuyabû, min bi tenêdixwest û min weha NEG-know-PLUP 1 SG clear be-PST3sG I-OBL only want-iMPF 3SG and I-OBL SO bawerdihr ku bê çawa ez bi suştına firaxan dikanbûm believe-iMPF 3SG that PREP way I PREP wash-iNF-EZ dish-OBLPL can-iNFR i 1 SG bimirama, bi mirinekê wek minna wan ji bimirama. die-suBj ii ISG PREP die-lNF-iNDEF-OBL like die-iNF-EZ POSS3PL too die-suBJii ISG [Context: ..., but I looked at the other women, and their way of life didn't ex­ cite me.] 'I reckon I wanted to be clean. I don't know why; I just wanted to, I guess; and I reckon I might as well die dishwashing as die their way.' London (1994: 269/1995: 16) (X5) Tundmvisê ku bi bêhna 'fireh û h dû hev li mekina typist-EZ that PREPbreath-EZ long andPREP behind one another PREP machine-EZ xwe ya nivisandinê dixist bi wê gotina min şaşomaşo own EZ writing-OBL beat-iMPF3sG PREP this-OBL say-iNF-EZ my confusion kir û tihyên xwe bêguman lı şestıyne çewet da. make-psT 3sG and finger-EZ PL own doubtlessly PREP keys(?)-OBL confound-PST3sG. '... et le greffier, qui jusqu'ici tapait régulièrement sur sa machine, a dû se tromper de touches, car il s'est embarressé et a été obligé de revenir en arrière.' Camus (1942: 97/1995: 61) '... and the typist who had been typing patiently and regularly on her typewrit­ er was puzzled because of what I said; doubtlessly her fingers confused the keys.' (X6) Wê carê ji helbet wek carên din min got na. this-OBL time-OBL also certainly like time-EZ PL other I-OBL say:psT3sG no 'Évidemment, j ' a i dit non une fois de plus.' Camus (1942: 100/1995: 63) 'Obviously I answered 'No' again.' (X7) Wêkaxeza rojnamê behsa bı serhatinekê this piece of paper-EZ newspaper-OBL report-EZ PREP incident-iNDEF-OBL dikir. Destpêka çirokê kêm bû, le bêguman ew çirok make-PST3sG beginning-EZ story-OBL little be-psT3sG but doubtlessly this story h çekoslovakyayê qewimibû. PREP Czechoslovakia-OBL happen-PLUP 3SG Il relatait un fait divers dont le début manquait, mais qui avait dû se passer en Tchécoslovaquie. Camus (1942: 113-114/1995: 71) 'This piece of a newspaper referred to a certain incident. The beginning of the article was missing, but doubtlessly the story had happened in Czechoslova­ kia.' (The content of the newspaper article is given in pluperfect/simple past as a ba­ sic tense.)

lndirectivity in Kurmanji

173

The next example is taken from a famous fairy tale by H. C. Andersen: Keçıka kıbritfıroş, translated by Bişare Segman, and published in Ronahi volume 19, 1943 (Wikander 1958: 192). Finding the little girl dead in the morning, with the matches still in her hands, passers-by conclude what may have happened the night before: (X8) Xelkê digot: "Dixwest xwe bi kibrite germ people-OBL say-iMPF 3SG want-iMPF 3SG herself PREP matches-OBL warm bike, le..." make-suBj 3SG but 'She [obviously] wanted to warm herself.'

In examples (X3) to (X8), indirectivity is not expressed by inferential categories of verb morphology; it may be signaled by adverbs and sen­ tence-initial particles, e.g. qey ('as if) or hetman, bê guman ('surely, certainly'). Report is sometimes paraphrased with an introducing verb, e.g. dibêje, dibêjin ('one says/they say'), which marks what follows as a quotation of someone else's words. Assumption may also be intro­ duced by dibe [ku] 'probably, maybe, likely, perhaps' [-> originally the present stem of bun = b-, + DUR di- > become 'may it be']. 3.2. Inferential II: Dema boriya nediyar a rivayeti The only examples of dema boriya nediyar a rivayeti 'reported form of the unwitnessed past' in context were to be found in Ciwan's gram­ mar (1992: 119), cf. examples no. 33 to 35. These complex verb forms, which are identified with the Turkish -misli geçmiş zamanın rivayeti, consist of PP + ı + bun (= so far identical with the pluperfect) + copular ending of the perfect and seem to represent both intraterminal indirec­ tives and inferentials. Let us first look at Ciwan's definition of this mode: Eylemin, geçmişte belli bir anda ya da başka bir eylem olduğunda yapılıp bitirilmiş olduğunu ama konuşanın bunu o dönemde kesinlikle bilmediğini, ya sonradan farkına vardığını ya da başkaları tarafından bundan haberdar edildiğini belirtir. 'The action took place at a certain time in the past, or had already come to an end before another action set in. Yet, either the speaker did not know this for sure, or he found out about it or was told about it by others later on.'

174

Christiane Bulut

(33) Wi du sal berê dıbıstan xelas kınbûye. he-OBL two year POSP school finish make-iNFR ıı (İki yd önce o okulu bitirmişmiş.) 'He is said to have finished school two years ago.'

3SG

(34) Gava ku tu hatiyi, ez çû bûme. when you come-PF 2sG I go-iNFRiilSG (Sen geldiğinde ben gitmişmişim.) 'I gather that I had already left when you arrived.' (35) Gava ku te keçik xwestiye, wê mer kınbûye. when you-OBL girl want-PF 3SG she-OBL marriage make-iNFR II 3SG. (Sen kızı istediğinde o kocaya varmışmış bile.) 'When you wanted this girl, she had—as people say—been married long ago.'

Bali presents a set of alternative forms, again based on pluperfect mor­ phology, with an additional copular element in the past tense {bun + personal marker), cf. Appendix. None of these forms could be identi­ fied by less educated speakers. The most complete and systematic description of Kurmanji verb forms pertaining to tense-aspect and mood is the one given by Ciwan. Ciwan's is the only grammar which elaborates on the function of the complex forms in question and gives examples, too. In summing up all relevant information from Ciwan, one discovers an underlying system of striking symmetry on two different levels: Vertically, there is a one-by-one relation between non-inferential and inferential forms. Horizontally, each Kurmanji form has its exact counterpart in Turkish with regard to morphology (if one ignores the fact that the indirect copular particle imiş, which obviously has been identified as the perfect in -mis, is unparalleled in Kurmanji) as well as semantic relations. I find this underlying system much too schematic, especially with regard to the role of the perfect: As mentioned, the per­ fect has a basic trace of postterminality in both languages. Only in Turkish are indirective meanings grammaticalized in the finite forms in -mis. In Kurmanji, indirective shades expressed by perfects are very vague and need additional allusions. In both languages, the pragmatic functions of the perfect cannot be reduced to a single possible conno­ tation, "non-witnessedness", as both perfects may also denote that the speaker has witnessed the event himself (indicated here by: indicative ~ indirective).

Indirectivity in Kurmanji

175

Table 2. Parallels in the Turkish and Kurmanji verb forms referring to tense - aspect - indirectivity (as presented in recent grammars on Kurmanji) simple past Kurmanji Dema Boriya Diyar ('witnessed past')

Turkish

-di'li geçmiş zaman [-dl]

INDICATIVE imperfect pluperfect Dema Bonya Berdevam Dema Boriya Nediyar a a Diyar ('witnessed Çiroki ('unwitnessed continuous past) distant past') şimdiki zamanın hikayesi [-Iyordu]

-misli geçmiş zamanın hikayesi [-mişti]

INDICATIVE ~ INDIRECTIVE INDIRECTIVE perfect intraterminal past inferential past Dema Boriya Nediyar Dema Boriya Berdevam Dema Boriya Nediyar a Kurmanji ('unwitnessed past') a Nediyar ('unwitnessed Rivayeti continuous past tense') ('unwitnessed reported remote past') -misli geçmiş zamanın -misli geçmiş zaman şimdiki zamanın riTurkish vayeti [-/yormuş] rivayeti [-mlşmlş] [-mlş]

Interestingly, a nearly identical concept of identifying Turkic and Ira­ nian indirective verb categories is applied by two Azeri grammarians, Ali Kasravi and Alizade, to Azeri Turkic and Persian. Kasravi calls the Persian perfect of the type karde ast "gozašte-ye nadide" ('unwit­ nessed past') and identifies it with the Azari perfect in -mlsl-lp (indic­ ative ~ indirective); furthermore, he characterizes equivalents of the Inferential I and II, minevešte and nevěšte bude (ast) as 'unseen' and identifies them with the Azeri intraterminal indirectives yazarmıs/ yazirmíš and yazmışmış. Alizade's concept is basically the same, but he applies the term "past reported ('revayetle') action" (Windfuhr 1982: 282-283). 4. Indirective categories of verb morphology: genuine Iranian or contact-induced? The striking fact about intraterminal indirectives is that they are by no means frequently used. As the examples marked with (X) above show, constellations where these complex verbs forms could have been used are, for the most, paraphrased.

176

Christiane Bulut

Thus, one has to ask what the origin of the intraterminal indirectives is which contemporary grammars promote. They may, of course, be ar­ chaic forms which have survived in some secluded dialects. It may be possible, as well, that the markers of indirectivity are part of a system of specialized complex verb forms which only very rarely appear in texts, as has been suggested for Persian (Windfuhr 1982: 283), too. Or do they represent a recent development caused by language contact with Turkish? Recall that the majority of Kurmanji grammarians re­ ceived a Turkish education and linguistic training. In both cases, the introduction of these forms into new textbooks and their revival in the language could be the result of a growing awareness of the existence of indirective categories across languages. At any rate, the prevalence of evidential categories in Kurmanji would by no means be an isolated phenomenon: Complex verb forms with nearly identical functions can also be found in other Iranian lan­ guages in the areal and, as Table 3 demonstrates, they show parallels also with regard to their morphological inventory. The development of the intraterminal indirectives in Kurmanji would thus be similar to that of the evidential categories in Modern Persian. Presumably, Turkic in­ fluence was at work in the appearance or the revival of the relevant cat­ egories in these two languages. Taj iki has even gone one step further, cf. Windfuhr's comment on inferential verb forms (1990: 544): Their appearance in early texts, as well as their reappearance in contemporary stand­ ard Persian of Iran, can again be explained by interference from Turkic where infer­ ence is marked by emiş. Unlike Turkic, inference is not tense-neutral in Persian, but confined to the past. In Tajiki, however, miraft-e ast has already become tense-neu­ tral.

Very interesting are Soper's (1987:379) remarks on the use of the com­ plex verb forms in -imiş in Qashqay: He elaborates that they are no longer used to depict "non-committal mood, but the aspectual differ­ entiation between a nonpast perfect and a nonpast imperfective." What implications do these developments have for language con­ tact phenomena in general? Northern Tajik, an Iranian language under heavy Turkic (Uzbek) influence, developed a grammaticalized tense-neutral indirective category (perfect and dérivâtes). In Modern

Indirectivity in Kurmanji

177

Persian and Kurmanji, the development still has not gone so far, as marked indirective categories—if they exist at all—are restricted to the past tenses. Iranian languages traditionally do not seem to grammaticalize notions of indirectivity.21 Thus, in a reversed situation of dominance, a Turkic language under strong Iranian influence might re-interpret an originally marked inferential category (imiş) as non-ev­ idential. This is indeed the case with Qashqay.

Notes Note: I am grateful to Vanessa Locke, who patiently read through several versions of this paper; furthermore, I would like to thank Geoffrey Haig for his inspiring com­ ments on this subject. 1. The label indirectivity was introduced by Johanson (1996: 85-86) as a cover term for certain categories of the verb system in e.g. Turkish and Bulgarian. Cur­ rent linguistic literature provides a variety of definitions and labels for these cat­ egories: Expressions like e.g. evidential, inferential, mediative and admirative may be used more or less synonymously as cover terms; sometimes, however, they seem to stress only a single feature or connotation inherent in the relevant category. Willet (1988: 56-57, 96-97) gives a survey on theoretical prerequi­ sites pertaining to evidentially; he applies a two-fold concept of direct vs. indi­ rect evidence, "that is, whether the source of the speaker's information is of pri­ mary or secondary nature" (1988: 97). His concept of indirect evidence, with the subcategories reported and inferred evidence, comes pretty close to Johanson's (1996) definition of indirectivity. Yet, at least Turkish indirectives "do not fit into narrow evidential schemes primarily distinguishing between the speaker's non-first-hand and first-hand information", as the source of knowledge may also be direct perception (cf. Johanson, this volume). 2. For further explanations of the phenomenon of "split ergativity" in Kurmanji see Dorleijn(1996). 3. Until the present, I have never come across these progressive forms in literature; I am not quite sure how to interpret complex forms like dixwara in example ( 12), which may of course be a past continuous 'was eating'. 4. As there is no description of the Kurmanji tense-aspect system available, I rely on McCarus' definitions as a starting point. Sorani is said to have been less ex-

178

Christiane Bulut

posed to Turkish influnce. Yet, it is by no means certain whether the develop­ ments in the tense-aspit system of Sorani can be compared to the relevant cat­ egories in Kurmanji atill5. Reşid applies the exprssion nêzbuhêr 'near past': (nez 'near' + buhêrk 'past ') to the preterite, while te perfect is called mêjbuhêr (mêj 'distant past' + buhêrk 'past', that is 'distant jtsť). 6. The "remote past", oe universal of perfects which, according to Windfuhr (1982: 276), ţs also reacted in Modern Persian. 7. Current definitions of ie Turkish perfect itself are by no means reliable, as they often overstate a sing; possible connotation or interpretation which is by no means an essential feaire of the perfect. For more detailed criticism see Johanson, this volume. 8. The narrated event is Pt stated directly, but in an indirect way "apparently, ev­ idently, it appears/appared that, obviously, it turns/turned out that". The source of knowledge; is not crerial: it may be hearsay, logical conclusion or direct per­ ception. Traditional eviential schemes primarily distinguish between the speak­ er's non-first-hand ancfirst-hand information. (Johanson, this volume) 9. Of course, the use of a additional quotation verb may have been inspired by T reckon' in the English>riginal.. 10. An Eastern Anatolianairy tale in Caferoğlu (1995: 26) begins with Vardı, yok­ tu; at first glance, thoreterite seems to hint at a process of interference from Kurmanji; yet, it may lso reflect a different distribution of the aspectual values of the past tehses in Estern Anatolian dialects. The use of the perfect in the be­ ginning of a traditionaKurdish ballad taken down by C. Celil (1994: 239) is also unusual: Bozanê lawê'irê (=name) bûye (was:PF 3SG). 11. The indirective copul;' particle imiş is enclitic, perfect -mis is accented (Lewis 1991: 122). 12. Certain explanations <" -mis, even in Turkish grammars and Turcological liter­ ature, are highly mislading, because they confuse -miş and imiş. For more de­ tailed information seeohanson (1996: 91). 13. The verb to have/possss has no equivalent in Kurmanji. Constructions used in­ stead are veţ-y similato the Turkish structures containing varlyok ('existant/ non-existant'), e.g. Piûka (book:EZ) min (my:POSS 1 SG) hey e (exist:3 SG) = I have a book. There my be a correlation between ergativity of the type repre­ sented in Kurmanji ari the absence of a verb 'to have' in the pertinent languag­ es, cf. Dorleijn (199677). 14. In Turkish, imiş is always marked for inferentiality; in other Oghuz languages, as e.g. Qashqay, it halost the primary inferential meaning, being used as a per­ fect indicative (Soper987: 379). 15. The particle has a sligtly different pronunciation in various dialects. According to Barnas—Salzer (194: 155), the directive particle is -e; in Celil—Celil (1994: 206-207), it is -a.

Indirectivity in Kurmanji

179

16. Cf. Barnas—Salzer (1994: 155-156). 17. The Turkish equivalents of the complex forms of the Inferential I would be: ışık görünüyormuş - göremiyorlarmış - yemek yiyormuş ve içiyormuş. In a hypercorrect way, the Kurmanji text seems to alternate consistently between verb forms belonging either to the perfect and or Inferential I. Yet, even in a Turkish narrative based on the perfect, finite verb forms without -mis or imiş will appear throughout the text. 18. Like in Modern Persian (cf. Alavi 1972: 201), the imperfect may have condition­ al meaning, too. 19. E.g. mina ku/qey 'as if in ex. (X3, 4), bêguman 'apparently' in ex. (X5, 7) and helbet 'certainly' in (X6). 20. This constraint lends further weight to the hypothesis that the Inferential I was originally the standard imperfect form of certain modal verbs. 21. As Gunilla Gren-Eklund (this volume) has shown, this statement may be true for older Indo-European languages in general, which use particles to denote indirec­ tivity.

References Alavi, Bozorg—Lorenz, Manfred 1972 Lehrbuch der persischen Sprache. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklo­ pädie. Badilli, Kemal 1965 [\992]Türkçe izahlı Kürtçe grameri: Kürmançça lehçesi. İstanbul: MED Yayıncılık. Bali, A. 1992 Türkçe açıklamalı Kürtçe dilbilgisi - Rezımana Kürdi. İstanbul: Alan Yayıncılık. Baran 1988 [1991] Dersen zımane Kürdi. İstanbul: Baran. Barnas, Usso B.—Salzer, Johanna 1994 Lehrbuch der kurdischen Sprache. Berlin: İnstîtuya Kurdî. Bedir Khan, Djeladet—Lescot, Roger 1986 Kurdische Grammatik. Bonn: Kurdisches Institut. Caferoğlu, Ahmet 1951 [\995]Anadolu illeri ağızlarından derlemeler - Van, Bitlis, Mus. Ankara: TDK Yayınları Sayı: 591. Celil, Celil—Celil, Ordixan 1994 Destanên Kürdi. İstanbul: Wesanên Zêl. Ciwan, Mûrad 1992 Türkçe açıkmalı Kürtçe dilbilgisi. Bälinge: Jîna Nû Förlaget.

] 80

Christiane Bulut

Comrie, Bernhard ) 1976 Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related prob* lems. Cambridge: University Press. DeLancey, Scott 1997 "Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information", in: Walter de Gruyter. Linguistic Typology 1: 33-52. Dilgeş, Felat 1992 Kula dersime. İstanbul: Koral. Dorleijn, Margreet 1996 The decay of ergativity in Kurmanci. Tilburg: University Press. Edel'man, D. I. 1975 "Kategorija vremeni i vida; Kategorija naklonenija", in: Op'ıt istoriko-tipologičeskogo ïssledovanija iranskixjazïkov, Vol. 2, Evolutsija grammatičeskix kategori]. Moskva: Nauka. Efïmov, V. A.—V. S. Rastorgueva—E. N. Šarova 1982 "Persidskij, Tadžikskij, Dari", in: Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija. Novoiranskie jazyki: Zapadnaja gruppa, prikaspijskie jazyki. Moskva: Nauka, 5-230. Gren-Eklund, Gunilla this volume Evidentiality and typology: grammatical functions of particles in Burmese and the early stages of Indo-European languages. Gretler, Sarah 1987 Die Verbale Kategorie Evidenz im Albanischen und Türkischen. Arbeiten des Seminars für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Zürich 7. Johanson, Lars 1971 Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1996 "On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives", in: Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz (eds.): Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen. Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 24, Bochum: Brockmeyer, 8494. 2000 "Viewpoint operators in European languages", in: Osten Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. this volume Turkic indirectives. Kahn, Margaret 1976 Borrowing and variation in a phonological description of Kurdish. The University of Michigan: Ph.D. thesis. Lazard, Gilbert 1985 "L'inférentiel ou passé distancié en Persan", Studia lranica 14/1, 2742.

Indirectivity in Kurmanji 181 Lewendi, Mahmûd 1992 Mala Xwedê. Vällingby: Wesanên Hêlin. Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967 [199l]Turkish grammar. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Lyons, John 1968 Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: University Press. McCarus, Ernest N. 1958 Kurdish grammar: Descriptive analysis of the Kurdish of Sulaimaniya, Iraq. New York. Rastorgueva, Vera S. — Aza Kerimova 1964 Sistema tadïikskogo glagola. Moskva: Nauka. Sağnıç, Feqi Huseyn 1991 Hêmana rêzimanê Kürdi. İstanbul: MELSA Yayınları. Slobin, Dan I.—Ayhan Aksu 1982 "Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential", in: Paul J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmat­ ics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins, 185-200. Soper, John David 1987 Loan syntax in Turkic and Iranian: The verb system of Tajik, Uzbek, and Qashqay. Ph.D. Thesis. Los Angeles: University of California. Willet, Thomas 1988 "A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality", Studies in Language 12-1, 51-97. Wikander, Stig 1959 Recueil de textes kourmandji. Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift 10. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Windfuhr, Gemot 1982 "The verbal category of inference in Persian", Acta Iranica 22:263287. 1990 "Persian", in: Bernhard Comrie (ed.). The world's major languages. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Translations from European Literature (Note: I have also translated the Kurdish quotes from Camus and Dos­ tojewski into English; the Kurdish versions often differ considerably from the originals.) Camus, Albert 1942 L'étranger. Paris: Gallimard.

182

Christiane Bulut

Camus, Albert 1995 Bıyani. Wergera ji firansi: Dr. Fawaz Husên. Stockholm: Wesanên Nûdem: 13 (translated from French). Dostoyevski (= D.) 1991 Merivên Reben. Wergêr: Hesenê Metê. Stockholm: Wesanên Welat (translated from the German and Swedish translation). Dostojewski, F. M. 1980 Der Doppelgänger—Frühe Romane und Erzählungen. München: R. Piper & Co Verlag. London, Jack 1995 Zarokasevê. Çirok. Werger Mustafa Aydoğan. Stockholm: Wesanên Nûdem: 16 (translated from English). London, Jack 1994 The portable Jack London. Edited by Earle Labor. New York: The Viking Portable Library.

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: CON—conjunction, COND—con­ ditional, COP—copula, DIR—directive case, EZ—ezâfe, FUT—future tense, IMP—im­ perative, IMPF—imperfect, INDEF—indefinite marker, INF—infinitive, INFR I—infer­ ential I, INFR o—inferential II, NEG—negative, OBL—oblique case, PASS—passive. PF—perfect, PL—plural, PLUP—plu perfect, POSP—postposition, PP—past participle, PREP—preposition, PRS—present tense, PST—past, PST CONT—past continuous, SG— singular, SUBJ—subjunctive, SUBJ II—subjunctive II, voc—vocative case. Other ab­ breviations: A.M.—native speaker, D.—Dostojewski, cf. Translations from Europe­ an literature, QUEST.-PART—question particle, Q—European Science Foundation. Eurotyp. Theme Group 6: Tense and aspect. Typological Questionnaire. The perfect and related matters. Draft version of November 1991.

+

CJ X

+3

3

e

U, - i - (Ù

k.
â> .e

ç

+

ej

C 05

+

<ü

"3

C/1

£ X

c/y

räft,

D

3

CU

cu

u,

)

,

+

räft e ast 1)F 'P: (pas it stem • addi tıon al -e (2)ı:opula

äst > räftäs

Infe ential Past îems he went/has

')

Piui ;rfect räft bud > räftud

urative prefix me­ sst stem + ersonal suffix

mereft Che would/used to go')

w O Ů

stem [PP nal -i in ti onal suffi

w] ha,tiye [geriyaye]

[geriyame]

1—

z] /ıa ime

PerlFect

räft ä bud

Pas t conţin ous mir äft

ik (Soper 1987) an ('to go')

ihology - semantics

Simple past raft

_- o

( 1 ) verb stem + (2) tense markeı (3) personal suf

£3

3riya

X e«

gelmişim (ma inferential?) gelmiş

^ CS -o O -o

r )per onal suffi

)PP past stem )pas tense of bûn ('to

^ Cň

-mlş'lı geçmi

use

05

»riya çiroki z] ha ıbûm w] h; tıbû «-! cd

( 1 ) verb stem (2) tense marl marker (3) personal s

-*
ika>'esi

bat [dig eriya] itive prefi stem + onal suffi

oriya berdest z] du atım [dıgıîriyam]

í\i 4-1 tSl i— y) L -

1—

Morphemı analys

u, tu

D cd u -O D. D,

•a

Exampie I have come

2 1 M

i

Perfect

+ 05 •£

-a

-DI'lı geçmiş gelmiştim gelmişti

CS Q.

Morphem analy:

•a ii e *

^,

sss

Pluperfect Exam pie I had come

tu

«

Mor­ phem analy:SİS

I^ X

geliyordu ( 1 ) verb stem (2) tense mar (durative)+ (3) tense mari (durative) + (4) +personal sut fix

y 1~

Şimdiki zamanı hik aye geliyordum

03 L52

)pas stem + )per onal suffi

dem P rsiari an ('to o') S 0Û

Imperfect I used to Examiple come/ was coming

1 iya]

I

(1) verb stem (2) tense mar (3) personal s

M

phem ahaly SİS

Cd

oriya têdayi z] ha w] ha

SB O o

-DI'lı geçmiş geldim geldi

ft

Kurm hatin [

1

Simple past Example 1 came

IW T 3

Turkish gelmek

t comple; forms in Turkish and e ontact1 ngua mentione linCiwan(1992), **= in Bali 1992 w

English to come

rele :for: 00 ^ .

(I- +

Appendix. Survey: Past tense, perfect Kurmanji items based on Baran (1988) 1IOUI)Í

cd

it :Q

O + 8 II

w n we-

—'^rN

c^g n a ?

OJ

T3

+•_ICX

r

C

OtTi

I

3 . 5

k. (U

Vf

1

i

o

DO

refix tem [PPP] in the 3SG uffix

o.

CL)

rA t— C3 m e« e . - .

+

+

>

İ

-s

Ü f I

i

Baran/Ci **Bali:

+ r> -O

^

t •h

E

'S

1

>

1

O«

Ï

CO

«

bûbı•im (1) Past sitem [PPP] + -i t par- (2) past tense of bûn ('ti be') ferentia 1 mark r -ím- (3)perso nal sluffix (4)-e personal siuffi (*3) past tens e of bûn (*4) past tense of fcûn (*5) personal suffix

CUB

:rb stem nse mar!

T3 rC3.S2

irăfte bude ast

Inferential ('it seems, räftä budä budäs, räft

T 3

3 CŤ L - ~ a

•e g.:§

5. Si.

|

S n

ej

X

^'CN'.

^^>—' " 2 '3,5 .3cn &**$ * j s ^ -

Ko

lai

Inferential present-past progressiv ('it seems, ie is/was gomg ) rá/ra lira» £>uoa äst > räf sada udäs, räfsadudäs

yazmi

ay 1987:381f.) 'maybe']

luperfect e had gone') st > räftä das

Tajik inno\ Pluperf. pn iressive ('hehad De n going') meräftä bu > meräftud

meräftä äst

5

o

ş 'in ri ayeti *Boriya ı

ast

I

mis' •elmi

•g

i

Inferen I am sa have cc

f •I5

(1) duraţi (2) PP (p; [addition; (3) persoi (4) -e/-bü

V

rb stem (2) (d;urative mar tense marker + (3) pe rsonal suffi

-C£

•rmuş

C/JON^--

eli

S 3 °^ ^ Gin 85), ndfu

AST, + REInferential icontinuous RTED] non-evi- (timeless) : t or narr ve past ('it seems h goes/has gone/will g

A

Morphemeanalysis

a) —1

Mor­ phemeanalysis

'•3 [ez] dıha time [dıgeriya, me] **Bali: d,ıhatıbum

o o

enti al)

s SS-•SS-c

(ma

*Boriya t»erde:vam a nediyar cd

/ gather Ex ample was/an coming

VA

Infèrent ial

[NDIRECT ki zama

>

J

RMINA

c/5

LUI

INTRA'

u "o

f «••=

:c3-0

Expressions of indirectivity in spoken Modern Persian Carina Jahani 1. Introduction As the reader has already noticed, there is no terminology that is commonly agreed upon for the grammatical category being discussed in this volume. Terms such as evidential, inferential, indirective, mediative, and epistemic are all used by different scholars to describe more or less the same phenomenon. In this paper the terminology suggested by Lars Johanson (1996: 84-86) will be followed. The term "indirectivity" is here used for indirect knowledge, which in its turn can be either reportative (infomation obtained through the report of another person) or inferential (information obtained through drawing conclusions), as opposed to direct (self-experienced) knowledge. The question of whether a grammatical category of "indirective"1 exists in written Modern Persian is dealt with in several articles by Gemot Windfuhr and Gilbert Lazard. A thorough summary of their viewpoints is given by Bo Utas in his article "Traces of evidentiality in Classical New Persian" in the present volume. It may, however, not be out of place to refer to some of their conclusions here, too. In "The verbal category of inference in Persian" Windfuhr (1982: 285) concludes that "the function of the inferential forms differs from that of the direct forms in what appears to be a category of perspective, or deixis, allowing the speaker to remove himself from direct responsibility for the truth of an event". Lazard (1985: 28) quotes this passage in "L'inférentiel ou passé distancié en persan", and giving the opinion that "Windfuhr a certainement raison", he subdivides the uses of these "inferential" verb forms into "faits rapportés par autrui", "inference proprement dite", "passé révolu", and "rétrospective". He concludes that "les quatre emplois reconnus aux formes en question sont...assez divers. Mais ils ont en commun, comme l'a bien vu et montré Windfuhr, la notion de distance." (Lazard 1985: 38). This distance may ei-

186

Carına Jahani

ther be temporal as in "passé révolu", emotional as in "rétrospective", or truly "indirective" as in "faits rapportés par autrui" and "inference proprement dite". The only mention of the colloquial language in the discussion of indirectivity in Persian is found in Gemot Windfuhr's description of "Persian" in The world's major languages. He makes a distinction be­ tween the "literary register" and the "colloquial language" (Windfuhr 1987: 537), stating that the verb forms that he has described as "infer­ ential" in earlier works "express remote past in the literary register" but that "they are not confined to literary style, but are as frequent in the colloquial language without referring to remote past. What they ex­ press is the category of inference, that is mainly second-hand knowl­ edge, conclusion and reminiscence." (See also Utas this volume.) In the volume at hand the articles by Gilbert Lazard, John R. Perry, and Bo Utas deal with the category of indirectives in written Classical and Modern Persian, as well as in the Afghan and Tajik dialects of Per­ sian (Dari and Tajiki). There are, however, up till now no comprehen­ sive studies of this phenomenon in spoken Modern Persian, and this was the main reason for my interest in investigating the subject. The data for my analysis was collected in interviews with Iranians living in Sweden. It would, of course, have been even better to conduct these interviews in Iran, but since there is a large community of Iran­ ians living in Sweden, and since the persons interviewed have lived in this country only for a few years, i.e. they are first-generation immi­ grants, the data obtained can safely be judged as reliable.2 2. The interviews The number of persons interviewed at the initial stage of the investiga­ tion was eleven, nine women and two men, aged between 22 and 45 years, who have lived in Sweden between five and ten years, except one person who has lived in Sweden for 20 years. All but one came to Sweden as adults, and all speak Persian3 in Sweden every day. Ap­ proximately 50 % of those interviewed also read Persian every day and several of them travel to Iran regularly. They are not representative of the whole Persian-speaking population in that they are all well edu-

Expressions of indirectivity

187

cated. All the persons interviewed at this stage have completed secondary education or more. I also made it a point to ascertain that the persons interviewed were indeed native speakers of Persian. Only two were of Azeri-speaking background, but born and raised in Tehran, and they both state that although their parents sometimes spoke Azeri between themselves, they mainly spoke Persian to the children. In the actual interview a number of scenes have been described to the person interviewed, where direct information was contrasted with indirect information. Scenes no. 1-4 were set in order to get examples of how to express indirective-inferred information. In the first two scenes one alternative is given where direct information is available, and one where the information is indirect-inferred, in order to give material for a comparison of the two categories. In scenes no. 3 and 4 only indirect-inferred information is elicited. In order to obtain samples of indirect-reported speech, scenes no. 5-8 were set. Also here two of the scenes (no. 5 and 6) contrast direct versus indirect-reported information, whereas in the other two (no. 7 and 8) the subject is historical facts, which obviously have not been experienced directly by the speaker, but rather reported to him/her somehow or another. The interview also contained a number of other scenes similar to the ones presented below. Space does not allow a complete review of all the material collected in the interviews. Some sentences from other scenes than no. 1-8 are, however, presented among sentences with mikarde and karde bude in section 4.3 below. If not otherwise stated, all the examples in this article are extracted from the interviews. Scene 1(a): I have got a dog. One day I bake a cake and put it on the kitchen table without realizing that the dog is in the house. I leave the kitchen and when I return the cake is gone and the dog is sitting beside the table. No other person has been in the house since the cake was baked. Later my daughter comes home and asks for a piece of the cake that I had told her I was going to bake today (the smell of which is also still in the house). What do I tell her about the cake? Scene 1(b): The same scene as in 1(a), but when I return to the kitchen

188

Carina Jahani

I see that the dog is busy eating the cake. In that case, what do I tell my daughter, when she later comes home and asks for a piece of cake? Scene 2(a): There is a piece of paper with a couple of telephone numbers in my husband's handwriting next to the telephone. I didn't actually see him writing them. My daughter asks me who has written the phone numbers. What is my answer? Scene 2(b): The same as in 2(a), but I myself saw when my husband wrote the telephone numbers and put the piece of paper beside the telephone. If so, what is my answer when my daughter asks who has written the phone numbers? Scene 3: A thief has been in your house. One of the windows is broken. What is your answer when you telephone the police and are asked how the thief entered the house? Scene 4: You and your friend are in a hurry to catch the bus. On your way to the bus stop you are worried that you may miss it. When you arrive at the bus stop, there is nobody there in spite of the fact that it is rush hour. What is your comment to your friend when you realize that the bus has gone? Scene 5(a): You have been on a journey to Iran. When you return to Sweden you tell your husband/wife/brother/sister4 (who we assume also lives in Sweden) about the weather in Iran, about your family, etc. What do you say? Scene 5(b): Your husband/wife/brother/sister has been on a journey to Iran. When he/she returns to Sweden he/she tells you about the family, the weather etc. in Iran. You in your turn tell one of your friends what you have been told. What do you say? Scene 6(a): You have gone to school in Iran. Now you want to tell a group of Swedish children something about what it was like to go to school in Iran. What do you say? Scene 6(b): Your father/brother/uncle has done his military service in Iran. Now you want to tell the same group of Swedish children something about the military service in Iran. What do you say?

Expressions of indirectivity

189

Scene 7: According to historians, the city of Rey was an important city in old times. You want to tell someone this. What could you say? Scene 8: How would you tell someone about religion in Iran before Islam? 3. The verb forms in past tenses of spoken Modern Persian It may be noted that in the spoken language there is only a difference in stress between the two groups of verb forms in past tenses outlined below, except in the 3rd person singular, where the distinction is totally clear. It takes a very trained ear to hear the difference in stress in the other persons, and when you start asking the informant for clarifications it often happens that he/she hesitates, thinks the matter over again and even "corrects" the form he or she had used spontaneously. I have therefore made it a point to refrain from asking for clarification too often. The "safest" forms are thus those in the 3rd person singular. Fortunately enough, the way the scenes of the interview were set, most of the answers appeared in the 3rd person singular. The reason for not dealing with the present/future5 tense is that it has only one register of forms. There is thus no possibility of marking direct versus indirect information by means of different verb forms in present/future contexts. The main question in the investigation is thus whether there is a grammaticalized category of "indirectivity" in past tenses. It may also be noted that the "perfect indicative" forms kardám etc. (see below) according to Lazard and Windfuhr have a double function of expressing both a completed action with an ongoing result in the present and an "indirective" action with a perfective aspect. 3.1. Indicative mood 3.1.1. Group A6 past, -reported, -anterior, perfective passé aoriste

190

Carına Johani

•

(simple past) kárdam, kárdi, kard, kárdim, kárdin, kârdan past, -reported, -anterior, imperfective passé duratif (continuous past) míkardam, míkardi, míkard, míkardim, míkardin, míkardan

ı *

past, -reported, +anterior, perfective passé parfait • (pluperfect) kardé budam, kardé budi, kardé bud, kardé budim, kardé budin, kardİ s budan non-reported progressive past passé progressif (progressive past) dastam míkardam, dăsti míkardi, dašt míkard, dáštim míkardiny dăstin míkardin, dăstan míkardan 3.1.2. Group B Either present, +anterior, perfective or past, +reported, -anterior, per­ fective Either présent parfait or passé distancié aoriste (perfect indicative) kardám, kardí, kardé, kardım, kardın, kardan past, +reported, -anterior, imperfective passé distancié duratif (continuous perfect) míkardam, míkardi, míkarde, míkardim, míkardin, míkardan past, +reported, +anterior, perfective passé distancié parfait (no existing traditional English term) kardé budàm, kardé budi, kardé bude, kardé budim, kardé budin, kardé budàn

Expressions of indirectivity

191

reported progressive past7 passé distancié progressif (progressive perfect) dašté mïkarde 3.2. Subjunctive mood subjunctive, perfective (not treated by Lazard in the discussion of indirectivity) (perfect subjunctive) kardé bašam, kardé baši, kardé baše, kardé bašim, kardé bašin, kardé bašan The verb forms presented here are negated by addition of the prefix na-lne-% which attracts the main stress, e.g. "group A" (1st person singular) nákardam, némikardam, nákarde budam; "group B" (1st person singular) nákardam, némikardam, nákarde budàm. There are no negative forms of the progressive constructions. 4. Results of the investigation 4.1. Inferential In the first four scenes a contrast is made between cases where the speaker has not witnessed what has happened, but draws a conclusion from the result that he/she can see (indirect-inferential evidence—1(a), 2(a), 3, and 4) and when the speaker actually has witnessed the action (direct evidence—1(b), 2(b)). When the speaker has not witnessed the action the normal verb form is the "perfect indicative" form, defined by Windfuhr's as either present, +anterior, perfective or past, -^-reported, -anterior, perfective. There are, however, also a few occurrences of the "simple past" tense. When the scene was eyewitnessed by the speaker, it is also very common to use the "perfect indicative" tense. Some of the persons interviewed gave the "simple past" as an equally possible alternative or used exclusively this form for eyewitnessed actions.

192

Carina Johani

( 1 ) a.9 sag keiko1" xorde dog cake to eat1 ' 'The dog has eaten the cake.' (Ex. la:l) fekr mikonam sage in keikaro xorde thought I make dog this cake to eat 'I assume that the dog has eaten the cake.' (Ex. la:2) mesl-e in ke sage keikaro xorde like-of this that dog cake to eat 'It seems like the dog has eaten the cake.' (Ex. la:3) be nazar mirese ke sage xorde bašad-eš to view it reaches that dog to eat-it . 'Evidently the dog has eaten it.'(Ex. la:4)

(

y

sage xord dog to eat 'The dog ate (it).' (Ex. la:5) sage xord-eš dog to eat-it 'The dog ate it.' (Ex. la:6) (2) a. fekr mikonam băbă-t nevést in xatt-e băbă-t-e though I make dad-your to write this writing-of dad-your-is 'I assume your dad has written it, this is your dad's handwriting.' (Ex. 2a:l) băbă-t neveste dad-your to write 'Your dad has written it.' (Ex. 2a:2) az xatt-eš ma'lum'2 e ke băbă-t neveste from writing-its evident is that dad-your to write 'It is clear from the writing that your dad has written it.' (Ex. 2a:3) (3)

dozd ehtemălan az taraf-e panjere umade čun šlše šekaste thief probably from direction-of window to come sinceglass to break (itr.) 'The thief has probably come through the window since the glass is broken.' (Ex. 3:1)

Expressions of indirectivity

193

fekr mikonam panjeraro sekunde az panjere umade tu thought I make window to break (tr.) from window to come in 'I think he has broken the window and entered through the window.' (Ex. 3:2) zăheran înjuri be nazar mirese ke az răh-e šiše evidently this way to wiew it reaches that from way-of glass văred šode entering to become 'It appears that he has entered through the glass.' (Ex. 3:3) dozdaz šiše umade šiše šekaste thief from glass to come glass to break (itr.) 'The thief has entered through the glass, the glass is broken.' (Ex. 3:4) ehtemălanaz tariq-e13 panjere umade be xăter-e inke šiše šekaste probably from way-of window to come because glass to break (itr.) 'He has probably come through the window because the glass is broken.' (Ex. 3:5) hatman az tu panjere rafle tu certainly from in window to go in 'He must have entered through the window.' (Ex. 3:5) săyad az panjere umade maybe from window to come 'He has maybe come through the window.' (Ex. 3:6) (4)

ehsăs mikonam otubus rafle feeling I make bus to go 'I have a feeling that the bus has gone.' (Ex. 4:1) otubus hatman rafle bus certainly to go 'The bus has definitely gone.' (Ex. 4:2) otubus rafle bus to go 'The bus has gone.' (Ex. 4:3)

194

Carina Jahani

(l)b.sage keikaro xorde dog cake to eat 'The dog has eaten the cake.' (Ex. 2a: 1) in pedar suxte hamaro vardăstxord this father burnt all to take to eat 'This rascal took and ate it all.' (Ex. 2a:2) dorost karde budam'4 vali sage xord keiko ready to make but dog to eat cake 'I had baked it, but the dog ate the cake.' (Ex. 2a:3) sage xord-eš dog to eat-it 'The dog ate it.' (Ex. 2a:4) sage xordlxorde dog to eat 'The dog ate/has eaten it.' (Ex. 2a:5) (2) b. ino băbă-t neveste this dad-your to write 'Your dad has written this.' (Ex. 2b: 1) băbă-t nevešte/nevešt dad-your to write 'Your dad wrote/has written it.' (Ex. 2b:2) man xodam didam mouqe'i ke băbă-t dašt minevešt I myself to see time that dad-your to write T myself saw when your dad was writing it.' (Ex. 2b:3)

It is thus evident that in the case of inferred information the "perfect"15 is by far the preferred verb form. In many instances a marker is used to indicate that the information is inferred, such as fekr mikonam 'I suppose', ehtemălan 'probably', mesl-e inke 'it seems that', hatman 'certainly', săyad 'maybe', zăheran 'apparently'. When it comes to eyewitnessed information, both this form and the "simple past" are used. Attempts were made as much as possible not to hint at any spe­ cific verb form in the question. In scenes no. (la) and (lb) it was easy to avoid a verb in the past tense in the question by asking: "What do I

Expressions of indirectivity

195

tell my daughter when she asks for cake?".16 In no. (2a) and (2b) the question had to be formulated "What do I tell my daughter about the writing of the telephone numbers?"17 in order not to suggest a specific tense in the question. Similar constructions with a verbal noun were used in the questions for scenes no. 3 and 4 as well. One of those persons who gave both nevést and neveste as equally good alternatives for (2b) was asked if there was any difference be­ tween the two. She said that she thought the verb form would be deter­ mined by what form was used in the question, but when she was asked what determined the question she said that she was not quite sure and that there seemed to be no major difference between the two in her opinion. 4.2. Reportative In scenes no. 5 to 8 a contrast is made between cases where the speaker reports (retells) something he or she has not experienced himself/her­ self but has been told by others or read somewhere ((5b), (6b), 7, and 8) and what the speaker actually has witnessed directly ((5a), (6a)). When a personal experience is told, the common tenses are those of "group A" above. When, on the other hand, another person's experi­ ence is retold it is quite common to use tenses from "group B" above. Forms from "group A" are, however, also frequently used. Note also examples where the speaker switches between forms from the two dif­ ferent groups in the very same sentence. (5) a. al'ăn nam iran čun havă xeili garni e now do not go (2 sg.) Iran because weather very warm is ye ruz dăstam tu xiyăbun ráh miraftam™ one day to have19 in street way to go inqadrdăg2" bud ke asfalt dağ šode bud so hot it was that asphalt hot to become kaf-e kaß-am mičaspid sole-of shoe-my to stick némitunestam dorost qadam var dărâm to be able to (neg.) proper step take 'Don't go to Iran now, because the weather is very warm. One day I was walk­ ing in the street, it was so hot that the asphalt had turned hot. The sole of my shoe was sticking (to it). I could not walk properly.' (Ex. 5a: 1)

196

Carına Jahani iran bad nabud Iran bad to be (neg.) 'Iran was not bad' (Ex. 5a:2) hame hăl-esun xub bud havă garni bud hame salám resundan2[ all health-their good to be weather warm to be all peace tosend 'All were fine, the weather was warm, all sent their greetings.' (Ex. 5a:3)

(6) a. zamăni ke man madresé miraftam21 xeili saxtgiri bud time that I school to go very strictness to be 'When I went to school it was very strict.' (Ex. 6a: 1) un zamăni ke mă madresé miraftim touri bud that time that we school to go manner to be ke tambih-e badáni ham vojud dăst that punishment-of bodily also existence to have 'When we went to school there was also physical punishment.' (Ex. 6a:2)

?

xeili madrese-ye năjuri bud un mouqehă very school-of unpleasant to be that time (pi.) 'It was a very unpleasant school in those days.' (Ex. 6a:3) madresetu iran aslan ye donyă-ye digei bud * school in Iran fundamentally a world-of other to be inqadr ke ravăbet-emun xub bud , so much that relations-our good to be 'School in Iran was a totally different world, such good relationships that we had.' (Ex. 6a:4) (5) b. bă šouhar-am harf mizadam23 mige havă dar iran with husband-my letter to hit24 he says weather in Iran inqadr garm e mige ke kaß-es ke plăstiki bude so much warm it is he says that shoe-his that of plastic to be mičaspide be ăsfălt-e xiyăbun inqadr ke asfalt to stick to asphalt-of street so much that asphalt dağ šodebude az garmâ hot to become from heat 'I talked to my husband, he says the weather in Iran is so warm. He says that his shoes which were made of plastic were sticking to the asphalt of the street. The asphalt had turned so hot from the heat.' (Ex. 5b: 1)

Expressions of indirectivity

197

xăhar-am mige iran xub bude râzi bude sister-my says Iran good to be satisfied to be 'My sister says Iran was good, she was satisfied.' (Ex. 5b:2) kiyumars migoft-eš ke havă-ye iran garni bud Proper name to say-he that weather-of Iran warm to be 'Kiyumars said that the weather in Iran was warm.' (Ex. 5b:3) behnăm mige ke havă-ye tehrăn xeili kasif bud-eš Proper name says that air-of Tehran very dirty to be-it vali be-š xeili xoš gozašte bud but to him very pleasant to pass fămilhăro dide bud hăl-esun xeili xub bude relative (pi.) to see health-their very good to be 'Behnam says that the air in Tehran was very dirty, but that he had had a good time. He had seen the relatives. They were very well.' (Ex. 5b:4) .un-jur ke băbă-m ta'rif kard xedmat-e nezămi that way that dad-my story to make service-of military dar iran xeili saxt bud in Iran very hard to be 'According to what my dad told me, military service in Iran was very hard.' (Ex. 6b: 1) băbă-m az sarbăzi xeili ta'rifhă dare dad-my from soldiership much story (pi.) he has gazăhă ziyăd jăleb nabude food (pi.) very interesting to be (neg.) 'My dad has (tells) many stories from his military service. The food was not too great.' (Ex. 6b:2) băbă-ye man ta'rif mikard ke xeili saxti kešide dad-of I story to make that much hardship to pull 'My dad told that he had endured much hardship.' (Ex. 6b:3) in šahr-e rey ke al'ăn ye šahr-e xeili kuciki e this town-of Rey that now a town-of very small it is ye vaqtiye šahr-e xeili bozorgi bude a time a town-of very big to be 'This town of Rey which now is a very small town was at one time a very big town.' (Ex. 7:1)

198

Ca rina Jahani šahr-e rey tu un doure yeki az sahrhă-ye mohemm-e iran bud town-of Rey in that period one from town (pi. )-of important-of Iran tobe 'The town of Rey was at that time one of the important towns in Iran.' (Ex. 7:2) šahr-e rey šahr-e mohemmi bude town-of Rey town-of important to be 'The town of Rey was an important town.' (Ex. 7:3) šahr-e rey dar zamăn-e qadim šahr-e besiyăr mohemmi bud-eš town-of Rey in time-of old town-of much important to be-it 'The town of Rey was a very important town in old times.' (Ex. 7:4)

(8)

qabl az inke eslăm be iran biyăd25 aksariyat tu iran zartoští budan26 before islam to Iran come majority in Iran zoroastrian to be va din-e zartošt ye din-e omumi and religion-of Zoroaster a religion-of common va šenaxte šode dar iran bud and recognized in Iran to be 'Before Islam came to Iran the majority in Iran were Zoroastrians and the reli­ gion of Zoroaster was a common and recognized religion in Iran.' (Ex. 8:1) din-e irănihă qabl az eslăm din-e zartošti bude religion-of Iranian (pi.) before Islam religion-of Zoroastrian to be 'The religion of the Iranians before Islam was the Zoroastrian religion.' (Ex. 8:2) dini ke qabl az eslăm dar iran bude din-e zartošti bud religion that before Islam in Iran to be religion-of Zoroastrian to be 'The religion that was (professed) in Iran before Islam was the Zoroastrian re­ ligion.' (Ex. 8:3)

It is seen that there is a certain preference of the forms that Windfuhr describes as +reported in reported speech, whereas the -reported forms are the only ones encountered when a personal experience is told. In fact, two of the persons interviewed stressed that it is "proper and good speech" to use the forms from "group B" in reported speech. One of these two persons says that she was taught to speak properly by her father who used to correct her when she used "group A" forms in re­ ported speech. In her interview she stuck firmly to the rule her father had taught her, with only one exception, and when that exception was pointed out to her she replied that "it still happens that she makes mis­ takes" and that it was not extremely important to follow the rule. Most

<~0

Expressions of indirectivity

199

people don't anyway, she remarked. Also in later private conversa­ tions with her I have noticed a strong tendency to use "group B" forms in reported speech, with a couple of exceptions here and there. It is, in fact, quite clear that most of the persons interviewed are not very con­ sistent when it comes to using forms from "group B" in reported speech, even if these forms predominate. It is also worth mentioning that on one occasion during the realiza­ tion of this article my way of telling a personal experience in Persian was corrected by native speakers. I told about a seminar where I my­ self had been present, but after having told what happened in the sem­ inar, I was asked by one of the listeners if I had been present in the seminar myself. When I answered the question positively I was told that the way I had expressed myself implied that I had not witnessed the experience personally, but rather retold it from some other person's experience. When I asked what exactly in my use of Persian gave that impression the person correcting me could not pinpoint the reason but said that my way of telling the story strongly implied that I had not been there myself. I then suggested that this sentence may have given the impression that I had not been present myself: mehmăn-e mă dar moured-e nevisandehă-yemo'ăser-e afgănestăn guest-of we about writer (pl.)-of contemporary-of Afghanistan sohbat karde talk to make 'Our guest talked about the contemporary writers of Afghanistan' (Ex. 8:4)

The listener then immediately realized that I had hit the point. It thus seems from this reaction that a "perfect" form, especially in the begin­ ning of a narrative, implies indirect, i.e. not self-experienced, events. Actually, the sentence given above was the second one in my narrative after having said: "Yesterday we had a seminar at the University", where I used dăstim ("simple past") for 'had'. 4.3. Sentences with mikarde and karde bude In the data above, the form from "group B" that is the most common is the "perfect", and there are only occasional occurrences of the forms

200

Carina Jahani

mikarde and karde bude, which, according to the tables outlined by Windfuhr and Lazard, are used only in "inferential" contexts. There are very few examples of these forms in the interviews alto­ gether, and all occurrences of the mikarde form are to be found in con­ texts where the speaker gives indirect information27 denoting an ongo­ ing action or process rather than a punctual one. Further examples: pedar bozorg-am nemituneste madrese bere father big-my to be able to (neg.) school go 'My grandfather was not able to go to school.' (Ex. 9:1) pedar bozorg-e man maktab rafte unjă mollă dars midăde father big-of I religious school togo there mullah lesson to give 'My grandfather went to a religious school. A mullah taught there.' (Ex. 9:2) mămăn ta rif mikone ke barădar-amye dočarxe-ye bozorgi dăst mother story she makes that brother-my a bicycle-of big to have post-e mano migerefte mouqe'i ke ye kam rah oftâdàm2* back-of I to take time that a little road to fall pošt-e mano vel mikarde va man yerăst miraftàm tu jub-e ăb back-of I to let go and I direct to go into ditch-of water 'My mother tells that my brother had a big bicycle, he used to hold me in the back (of the bicycle) and when I had gone a little way he let go and I went di­ rectly into the water ditch.' (Ex. 9:3)

There are also a certain number of occurrences of the form karde bude, some of which are found in indirect contexts, but also self-lived, later forgotten, experiences or the person's own knowledge of a situation in the past. Examples: xod-es bară-ye man goft ke in káro dar baččegi karde bude self-he to I to say that this work in childhood to make 'He himself told me that he had done this in his childhood.' (Ex. 10:1) săbeqan rănandegi karde bude vali al'ăn nemitune rănandegi bokone formerly driving to make but now he can't driving make 'He used to drive, but now he can't any longer.' (Ex. 10:2) yăd-am oftăd ke rubik zang zade bude19 memory-my to fall that proper name bell to hit 'It occurred to me that Roubik had (already) called.' (Ex. 10:3) (Which I had forgotten, but then suddenly remembered.)

Expressions of indirectivity

201

5. Conclusions It is quite clear that the "indirective" shades of meaning of the "group B" forms above are strong, especially if the concept of "indirectivity" is broadened to include various kinds of dissociation from the narrated event such as cognitive or emotional distance to it, indirect evidence, non-testimonial reference, assumptions etc. (see Johanson 1996: 85). If a grammaticalization of "indirectivity" requires that these forms be consistently used to denote "indirect" evidence, and used only in such contexts, it is, however, hard to motivate the establishment of indirectivity as a grammatical category in spoken Modern Persian. Even so, it is interesting to note that the range of the forms from "group B" above in spoken Modern Persian also very much coincide with Lazard's description based on examples from the written language in his article "L'inférentiel ou passé distancié en persan", and that it is used in all the four contexts "facts reported by others", "inference in its proper sense", "completed past", and "retrospective". A number of additional interviews were also made with less educated persons after the main interviews, in order to find out whether the use of forms from "group B" also has to do with educational level. The data from these interviews indicate that this is the case, at least to a certain degree. There was no use whatsoever of the forms mikarde and karde bude in these additional interviews, and the distinction between using the form karde ("perfect") in reported speech versus kard ("simple past") for personal experience was also less clear.30 In this context we may also remember that two of the persons interviewed in the main interviews described the use of the "group B" forms in reported speech as "proper Persian", something that they had been taught to use, but where they still sometimes "make mistakes", and that many people do not observe these "proper" forms in their speech. There may, thus, at one stage or another have existed normative ideas among Persian intellectuals and "language developers" about the proper use of the verb forms under discussion here.31 With this as a background it may be interesting to consider Lars Johanson's description of indirective verbal forms (Johanson 1996: 8586). He points to the fact that "so-called "perfects" often get more or -

202

Carina Johani

less clear readings of indirective evidentiality" and that "such readings typically emerge from the viewpoint value of postterminality, the view of the event after the transgression of its relevant limit. Postterminality and indirectivity are closely connected, since postterminals present an indirect perspective on the event." He also mentions something which can be seen in our data as well, namely that "the indirective shades of meaning occurring with focal postterminals are vague and unstable" and he quotes the New Persian "perfect" as an example. If the postterminality of the forms in "group B" above is seen as the important feature versus forms in "group A", this can account for all the categories described by Lazard and quoted above. It is quite clear that unwitnessed, either reported or assumed actions must be seen in a postterminal perspective, since the speaker has not seen the very continuation of the action. This would also make it possible to unify the two different uses of the perfect as either present, +anterior, perfective or past, +reported, -anterior, perfective in Windfuhr's description (Windfuhr 1979: 90), and all the uses of perfect could be described as "postterminal in present". Analysing the forms in "group B" as postterminal would cover both indirective (reported or inferred) and non-indirective (e.g. when the speaker reminds himself of something he personally has experienced, but later forgotten) uses of the mikarde and karde bude forms. The distinction between karde and mikarde would be aspectual, with karde carrying the perfective, and mikarde the imperfective aspect. As for the form karde bude, it would be a "postterminal in past". In examples no. 10:1-3 there is thus a "three-layer" time structure. Thus in no. 10:3, our friend on December 27 (layer one) told me that he the previous day (layer two) had noticed (on his answering machine) that my husband had called him on December 23 (layer three). These layers could be close to each other in time (here a scope of five days) or far apart as in example no. 1, where the speaker at the time of the interview (layer one) retells something her grandfather had told her several years back (layer two) about his own childhood (layer three). Windfuhr's conclusion that "the function of the inferential forms differs from that of the direct forms in what appears to be a category of perspective, or deixis, allowing the speaker to remove himself from direct

Expressions of indirectivity

203

responsibility for the truth of an event" (Windfuhr 1982: 285) quoted above also suggests that the forms of "group B" allow a "removal" or "distance" between the speaker and the action, something that is a pre­ requisite for a postterminal viewpoint. It is, however, clear from ex­ ample 8:4 above that this "removal" or "distance" at least in some nar­ rative contexts is not only a distance in time, but also a distance in loca­ tion, i.e. the speaker was not present. On the other hand, the examples in footnote 27 clearly imply that sometimes the distance is purely in time, i.e. a certain condition is seen as ended (postterminality) by a speaker who witnessed the condition while it was going on. The crucial form here is the progressive form daste mikarde which, being progressive, appears to put an intraterminal focus on the action it describes. The only examples of this form I have come across are in reported speech, and only in the third person. Example: Mariam be man mige ke vaqti ke dašte Proper name to I she says that when to have32 bă telefon harfmizade yedafe seda qat šode^ with telephone to speak suddenly sound cut to become 'Mariam tells me that when she was speaking on the phone suddenly the sound was cut. (Ex. 11:1)

In fact, most of the persons interviewed found even the third person of this construction "strange" and would not use it. One of the persons I interviewed in Iran suggested that the use of dăste harfmizade as op­ posed to dăst harfmizad in the example above would indicate that the speaker doubts the validity of what he reports. If the progressive form dăste mikarde is found only in reported speech, it is possible to explain also this form as postterminal, since the person speaking has not wit­ nessed the progress of the action himself, he only reports it as an on­ going action after its completion. The use of either the perfect or the simple past, in e.g., scene no. (2b) above, where the speaker saw when her husband wrote the phone numbers thus seems to be a matter of perspective. If the perfect is used, as in ino băbăt neveste (ex. 2b: 1) the perspective is postterminal, fo­ cusing on the fact that the piece of paper with the phone numbers writ­ ten on it is now lying beside the phone. If, on the other hand, the simple past, or even the progressive past, is used as in băbăt nevést (ex. 2b:2,

204

Carina Jahani

second alternative) or man xodam didam mouqé'i ke băbăt dašt minevešt (ex. 2b:3) the perspective is intraterminal, i.e. it is stressed that the speaker saw the action while it was going on. This, of course, also makes the use of the "group B" forms much more likely in a non-eyewitnessed context than the "group A" forms. Notes 1. Windfuhr uses the term "inferential", Lazard "inférentiel" or "médiatif'. 2. During a visit to Iran in November and December 1997 some of the material ob­ tained in the interviews conducted in Sweden was checked with native speakers of Persian living in Iran. They did not have any objections as to the accuracy of the data. 3. The term "Persian" is hereafter used for "Modern Persian". 4. Different alternatives used as relevant for each one of the persons interviewed here and below where several alternatives are given. 5. Future is normally expressed by the present indicative form in colloquial Per­ sian. 6. Note that it is the forms of spoken Persian that are given. Local variations may, of course, occur. The forms given here are those of the dialect of Tehran. The ' denotes primary stress and" secondary stress. Terms for the different tenses are taken from Windfuhr, Persian grammar (Windfuhr 1979: 90-91), (English term), and Lazard, "L'inférentiel ou passé distancié en persan" (Lazard 1985: 41), (French term). A more traditional English term is given in brackets. 7. Only 3rd person singular form mentioned by Windfuhr, who for the other pro­ gressive constructions gives 1st person singular as the example. Lazard gives 3rd person singular everywhere. 8. Before mi- the negation is pronounced ne-. 9. Eleven sentences are not presented for each scene due to the fact that some per­ sons produced identical or almost identical sentences. 10. Since analysis of the nominal declension system is not one of the purposes of the present article, nominal endings are not noted in the apparatus. Note, however, the nominal endings -i (denoting indefiniteness, as in xeili madrese-ye năjuri 'a very unpleasant school'), -el-a- (denoting definiteness, as in sage 'the dog' and keikaro 'the cake') and -o/-ro (denoting a usually definite direct object, with or without the marker for definiteness, as in keikolkeikaro 'the cake' (dir. obj.) and fămilhăro 'the relatives' (dir. obj.)). As a linker of noun + noun, pronoun, or ad­ jective the ezăfe is noted with 'of, and the enclitic pronouns are translated ac­ cording to their function. Nouns with the ending -hă (denoting plural, mainly definite or by adjectives specified plurals) are marked as (pi.).

Expressions of indirectivity 205 11. For the analysis of the verb forms in bold face (see the word itself) the reader is referred to the table above. 12. A word, medial 'ein in this and some other words (see below) is noted by a ', even though it is normally only dropped or lengthens the vowel rather than being pronounced as a consonant phoneme in the colloquial language (ma:lum rather than ma'lum 'evident'). 13. The two phonemes /q/ (voiceless uvular plosive) and /ğ/ (voiced velar fricative) are given two different symbols, as in the written language, even if they are only one phoneme in the Tehran dialect. 14. Here the stress falls on the last syllable of the word preceding the verb {dorost karde budam) and the tense is "pluperfect". If the tense had been "passé distancié parfait" (Lazard's term) there would have been a secondary stress also on the verb {dorost karde budàm). In all compound verbs the main stress falls on the last syllable of the non-verbal element (noun, adjective etc.). 15. The term "perfect" is used here and below to denote the "perfect indicative". 16. In Persian: "fee doxtaram či migam mouqe'i ke keik mixăd?". 17. In Persian: "be doxtaram či migam dar moured-e neveštan-e in somărehă-ye telefon?". 18. Here the stress falls on the last syllable of the word preceding the verb (dastarn râh miraftam) and the tense is "progressive past". There is no reported use of the "progressive perfect" in the first person. 19. The verb 'to have' is employed as the auxiliary verb in the progressive construc­ tions, see above. 20. See footnote 13. 21. Here the stress falls on the last syllable of the word preceding the verb {salám resundan) and the tense is "simple past". If the tense had been "perfect" there would have been a secondary stress also on the verb {salâm resundàn). 22. Here the stress falls on the last syllable of the word preceding the verb {madresé miraftam) and the tense is "continuous past". If the tense had been "continuous perfect" there would have been a secondary stress also on the verb (madresé miraf tarn). 23. See footnote 22. 24. 'To hit letter' is a compound verb for 'to speak, to talk'. 25. Present subjunctive form. The conjunction qabl az inke 'before' is always fol­ lowed by the present subjunctive form of the verb. 26. See footnote 21. 27. In one of the instances the information is self-lived, but in a forgotten childhood. The speaker has later been told by her mother what she retells. An interesting "non-indirective" example for the mikarde form was observed in a personal con­ versation with an Iranian friend after the finalizing but before the proof-reading of the present article. His wife was ill and, when I asked about her health, he an­ swered:

206

Carina Jahani emruz aslan nemitune harf bezane diruz tun davă-ye qavi | today at all she cannot letter hit yesterday since medicine-of strong xorde bud mituneste harf bezane ! to eat to be able to letter hit 'Today she cannot talk at all, yesterday she could talk because she had taken strong medicine.' (For the compound verb 'to hit letter', see footnote 24.) ' Here follows a similar example, also from a private conversation with personal friends, where a husband tells about his wife: mariam mariz budegalu-š ye čand ruzi dardmikarde proper name ill to be throat-her one some day pain to make 'Mariam has been ill, she had a sore throat for some days.'

In the next sentence the husband said that his wife was much better now. 28. Here the tense is "continuous perfect". See footnote 22. 'i 29. This sentence was not found in the interviews, but rather in a private conversa­ tion with one of our personal friends, who had been waiting for a phone call from my husband. 30. It was much harder to get data from this group than from the other group. They were generally more unwilling to imagine a situation, and in the scene with the cake and the dog, for example, one of these persons answered that she would never keep a dog in the house, so it would never happen to her. 31. Note Windfuhr's reference to the Iranian "reformer" Ahmad Kasravi's descrip­ tion of the Persian verbal system (Windfuhr 1982: 282). 32. See footnote 19. 33. This sentence was not found in the interviews, but rather given in a private dis­ cussion on the use of past tense verb forms in Persian with one of the persons interviewed about four months after the actual interview.

References Johanson, Lars 1996 "On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives", in: N. Boretzky—W. Enninger—T. Stolz (eds.), Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dy­ namik in mehrsprachigen Situationen. (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 24.) Bochum: Brockmeyer, 84-94. Lazard, Gilbert 1985 "L'inférentiel ou passé distancié en persan", Studia Iranica, 14: 2742.

Expressions of indirectivity

207

Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1979 Persian grammar. History and state of its study. (Trends in Linguis­ tics, State-of-the-Art reports 12.) The Hague - Paris - New York: Mouton. 1982 "The verbal category of inference in Persian", in: Monumentům Georg Morgenstierne II. (Acta Iranica 22.) Leiden: E. G. Brill, 263-287. 1987 "Persian", in: Bernard Comrie (ed.), The world's major languages. London: Routledge, 523-546.

Le médiatif : considérations théoriques et application à l'iranien Gilbert Lazard 1. Introduction Cet exposé comprend trois parties. La première (§ 2) a pour objet d'éclaircir le contenu sémantico-pragmatique des formes dites «médiatives » (anglais evidential), qu'on trouve notamment dans une série de langues du Proche-Orient et des Balkans. Dans la seconde (§ 3), on s'efforce de préciser dans quelles conditions ce contenu se trouve grammaticalisé. La troisième (§ 4) applique les considérations précédentes à quelques langues irano-aryennes (iraniennes), principalement le persan avec sa variante tadjike. Avant d'aborder ces questions une remarque terminologique s'impose. Il y a lontemps qu'on a remarqué dans diverses langues des marques morphologiques indiquant que l'information qui fait l'objet de l'énoncé provient d'une source autre que l'observation directe, à savoir propos entendu, traces d'un événement passé, etc. Les linguistes ont été embarrassés pour donner un nom à cette catégorie. On a parlé de« testimonial » (parfois sans qu'on sache bien si ce mot désigne ce dont le locuteur a été lui-même témoin ou, au contraire, ce qu'il a recueilli par témoignage), de « narratif» ou « auditif» ou « non-évident » (dans des ouvrages russes), d'« inférentiel », d'« indirect ». Toutes ces désignations sont incommodes et doivent être écartées comme ambiguës (« testimonial »), trop vagues (« indirect, non-évident ») ou trop spéciales pour couvrir tous les emplois (« inférentiel, auditif, narratif»). Depuis une douzaine d'années s'est répandu en anglais le terme ďevidential (v. Dendale—Nuyts 1994). Il est bien formé et approprié, puisque evidence dans cette langue désigne toute constatation, tout té­ moignage, toute espèce de preuve ou indice permettant de se former une opinion : les morphèmes dits evidential réfèrent plus ou moins précisément à Y evidence qui fonde l'affirmation. Il est facile et tentant de le transposer en français en «évidentiel». Malheureusement, «évi-

210

Gilbert Lazard

dence» en français n'a pas le même sens qu'en anglais et suggère plutôt le contraire de la connaissance médiate qu'évoquent les formes en question. C'est pourquoi j'ai jadis proposé «médiatif» (Lazard 1956 : 149 n.). Il a été repris récemment par Guentchéva et par les participants du groupe de travail qu'elle a organisé sur la question (v. Guentchéva (éd.) 1996). Il sera justifié ci-dessous (§ 2). 2. Le contenu sémantico-pragmatique du médiatif Les principaux emplois du médiatif dans les langues ici considérées sont les suivants : a) Discours rapporté. J'emprunte l'exemple suivant, en persan parlé, à l'enquête faite par Jahani (ce volume). (1)

mige ke kafš-eš ke pelăstiki bude mičasbide be asfalt, il.dit que chaussure-son que en.plastique était collait à asphalte inqadrke asfalt dăq šode-bude tant que asphalte brûlant devenu-était « Il dit que ses chaussures, qui étaient en plastique, collaient à l'asphalte, tant l'asphalte avait chauffé (au soleil). »

Les formes verbales bude, mičasbide, sodě bude sont médiatives. Dans un énoncé non marqué comme médiatif, on aurait: bud (aoriste), mičasbid (imparfait), šode bud (plus-que-parfait). Le médiatif renvoie aux propos du personnage. Cet emploi doit être distingué du style indirect. Il n'est pas lié à la présence d'un verbe de dire : dans (1), mige ke n'est pas nécessaire à l'apparition de formes médiatives. b) Inference. L'exemple suivant, en persan écrit, est emprunté à Windfuhr (1990: 122). Il s'agit, je présume, du suicide de l'écrivain Sâdeq Hedâyat, retrouvé mort dans sa chambre. (2)

zăheran nevisande, vaqti ăn năme-ră minevešte-ast xodas-ră apparemment écrivain quand ce lettre-OBJ écrivait SOÍ-OBJ bă in ămpul-i ke ruz-e qabl xaride-bude-ast avec ce ampoule-ART que jour-UG avant avait.acheté košte-ast a.tué « Apparemment, l'écrivain s'est tué, quand il écrivait cette lettre, avec l'am­ poule qu'il avait achetée la veille. »

Le médiatif

211

Les formes minev este-ast, xaride-bude-ast, košte-ast sont médiatives. En énoncé non marqué, on aurait minevešt (imparfait), xaride-bud (plus-que-parfait), košt (aoriste). Le médiatif est employé parce qu'il s'agit de conclusions tirées des constatations faites dans la chambre après la mort de l'écrivain. e) Constatation inattendue (emploi dit «miratif» ou «admiratif»). Voici deux exemples, l'un en turc (Johanson, ce volume), l'autre en népali (Michailovsky 1996 : 111). (3)

güzel çalıyormuş beau il.joue « Il (un musicien) joue bien (à ce que je constate). »

(4)

ăhă, kasto rămro pokhrï rahecha! ah que beau lac est « Ah! qu'il est beau, le lac! »

Dans (3), l'énoncé neutre serait güzel çalıyor. L'emploi du médiatif in­ dique que le locuteur prend conscience, en l'entendant, que le musi­ cien joue bien. Dans (4), on aurait en énoncé neutre cha au lieu du mé­ diatif rahecha. Celui-ci signifie que le locuteur découvre à l'instant, en le voyant, la beauté du lac, tandis que la construction et l'intonation exclamatives expriment l'émotion qu'il en ressent. Ce dernier emploi a paru surprenant. En effet, si l'on pense (et on l'a pensé) que les formes en question indiquent que le locuteur n'a eu des faits qu'il relate qu'une connaissance indirecte, par ce qu'on lui en a dit ou par un raisonnement à partir des traces de l'événement révolu, alors que les formes « ordinaires » indiquent qu'il en pris connaissance directement en les percevant lui-même, on ne comprend pas que les formes médiatives puissent être employées dans le cas d'une constata­ tion immédiate, fondée sur le témoignage des sens. Mais, en réalité, telle n'est pas la valeur de l'opposition. Celle-ci n'est pas entre des formes exprimant une connaissance directe et d'autres évoquant une connaissance indirecte, mais entre des formes qui n'indiquent rien quant à la source de l'information et d'autres qui y réfèrent sans la spécifier. Plus précisément. Alors que, en usant des formes « ordinaires » (non médiatives), le locuteur énonce les faits purement et simplement,

212

Gilbert Lazard

avec les formes médiatives il les énonce médiatement, à travers la connaissance qu'il en prise, à laquelle il fait référence et par rapport à laquelle il prend par là même un certain recul. Les trois emplois en question sont tels que : - en cas de ouï-dire, l'énoncé implique «j'ai ouï dire que... »; - en cas d'inférence, il implique «je conclus que... »; - en cas de constatation inattendue, il implique «je constate que (contrairement à ce que je croyais)... » Le locuteur est quelque sorte scindé en deux personnes, celle qui parle et celle qui a ouï dire ou qui conclut ou qui constate. Cette opération crée une distance entre le locuteur et son propre discours, alors que dans l'énoncé non marqué il adhère à son dire en vertu des lois générales du discours. C'est cette distanciation abstraite qui constitue la valeur propre des formes en question et qui justifie la dénomination de «médiatif».1 On dit souvent que, dans cette forme d'énoncé, le locuteur s'abstient ou cesse de « valider » son assertion, d'en « garantir » la véracité. Cette formulation implique que l'énoncé «ordinaire» (non médiatif) inclut une opération de validation ou de garantie, qui ferait défaut dans renonciation médiatisée. Il me semble que cette interprétation n'est pas tout à fait exacte. Si, dans renonciation « ordinaire », les assertions sont tenues pour vraies, c'est simplement que telle est la condition générale de la parole : quand on dit quelque chose, c'est généralement pour que l'interlocuteur le croie. Le discours tenu dans ces conditions ne comporte aucune marque particulière. C'est au contraire le discours médiatisé qui comporte une opération spéciale, celle par laquelle le locuteur, par une référence à la source de son information, prend de la distance par rapport au contenu de son discours. Dans les langues qui possèdent une catégorie grammaticale du médiatif (v. ci-dessous, § 3, en particulier sous b), les formes verbales médiatives sont marquées et s'opposent comme telles aux formes non marquées. Cette prise de distance peut être considérée comme une modalité épistémique, mais elle ne doit pas être confondue avec la mise en doute ou la supposition. Certes, de telles nuances peuvent s'y associer : c'est le cas, par exemple, dans (2), où l'adverbe zàheran «apparemment» vient s'ajouter à l'emploi du médiatif. Mais celui-ci n'est en soi ni un

Le médiatif

213

dubitatif ni un présomptif. En népali, après avoir présenté une série d'exemples de médiatif, Michailovsky (1996: 116) les commente en disant que le locuteur emploie ces formes « pour affirmer un fait tout en attirant l'attention sur sa propre prise de conscience de ce fait. ... De toute manière, les faits rapportés restent affirmés; le locuteur ne met pas en doute leur réalité. » Le tadjik, variété de persan usitée en Asie centrale, a développé non seulement des formes verbales médiatives, mais aussi des formes présomptives et des formes dubitatives, qui en sont distinctes (v. § 4.2). En persan de Perse, j'ai cité des exemples qui clairement n'impliquent aucune mise en doute ni aucune hypothèse (Lazard 1985, notamment ex.(l), repris dans Lazard 1996, ex.(6)). Le médiatif n'implique rien d'autre que des nuances telles que «à ce qu'il m'a dit», «à ce qu'on dit», «à ce que je vois», etc. La meilleure approximation pour rendre en français la nuance médiative serait peut-être à l'aide de la particule ou conjonction « donc » : « (j'ai entendu dire que X a fait..., je vois des indices de ce que X a fait..., je constate que X est...,) X a donc fait... / X est donc... ». Une affirmation «X a donc fait» ou «X est donc...» est assurément moins catégorique que «X a fait... / X est... », mais elle est nettement différente de « X a peut-être fait... / X est peut-être... » et de « il semble / je suppose que X a fait... / que X est... » 3. La grammaticalisation des nuances médiatives L'analyse précédente est fondée sur les données de langues qui, comme le persan et le turc, possèdent une catégorie grammaticale du médiatif. Elle ne prétend pas conclure à l'existence d'une catégorie cognitive. Le linguiste ne serait en droit de tirer une telle conclusion que s'il pouvait démontrer l'existence, dans diverses langues sans parenté et sans contact, d'une même catégorie grammaticale couvrant exactement les mêmes emplois. Une telle situation est très rare, à supposer qu'elle se rencontre jamais. Les catégories grammaticales ne coïncident jamais d'une langue à l'autre. Cependant, il arrive assez souvent que deux ou plusieurs langues possèdent des catégories qui se ressemblent, en ce sens qu'elles ont des emplois communs, à côté d'autres qui sont propres à chacune des langues en question. C'est le

214

Gilbert Lazard

cas, par exemple, de la catégorie dite du parfait, que l'on identifie sans grand mal dans différentes langues comme dénotant un procès passé qui garde une certaine pertinence dans le présent. Autour de cette notion « focale », se groupent divers emplois, plus ou moins semblables ou différents d'une langue à l'autre, qui donnent à la catégorie de chaque langue sa physionomie propre. Au total, on peut donc reconnaître une quasi-catégorie interlangue aux contours flous (cf. Lazard 1992, 1997, 1998). Elle n'est pas assez bien définie pour qu'on soit autorisé à la poser comme une catégorie cognitive, et cela d'autant moins qu'il y a des langues où elle n'existe aucunement. Mais elle représente un groupement possible, parmi d'autres, de notions plus ou moins voisines dans le champ de la pensée prélinguistique. Le même raisonnement s'applique au médiatif. On peut se représenter, à la manière d'Anderson (1986) et sans nécessairement le suivre en tout point, les modalités épistémiques en cause comme distribuées dans un champ notionnel, de telle sorte qu'elles peuvent être groupées différemment dans l'expression que leur donnent différentes langues. Hors de toute expression linguistique, ce que nous appelons médiatif ou evidential n'est pas une catégorie, mais c'est ce champ notionnel : les langues le découpent chacune à sa manière, intégrant ou non telles ou telles notions dans leur système grammatical.2 Toutes les langues, naturellement, ont la possibilité d'exprimer les notions médiatives, mais toutes ne les grammaticalisent pas. On peut, me semble-t-il, distinguer trois cas principaux. a) Certaines langues ne les grammaticalisent pas. Le français et les langues d'Europe occidentale recourent à des moyens lexicaux. Les énoncés peuvent être accompagnés d'expressions telles que « dit-on », «paraît-il», «à ce que je vois», «à ce qu'il semble», «apparemment », « comme on sait », etc., qui toutes réfèrent à la source de l'information communiquée, mais dont aucune ne fait partie du système grammatical de la langue, alors qu'il y a des langues où ces nuances peuvent être convoyées, par exemple, par des affixes verbaux. Il vaut la peine de rappeler que les expressions mentionnées se distinguent clairement de l'emploi dubitatif du conditionnel («le président serait malade») et de l'emploi présomptif du futur («il n'est pas arrivé, il aura manqué son train »).

Le médiatif

215

Dans d'autres langues, les nuances médiatives peuvent être exprimées par des formes verbales, mais sans en constituer la valeur centrale. Le plus souvent, c'est le parfait qui, dans un contexte approprié, peut indiquer une référence à la source de l'information et, conséquemment, une prise de distance du locuteur. Il s'agit alors d'un simple « effet de sens » , non de la valeur propre de la forme en question. Cette situation se trouve, par exemple, en arménien oriental, qui, à cet égard, se distingue de l'arménien occidental. Cette dernière langue a spécialisé un ancien parfait à l'expression du médiatif, affectant d'autres formes au parfait; en arménien oriental, au contraire, le parfait fonctionne à la fois comme parfait ordinaire et, occasionnellement, comme médiatif (Donabédian 1996; Kozintseva, ce volume). C'est le cas aussi, si je comprends bien, en zyriène (Leinonen, ce volume). Diverses langues, quelle que soit par ailleurs l'expression qu'elles donnent à des nuances médiatives, ont une particule signalant l'information obtenue par ouï-dire. C'est le cas en népali, où le ouï-dire est ainsi séparé du médiatif qui réfère à la prise de conscience (Michailovsky 1996: 114). C'est aussi le cas en arménien occidental, où la particule joue subtilement avec le médiatif conjugué (Donabédian 1996 : 95-97). De telles particules doivent-elles être analysées comme des instruments grammaticaux ou comme des éléments du lexique? La question est indécise. Il n'y a pas de barrière rigide entre lexique et grammaire : il existe, sans doute dans toutes les langues, une zone intermédiaire, que l'on peut rattacher à l'un ou à l'autre. C'est dans cet entre-deux que se situent de telles particules. b) Certaines des langues considérées dans le présent volume ont indubitablement une catégorie grammaticale du Médiatif.3 Cette catégorie est constituée par l'association d'un signifiant et d'un signifié intégrée au système verbal. Le signifiant est un ensemble de formes spécifiques qui s'opposent terme à terme aux formes non marquées; le signifié est une référence non spécifiée à l'origine de l'information communiquée. Une telle catégorie existe en turc, en persan, en arménien occidental, en bulgare, en albanais, en népali. Dans toutes ces langues, les formes médiatives sont dérivées du Parfait.4 En persan et en bulgare le lien avec le parfait n'est pas complètement rompu, en ce sens qu'il y a des formes qui appartiennent à

216

Gilbert Lazard

la fois aux deux paradigmes (pour le persan, v. § 4.1). En albanais, les formes médiatives sont organisées en un mode entier parallèle aux autres modes. En ce qui concerne le contenu sémantico-pragmatique, si les trois emplois signalés plus haut (§ 1 début) sont généralement décrits comme centraux (y compris le «miratif» à la Ire personne, en cas d'action involontaire, type «j'ai dormi, à ce que je vois»), les aires d'emploi, d'une langue à l'autre, ne coïncident pas entièrement: chaque langue donne à l'usage du Médiatif une plus ou moins grande extension. En népali, le ouï-dire, marqué par une particule spécifique, est distinct du Médiatif. En persan de Perse, l'emploi miratif n'a pas été relevé, peut-être parce que le Médiatif est toujours un passé (ou peut-être par suite de l'insuffisance de la documentation); en revanche les formes médiatives peuvent convoyer des sens qui ne sont pas proprement des valeurs médiatives (v. § 4.1). Cependant l'emploi miratif existe en tadjik, variété de persan (v. § 4.2). En albanais, le miratif a une grande extension : il peut prendre une valeur intensive, notamment dans des énoncés « endopathiques » (Duchét—Përnaska 1996). En bulgare, le Médiatif s'emploie dans le récit historique et dans les contes. e) De nombreuses langues amérindiennes ont des morphèmes, généralement des suffixes, qui réfèrent à la source de l'information et qui souvent varient avec la nature de cette source, selon qu'il s'agit de propos entendu ou ď inference ou de faits constatés par la vue ou par l'ouïe ou par un autre sens. Il n'est pas très facile de bien comprendre, d'après les descriptions, dans quelle mesure et de quelle manière ces morphèmes prennent place dans le système grammatical de la langue. Selon Willett (1988 : 64), « few languages mark evidentials as a separate grammatical category. Rather, the semantic domain of evidentiality is most often broken up over a number of different subcategories in a language's tense/aspect/modal system. » Je crois comprendre cependant que, dans des langues comme le hixkarayana (Willett 1988 : 72, d'après Derbyshire), une série de suffixes, qui réfèrent respectivement au ouï-dire, à l'inférence et à la conviction intime, s'oppose à une forme non marquée, qui doit donc n'impliquer aucune indication sur l'origine de l'information. S'il en est

Le médiatif

117

bien ainsi, de telles langues grammaticalisent plusieurs variétés de médiatif opposées à l'énoncé neutre. Si, dans ces langues, le locuteur a le choix entre le discours neutre et le discours marqué d'une manière ou d'une autre, ce cas n'est pas fondamentalement différent de celui des langues mentionnées ci-dessus sous b). La seule différence est que le médiatif y est spécifié en plusieurs variétés. En revanche, il semble qu'il y ait aussi des langues où le locuteur est obligé d'indiquer la source de son information, c'est-à-dire de choisir entre des morphèmes dont l'un ou l'autre doit obligatoirement être présent dans l'énoncé; autrement dit, la référence à l'origine de l'information, quelle qu'elle soit, est nécessairement présente dans tout énoncé. Cela semble être le cas, si je comprends bien, du tuyuca et du nambiquara (Barnes 1984 : 256; Willett 1988 : 72-73). C'est peut-être aussi celui de certaines langues tibéto-birmanes. La situation est alors tout autre que la précédente. Alors que dans les langues considérées plus haut le locuteur a le choix entre énoncer les faits purement et simplement et les énoncer médiatement, ici le médiatif est grammaticalisé de telle sorte qu'on ne peut pas l'éviter, de même que le locuteur parlant français ne peut éviter de choisir entre les temps/aspects du système verbal. Nous sommes en présence d'un troisième type de langue, où l'indication de la source de la connaissance fait obligatoirement partie de toute prédication.

4. Le médiatif en iranien 4.1. Le persan de Perse, pour énoncer des faits passés, dispose de deux registres parallèles, d'une part un registre neutre (I), comprenant un aoriste (dit prétérit), un imparfait, un imparfait progressif et un plusque-parfait, et d'autre part un registre médiatif (II), qui comprend quatre formes parallèles aux précédentes. Je reprends ici le tableau publié précédemment (Lazard 1985, 1996), qui réunit les formes de présent et celles des deux registres du passé. L'exemple choisi est le verbe « faire » à la 3ème personne du singulier (Tableau 1).

218

Gilbert Lazard

Tableau 1

I Prétérit kard-0

Présent mi-kon-ad «il fait»

Présent progressif dăr-ad mi-kon-ad «il est en train de faire»

Parfait karde[-ast] «il a fait»

Imparfait mi-kard-0

Imparfait progressif dăst-0 mi-kard-0

Plus-que-parfait karde-bud-0

II Parfait

Imparfait composé Imparfait composé progressif karde[-ast] mi-karde[-ast] dăste mi-karde[-ast] «il fit»

«il faisait»

« il était en train de faire »

Passé surcomposé karde-bude[-ast] « il avait fait »

On remarque immédiatement la présence de la même forme dite parfait en deux points du tableau, d'une part comme parfait présent, d'autre part comme prétérit médiatif. Je reviendrai un peu plus bas sur cette question. Les autres formes de médiatif sont clairement dérivées de ce parfait par l'addition du préfixe duratif mi-, de l'auxiliaire progressif dâst- et de l'auxiliaire bud- « être » au parfait. Les emplois du registre II sont détaillés dans Lazard (1985), avec une trentaine d'exemples. Ils comprennent le ouï-dire et l'inférentiel, illustrés ci-dessus par les ex. (1) et (2). Je n'ai pas relevé d'emploi miratif assuré. En effet, la constatation inattendue est faite dans le présent, et le registre II du persan réfère au passé. Les énoncés au parfait qui pourraient être compris comme des exemples de miratif peuvent toujours s'interpréter comme des parfaits résultatifs, ex. (5). (5)

ajab bărăn qať šode-ast! tiens pluie coupé est.devenu « Tiens! la pluie a cessé. »

Les formes du registre II ont par ailleurs des emplois qui n'appartien­ nent pas proprement au champ du médiatif. C'est d'une part l'expres­ sion du passé « révolu », séparé du présent par une coupure quelconque et ainsi rejeté à distance, ex. (6). (6)

man ălmăni harf mizade-am, ammă hală farămus karde-am moi allemand parole je.battais mais maintenant oubli j'ai.fait «J'ai parlé l'allemand (jadis), mais maintenant j'ai oublié. »

Le médiatif

219

Dans cette phrase à la 1ère personne, le deuxième verbe («j'ai ou­ blié ») est un parfait résultatif décrivant un état présent. Le premier, imparfait composé, ne peut s'interpréter ni comme rapportant un pro­ pos d'autrui ni comme inférentiel (ni comme miratif) : il n'a d'autre valeur que d'évoquer un passé éloigné. On pourrait traduire exacte­ ment «il fut un temps où je parlais allemand», ce qui implique «ce temps est révolu». Il y a enfin l'emploi que j'ai appelé «rétrospectif», ex. (7). (7)

dar in sarzamin hamişe bărănhă-ye seylăsă mibăride-and dans ce pays toujours pluies-Lie torrentiel pleuvaient « Dans ce pays il y a toujours eu des pluies torrentielles. »

Il s'agit ici non plus d'un passé révolu, mais d'une durée qui s'étend jusqu'au moment présent. Cette durée est exprimée par la forme dura­ tive de l'imparfait composé, mais l'emploi d'une forme du registre II indique qu'elle est envisagée du point de vue du présent. Ces deux derniers emplois n'entrent pas dans ce qu'on considère habituellement comme médiatif ou evidential : ils ne réfèrent pas à l'origine de l'information. Ils n'en comportent pas moins une certaine nuance de subjectivité, qui est étrangère aux formes du registre I. Celles-ci énoncent les faits purement et simplement, en eux-mêmes. Celles du registre II les présentent à travers le regard qui est jeté sur eux à partir du moment de renonciation, en l'occurrence soit pour les rejeter dans le passé lointain (« passé révolu ») soit seulement pour les récapituler («rétrospectif»). L'énonciation est donc ici encore médiatisée, quoique d'une manière différente des emplois médiatifs proprement dits. Ces quatre emplois sont le contenu du signifié de la catégorie du Médiatif en persan de Perse. Ils sont parfaitement vivants dans tous les registres de la langue, du plus familier au plus littéraire. Quant au signifiant, ce sont les quatre formes du registre II. Les quatre emplois recensés ci-dessus (ouï-dire, inférentiel, passé révolu et rétrospectif) sont, autant qu'on peut en juger dans l'état actuel de la documentation, les seuls dont sont susceptibles les trois formes dérivées du parfait : imparfait composé (mikarde-ast), imparfait composé progressif (dăste mi-karde-ast) et passé surcomposé (karde bude-ast). Reste le cas déli­ cat du parfait lui-même (karde-asi).

220

Gilbert Lazard

Le parfait est membre à part entière du registre II : il a les mêmes quatre emplois que les trois autres formes. Mais, d'autre part, il fonctionne comme résultatif : on en a vu un exemple ci-dessus, ex. (6). Dans cet emploi, il a un sens présent ou futur, tout comme le présent simple, auquel il s'oppose par le sème de résultatif; le plu s-que-parfait a le même emploi transféré dans le passé : il est en revanche étranger aux emplois du registre II (v. Lazard 1985 : 40, 1996 : 27). Ainsi se forment deux sous-systèmes, l'un Résultatif, comprenant le parfait et le plus-que parfait, l'autre Médiatif, comprenant, avec le parfait, les trois autres formes du passé II, qui, elles, n'ont jamais le sens résultatif. Le parfait se trouve faire partie à la fois des deux sous-systèmes : celui du Médiatif, où il est associé aux trois formes dérivées, et celui du Résultatif, qu'il forme avec le plus-que-parfait. C'est pourquoi je l'ai fait figurer en deux places dans le tableau 1. Diachroniquement, c'est le parfait qui a été le pivot du développement du sous-système médiatif. Il se prêtait par nature à exprimer des nuances inférentielles ou rétrospectives. C'est une évolution bien connue dans beaucoup de langues. Le résultatif est un temps du présent, avec une référence à un procès antérieur : le centre de gravité est dans l'état présent (ou l'expérience présente) résultant de ce procès. Au cours de l'évolution, ce centre de gravité se déplace et va se situer dans le procès passé. Le parfait devient un temps du passé impliquant une référence au présent. Il entre alors en opposition avec le passé simple. Et l'on comprend que se développent des formes nouvelles, duratives ou autres, pour constituer un sous-système parallèle à celui du passé simple. C'est ainsi assurément que s'est formé en persan le registre II ou Médiatif. Ce développement morphologique est parfaitement intelligible et il s'est produit dans diverses langues, mais il n'est pas inéluctable. Un parfait peut se trouver assumer des nuances médiatives sans susciter de bourgeonnement morphologique. Les nuances médiatives exprimées alors par le parfait seul ne suffisent pas à constituer une nouvelle catégorie grammaticale. Il convient de les analyser comme de simples « effets de sens », qui entrent, avec les autres emplois, dans le signifie du parfait. Cette situation est celle de l'arménien oriental et, apparemment, aussi du zyriène, comme on a vu plus haut. Mais lorsque, comme

Le médiatif

221

il est arrivé en persan, le parfait a bourgeonné pour donner naissance à des formes ayant des emplois bien caractérisés et étrangers au résultatif, il faut enregistrer la modification du système verbal. L'existence des trois formes dérivées impose au linguiste de poser en persan une catégorie du Médiatif. 4.2. Le tadjik ou persan d'Asie centrale n'est pas foncièrement différent du persan de Perse, mais il a des particularités. Il a développé non seulement un médiatif (Lazard 1956: 148-153; Rastorgueva 1963 : 63-68), mais aussi, à partir d'un participe en -agi, qui n'est pas usité en Perse, des formes de présomptif, kardagi-st « il a dû faire », mekardagi-st «il devait/doit faire», et une sorte de dubitatif, karda-bosad «il ait/aurait fait», mekarda-bošad «il fît/aurait fait/ ferait» (Lazard 1956: 154-157; Rastorgueva 1963: 68-78), ce qui confirme, s'il en est besoin, que le médiatif n'est ni un présomptif ni un dubitatif. D'autre part les formes de progressif sont constituées, autrement qu'en persan de Perse, au moyen du parfait du verbe istodan « se tenir debout ». Les formes sont données dans le tableau 2. La particularité la plus intéressante pour notre propos est que, comme indiqué par les gloses du tableau (2), les formes duratives du registre II, mekarda-ast et karda istoda buda-ast, peuvent référer au présent aussi bien qu'au passé, autrement dit sont intemporelles. On a, par exemple, en tadjik dialectal (Lazard 1956: 148) : (8)

xola pago meomaday — ki guft? — rajab tante demain venait/vient qui dit NP « Alors tante vient demain? — Qui te l'a dit? — Radjab. »

Le médiatif indique ici un ouï-dire, ce qui suscite la réplique « Qui te l'a dit? »Meomaday (dialectal = meomada-ast) est un présent référant au futur, comme il arrive très souvent en persan. Le Médiatif peut, comme en persan de Perse, indiquer le ouï-dire et l'inférence, mais en outre, comme il comporte des formes qui peuvent référer au présent, il admet l'emploi miratif. En voici un exemple typique, emprunté au même dialecte (Lazard 1956: 148). Le personnage fouille ses poches, constate avec surprise qu'elles sont vides et déclare :

222

Gilbert Lazard

Tableau 2

I Prétérit kard-0 « il fit»

Présent mekunad «il fait»

Présent progressif karda istoda-ast « il est en train de faire »

Parfait karda-ast «il a fait»

Imparfait mekard-0 «il faisait>i

Imparfait progressif karda istoda bud-0 « il était en train de faire »

Plus-que-parfait karda bud-0 « il avait fait »

II Parfait

Imparfait composé Imparfait composé Passé surcomposé progressif karda-ast mekarda-ast karda istoda buda-ast karda buda-ast « il fit > ; il faisait/fait» « il était/est en train de faire » « il avait fait »

(9)

na-buday pul-am NEG-était/est argent-à.moi «Eh bien, je n'ai pas d'argent!

buday ( = buda-ast) est le parfait du verbe «être ». Comme en persan en général, le parfait de ce verbe, par exception, a le sens d'un imparfait. C'est donc un duratif, qui au Médiatif, peut avoir un sens présent : c'est le cas dans cette phrase. Il est intéressant de noter que, dans d'autres langues aussi, des formes médiatives duratives s'emploient à la fois pour le passé et le présent. Dans le tableau des formes bulgares dressé par Guentchéva (1996: 49), aux deux formes neutres dites « directes », présent cete « il lit » et imparfait četeše « il lisait », répond une seule forme médiative, četjal. On peut mettre en parallèle le tableau des formes bulgares et ce­ lui des formes tadjikes (tableau 3). On observe aussi que, en zyriène, langue dépourvue d'une catégorie grammaticale de Médiatif, mais où le parfait peut exprimer des nuances médiatives, le parfait du verbe «être» peut s'employer au sens d'un médiatif présent (Leinonen, ce volume). De telles rencontres entre des langues très différentes ne sont certainement pas fortuites. 4.3. Le système verbal du kurde kurmandji est dans l'ensemble assez semblable à celui du persan. Il oppose, au présent, un présent simple et

Le médiatif 223 Tableau 3 BULGARE Médiatif

Neutre Pr.

čel

Aor. cete

Médiatif

mekarda-ast mekard

1

kard

1

karda-ast

karda-ast 1

čel e — čel běse

1

četjal

Impf, četeše

Ppf.

Neutre

mekunad 1

cete —

Pf.

TADJIK

karda buda-ast

čel bil karda bud 1

un parfait, et, au passé, un prétérit, un imparfait, dérivé du prétérit au moyen du préfixe duratif di-, et un plus-que-parfait, formé comme en persan à l'aide de l'auxiliaire «être» au passé. Explorant dans cette langue les moyens d'exprimer les nuances médiatives, Bulut (ce volume) relève des exemples d'emploi du parfait. Mais en outre elle cite des phrases où figurent des formes dérivées du parfait au moyen du préfixe di- et au moyen de l'auxiliaire «être» mis au parfait. Ces formes sont parallèles à celles du passé simple et homologues des formes persanes mikarde-ast et karde bude-ast. On peut donc sans difficulté dresser un tableau du système verbal tout à fait semblable à celui du persan (il n'y manque que des formes progressives). Le tableau 4 donne les formes du verbe « faire » à la 3ème personne du singulier. Le kurde a donc, comme le persan, deux registres d'expression du passé, et le registre II, selon toute vraisemblance, est de même un Médiatif.5 4.4. Le baloutchi, sous la forme du dialecte rakhshani du Pakistan décrit par Barker—Mengal (1969), possède les formes verbales suivantes: un présent («present-future»), type kant «il fait», un prétérit («past»), kurt, un parfait («present perfect»), kurta{g), un

224

Gilbert Lazard

Tableau 4

I II

Prétérit kir kiriye « il fit »

Présent dike « il fait »

Parfait kiriye « il a fait »

Imparfait dikir dikiriye « il faisait »

Plus-que-parfait kiribu kiribuye « il avait fait »

plus-que-parfait («past perfect»), kurtagat, et une seconde série de passés comprenant une forme dite « past completive » ou « past punctilear», kurtat, et une autre dite «past perfect completive», kurtatat. A cela s'ajoutent des périphrases formées d'adjectifs verbaux et de la copule, kanagă int « il est train de faire », kanăn int « il continue à faire » et kanagï int « il doit faire », et les formes correspondantes avec la copule au passé (at) et au second passé {atat). En laissant de côté ces périphrases, on peut dresser le tableau 5. Tableau 5

II

Present-future kant « il fait »

Present perfect kurtaig) « il a fait »

Past kurt « ilfit»

Past perfect kurtagat « il avait fait »

Past completive kurtat

Past perfect completive kurtatat

Quelle est donc la valeur du passé II? La description qu'en donnent Barker—Mengal est assez embarrassée. Celle du type kurtat se présente ainsi (1969: 338) : « This tense-aspect is employed only for an action or event seen as occurring only once at a particular point of past time, and it thus cannot be used for a repeated action or state extending over a prolonged period of time (but see below). In view of its strongly

Le médiatif

225

completive connotations, it is often translatable as « already had.. .ed » or «had finished...ing».» Cette formulation, qui insiste sur le sens ponctuel de cette forme, semble inspirée par le souci de bien la dif­ férencier du parfait, qui a valeur résultative ou expérientielle, et de la marquer comme un passé défini, par opposition au parfait, passé indé­ fini. Ce sens ponctuel n'est pas évident dans tous les exemples, p.ex. ăi bras sakk năjoR atat « His brother was very ill ». D'ailleurs la forme progressive correspondante existe, quoique rare, ex. (1969: 337) : amă vaxt ki baloc gon parangiăn miRagă atatant... « A cette même époque où les Baloutches étaient en train de combattre les Européens... » Quant au type kurtatat, « The past perfect completive formation has two rather different significations : a) far past completion of an action or event : « had already... ed long ago », and b) likelihood of some remote past event: «must havc.ed». Unlike the past completive formation ..., this tense-aspect is not limited to single, unitary actions or events; it is also used for repeated or habitual actions, prolonged states, etc. » (1969: 341). Ainsi, selon cette description, cette forme indique toujours une référence à un passé lointain, éventuellement avec une nuance présomptive. Ces indications suggèrent que les formes du passé II pourraient avoir valeur de médiatif. Le sens ponctuel attribuée à la forme kurtat donne à penser qu'elle est analogue au prétérit (aoriste, kurt), avec une nuance en plus. Ce qui est dit de la forme kurtatat tend à la rapprocher du plus-que-parfaiţ (kurtagat), et les idées de passé lointain et de con­ jecture évoquent des nuances médiatives. On se demande si kurtat et kurtatat ne sont pas analogues aux formes persanes de passé II karde-ast et karde bude-ast, c'est-à-dire si le passé II du baloutchi n'est pas aussi un Médiatif. Les exemples de Barker/Mengal, sans con­ texte, ne permettent pas de répondre à la question. Mais il vaudrait la peine d'enquêter à ce sujet.6 Si l'hypothèse est juste, le baloutchi aura l'intérêt de montrer un système verbal où, à la différence du persan et du kurde, il n'y a pas d'interférence entre les formes des deux catégories du Médiatif et du Résultatif : la forme la plus simple du passé II (= Aoriste Médiatif?) y est distincte du parfait (= Résultatif Présent).

226

Gilbert Lazard

Notes 1. Il ne s'agit pas fondamentalement de distance dans le temps (même si cette valeur peut parfois apparaître, cf. le «passé révolu» en persan, § 4.1), mais de celle qui est créée par la dissociation du locuteur. C'est ce qui fait qu'elle est bel et bien présente même dans l'emploi «miratif », où la constatation est à peu près concomitante de renonciation: le locuteur se regarde et se dit constater. Elle n'est pas en contradiction avec l'«immédiateté» de la prise de connaissance, quoi qu'en dise Michailovsky (1996: 120). 2. C'est pourquoi on ne voit pas bien quel statut DeLancey (1997) donne aux catégories de mirative et ďevidential, qu'il considère comme distinctes, quoique voisines. 3. J'écris ici le mot avec une majuscule pour indiquer qu'il désigne une catégorie bien définie de chacune des langues en question, de façon à bien distinguer cet emploi du mot de ceux où il désigne de manière plus générale et plus floue un ensemble de notions apparentées (cf. Lazard 1999). 4. On peut penser que c'est par le biais de l'inférence fondée sur l'observation des résultats subsistants d'un procès passé. C'est à partir de l'inférentiel que se seraient développés les autres emplois. 5. Bulut cite aussi des formes constituées du préfixe di- ajouté au plus-que-parfait, qui n'entrent pas dans le système ci-dessus. Mais les seules formes citées sont dizanibû et dikaribû, formes qui appartiennent respectivement aux verbes zanln « savoir» et karin «pouvoir» : on soupçonne que ces verbes ont ici, comme dans beaucoup de langues, des propriétés particulières. En tout cas, elles ne semblent pas avoir valeur médiative. Dans une des phrases citées, dizanibû est coordonné à digeriyam, qui est un imparfait simple. 6. Une tentative a été faite par Rossi (1989) pour identifier un médiatif en baloutchi. Mais il a mené son enquête en donnant à traduire aux informateurs des phrases médiatives persanes. En ces matières la traduction est un piège et le système bâti par l'auteur n'est guère convaincant.

Références Anderson, Loyd 1986 "Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps. Typologically regular asymmetries", in: Chafe—Nichols (eds), 273-312. Anschütz, Susanne (éd.) 1992 Texte, Satze, Wörter und Moneme. Festschrift für Klaus Heger. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Barker, Abd al-Rahman—Aqil Khan Mengal 1969 A course in Baluchi. Montreal: MacGill University, vol.1.

Le médiatif

227

Barnes, Janet 1984 "Evidential in the Tuyuca verb", International Journal of American Linguistics 50: 255-271. Chafe, Wallace—Johanna Nichols (eds) 1986 Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. Advances in discourse processes, Norwood, NJ.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Comrie Bernard (ed.) 1987 The world's major languages. London: Routledge. DeLancey, Scott 1997 "Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information", Linguistic Typology 1/1: 33-52. Dendale, Patrick—Jan Nuyts 1994 "Bibliographie sélective de l'évidentialité", Langue française 102: 121-125. Donabédian, Anaïde 1996 "Pour une interprétation des différentes valeurs du médiatif en arménien occidental", in: Guentchéva (éd.), 87-108. Duchet, Jean-Louis—Remzi Përnaska 1996 "L'admiratif en albanais: recherche d'un invariant sémantique", in: Guentchéva (éd.), 31-46. Fouchécour, C.-H. de & Gignoux, Philippe, édd. 1989 Etudes irano-aryennes offertes à Gilbert Lazard, Paris ( = Studia iranica - Cahier 7). Paris/Louvain: Diffusion Peeters. Guentchéva, Zlatka 1996 "Le médiatif en bulgare", in: Guentchéva (éd.), 47-70. Guentchéva, Zlatka (éd.) 1996 L'énonciation médiatisée. Louvain/Paris: Peeters. Lazard, Gilbert 1956 "Caractères distinctifs de la langue tadjik", Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 51/1: 117-186. 1985 "L'inférentiel ou passé distancié en persan", Studia iranica 14/1: 2742. 1992 "Y a-t-il des catégories interlangagières?", in: Anschütz (ed.), 427434. 1996 "Le médiatif en persan", in: Guentchéva (éd.), 21-30. 1997 "La typologie actancielle", Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata 26/2: 205-226. 1998 "Grandeur et misère de la typologie", rapport au XVIème Congrès international des linguistes, Paris, juillet 1997, in: Caron, Bernard (ed.), Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Linguistics, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science (CD-Rom). 1999 "Pour une terminologie rigoureuse: quelques principes et proposi-

228

Gilbert Lazard

J*

tions", Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris N.S. 6, 111— 133. Michailovsky, Boyd 1996 "L'inférentiel du népali", in Guentchéva (éd.), 109-123. Rastorgueva, V. S. 1963 A short sketch of Tajik grammar, translated by Paper, Herbert H., Bloomington, Indiana University. Rossi, Adriano V. 1989 "L'inferenziale in Baluci", in Fouchécour—Gignoux (édd.), 283-291. Tournadre, Nicolas 1996 "Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes tibétains (tibétain central, ladakhi, dzongkha et amdo)". in: Guentchéva (éd.), 195-213. Willett, Thomas 1988 "A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticisation of evidentiality", Studies in language 12/1-2, 51-97. Windfuhr, Gemot 1987 "Persian", in Comrie (ed.), 523-546.

Abréviations ART—article, LIG—ligateur, NEG—négation, NP—nom propre, OBJ—objet.

,,

Epistemic verb forms in Persian of Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan John R. Perry 1. Introductory A particularly fascinating class of utterance for linguists is that in which the speaker signals that he has not witnessed the event or state that he reports in his utterance, or not consciously realized a fact until just before he began to report it; i.e., that his announcement is founded upon hearsay, presumption, inference, surmise, or a surprise discovery (which may be expressed ironically, or as a question) virtually contemporaneous with his utterance. The occurrence of such forms has been noted under a variety of plausible labels, of which "indirective" and "mediative" are perhaps the most recent and inclusive. I propose to call all such verb forms "epistemic," reflecting what appears to be the broadest generalization one can capture concerning their function— that they comment on the nature, limits or validity of the speaker's knowledge of his topic. They constitute a signal from the speaker that this is a gnomic or diagnostic utterance, not a narrative; they invite the hearer to focus on the provenance or medium of the speaker's information, to examine the content or context of the utterance for further clues to how this information was acquired, and optionally to accept, question, or corroborate what was said.1 In most varieties of Persian, certain functions, and several forms of—or derived from—the "perfect tense" (past participle + auxiliary "to be") have been recognized as epistemic in various ways. They may share this function with other aspectotemporal tasks (such as resultative or aorist) in a polysemantic package. It is this twofold ambivalence—that the form may not in itself signal any editorializing, and that the utterance may be devoid of any adverbial confirmation of its status—that makes the phenomenon so elusive. In several derived forms, the indirective component is often apparently dominant. These are, in standard Persian, a doubly compound "past perfect" (karde

<, 230

John R. Perry

bude-ast, i.e., ppart. +ppart. of aux. +aux.) and a "durative perfect" (mikarde-ast, IMP. ppart. +aux., which are signaled where necessary in the interlinear glosses by -PP; and, in the case of Tajik, a secondary, derived form of the "perfect" (ppart. +agi +aux., glossed here as PERF n). These epistemic uses in Persian appear to correspond closely with categories that have been established, or suggested, for languages of the Turkic and Fenno-Ugric families, and in the areas of the Balkans and the Caucasus. The existing studies of indirectivity in Persian are confined to those forms related to perfect tenses. In one variety of Persian, however— that spoken in Afghanistan—there is also a group of forms related to the periphrastic future in Persian, which clearly function as epistemics in ways similar to the "perfect tense" forms. Examples of these are scattered throughout the still sparse literature on Afghan Dari and Kaboli; they are here integrated and examined under the same head­ ings of tense reference and epistemic category as provisionally estab­ lished for the "perfect" forms. In referring to the forms of the Persian verbs encountered, I have used quotation marks around the conven­ tional aspectotemporal terms, since there is often no neutral formal designation: thus "perfect" and "future" designate respectively verbal forms of the type karda-ast and xăhad kard, without prejudging their function. In order to establish a frame of reference for the more problematic examples, I have drawn initially upon the existing discussions of epis­ temic forms in Persian, notably Windfuhr (1982) (PW) and Lazard (1985) (PL), which present and examine a matrix of valuable material chiefly from (written) Standard Persian. Their examples are supple­ mented here by sentences gleaned from other varieties of Persian, which will somewhat expand the known geographical range and add to the formal repertory of epistemic types in Persian. For ease of refer­ ence, sentence examples are assigned sigla consisting of a language (or dialect-group) initial followed by a bibliographic source initial. My supplementary sources are [1] Afghan Persian: three collections of pri­ marily spoken utterances from Kabul, though including some speech that might be more accurately characterized as (written) standard Af­ ghan Dari (KB: Bogdanov 1930, KF: Farhàdi 1955, KG: Glassman

Epistemic verb forms

231

1970); one further example of generic Afghan Persian (KK: Kieffer 1983) and one instance from Herat (HI: Ioannesian 1987).2 [2] South­ ern Tajik Persian: a collection by R. Ghafforov and R.L. Nemenova from adjacent regions of Qarategin, Kulob and western Badakhshan (east and southeast of Dushanbe), edited by the doyenne of Tajik lan­ guage studies (JR: Rastorgueva 1979);3 and a couple of sentences from the nearby Varzob region, north of Dushanbe (JL: Lazard 1996). [3] Northern Tajik Persian: examples of (unattributed, typical) Standard Tajik, which—in its literary form, at least—is based on the dialect of Bukhara (BA: Amonova 1991); sentences abstracted from dialogue in S. Aini's novella Margi südxür (Death of a Usurer, 1939) which pur­ port to be typical of Bukhara dialect (BF: Farhădi 1981); examples of literary Tajik from Rastorgueva's grammar (BO: Rastorgueva 1954/ 1963); a field collection of spoken Bukharan Persian (BR: Rajă'i 1964); and sentences that I solicited via translation (from English) from a speaker of Samarkand Persian who is bilingual in Uzbek (SA: Aminova 1996), in an attempt to recapitulate contexts exemplified in some of the Persian sentences. This material is arranged under five subcategories of epistemicity which seem to be semantically appropriate; the terms I have used for these correspond in the main to some of those invoked by Lazard and Windfuhr or their sources, with the exception of "mirative." Finally, I have recruited from other discussions of epistemic forms a few sen­ tences of Turkish (TZ: Zeyrek 1994) in which the quintessentially evi­ dential affix -miş (glossed as -EV) provides a touchstone, and a trilin­ gual exclamation from the Balkans (XF: Friedman 1981) as being par­ ticularly apt for comparison with certain Persian examples. The total of seventy examples falls into two temporal groupings (past and present; present and future) comprising nine semantic groups in all (derived from the five epistemic categories). In regard to the Afghan Persian "perfects" exemplified, it should be noted that the "perfect" is distinguished from the very similar "pre­ terit" form in spoken Kaboli in that (a) the final syllable is accented, (b) first singular and plural both end in -ém, as against simple past -urn/ -em, (e) third singular ends in -a.4 Persian "perfects" of all varieties may omit the final auxiliary, as sode-ast > šode, gofte bude-ast > gofte

232

John R. Perry

bude, nadidagi-st > nadidagr, and 3rd sing, in Southern Tajik "per­ fects" may be realized as dosta-y (for dosta-asi). 2. Quotative: Past and present reference (1)

Meral evlenmiş (TZ) Meral marry-EV '[I heard] Meral got married.'

(2)

sunidum ke —xudă nă-xăsta— näjör I-heard that God NEG-wished unwell 'I was sorry to hear you were unwell.'

(3)

ija-ra h akim guftaní odam owot This-place-OBJ Hakim to-be-called man productive 'Someone called Hakim farmed this place.'

(4)

šenide-am ke ahmad diruz safar rafte-ast 1-have-heard that Ahmad yesterday journey has-gone 'I've heard that A. went on a trip yesterday.'

(5)

sayohat-ba rafta-ast (SA) Journey-on he-has-gone '[I heard] he went on a trip.'

(6)

agar sobh harakat karde-ast, băyad tă hală If morning set-out he-has-done must till now peydăyas sode băsad (PW) appear-he have-become 'If [as you say] he left in the morning, he should have appeared by now.'

(7)

dar kotob-e adabi-ye fărsi... qadimtarin se'r-e fârsi-ră In books literary Persian... oldest poem Persian-OBj Aqlab be-abbăs-e marvazi nesbat midehand ke Mostly to-Abbas Marvazi attribution they-give who be-za'm-e isăn dar sana-ye 193...qaside'i... gofte-bude (PL) by-claim-of them in year 193...ode... had-said-pp 'In Persian literature books.. .the oldest Persian poem is generally attributed to Abbas of Marv, who they claim composed a panegyric.. .in 193 A.H.'

(8)

az suxanoni modaras mofahmidem ki u from words-of mother-his we understood that he kayho ba sahr kücida buda-ast (BA) whiles to-city had-moved-pp 'From what his mother said we gathered that he had moved to the city a long time ago.'

budén (KG) you-have-been

ka-as (JR) has-made

(PW)

Epistemic verb forms

233

In all major Persian dialects, a perfect or past perfect form may indi­ cate (like Turkish -mis) that the speaker's knowledge is derived from hearsay, whether explicitly acknowledged (2, 4, 8), or assumed from the context (1,5), or inferred from the context (3): the speaker implies only that he does not personally know this 'Hakim', so the listener in­ fers that someone else told him the man's name. In sentence (2), the parenthetical xudă nă-xăsta adds the explicit hope that the report is un­ true, i.e., questions the validity of the speaker's knowledge, if only as a polite formula. Interestingly, Glassman interprets the perfect in this sentence as "resultative" ("...the action of the verb or its results are still relevant..," 1970: 234). This is certainly possible, if one reads the statement as "Someone told me, 'so-and-so HAS BEEN sick,' " and emphasizes the underlying inquiry, "... and are you, as I inferred from his use of the past tense, better now?". But it is at least as likely, in view of the explicit quotative verb, that the temporal dimension of the indirect speech is not that of past (Persian does not observe a temporally-hierarchized sequence-of-tense rule): that in fact the statement means "Someone said to me, 'so-and-so IS sick,' but I would like not to believe it, or to hope you have made a swift recovery—how are you, in fact?" and that the "perfect tense" form is thus functioning epistemically. Sentence (6) is representative of a common type of utterance which I shall designate "pseudo-conditional": it is quintessentially epistemic, and illustrates the quotative and/or inferential modes particularly well. Since it is superficially a conditional construction (introduced by agar or an equivalent conjunction) it is invariably treated under the rubric of conditional sentences in both pedagogical and descriptive grammars of Persian, and its editorializing, epistemic nature is not sufficiently stressed.5 In reality, the stipulation is logical rather than possible or hy­ pothetical: "if here means "given the fact that...". As a comment on a past event relevant to the present state, the protasis uses the postter­ minal "perfect" tense, as is to be expected in the temporal framework; but this same form is also natural as an indirective expressive of a re­ iteration of a fact known through hearsay or inference.6 Thus sentence (6) means not "If he should leave..." but "Granted that (as I have been informed, or otherwise led to believe) he did leave this morning, this

234

•

John R. Perry

is the likely state of his itinerary." English, similarly, distinguishes such pseudo-conditionals from real conditionals by reiterating the tense that would have been used in the "quoted" utterance, as distinct from a simple present or past-as-conditional: "If he has been studying, he will pass the test" (not "If he studied/should study..." but "Granted that—as is claimed—he has been studying..."). Lazard makes a simi­ lar point in reference to one of Windfuhr's examples: (9)

anče az kojă dar yăfte-am in-ast ke... agar what from where I-have-found is-this that... if az čand jomle tajàvoz mikarde bistar than some sentence exceed has-done mostly kâr-e xod-as bude-ast work-of himself it-has-been 'What I have found out is that.. .if the talk exceeded it was mostly about his own work.' 7

sohbathă talks darbăre-ye concerning ;, more than a few sentençfşs

The context is inferential, the " i f (as confirmed by the English trans­ lation of the verb as 'was', not 'would be') is equivalent to "when­ ever." It is to be noted that all the Tajik examples (3, 5, 8), like the Persian and Afghan, employ "Perfect I" karda-ast in arguably quotative con­ texts, not "Perfect II" (cf. under Inferential, etc., below). 3. Mirative (10)

meğer ne aptalmişhn! (TZ) But what fool-I-was-EV 'What a fool I am/I've been!'

(11) a. meğer bizim Bulgaristan'ımız çok güzelmiş (XFt) But of-us Bulgaria-our very beautiful-was-EV 'How beautiful our Bulgaria is!' b. ja gledaj, ce tja bila xubava našata Bulgarija (XFb) EX look what was beautiful our Bulgaria 'Well look, how...!' e. gledaj sto bila hubava našata Bugarija (XFm) Look what was beautiful our Bulgaria 'Look how...!'

Epistemic verb forms

235

(12) man avval uro nasinoxtam, diqqat karda I first him NEG-knew care having-done binam, Ahmad buda-ast (BP) I-see Ahmad it-has-been 'At first I didn't recognize him, but when I looked closely, I saw it was Ahmad.' (13) odami xub buda-ast (BP) Man good he-has-been 'It turns out he's a good man (after all).' (14) kurtay xub dosta-y shirt good you-have-had 'You have a nice shirt on.'

(JR)

(15) sumo soda buded birodar—guft qorl iškamba You simple were brother said Qori Iškamba ba sartaros (BF) to barber ' "You're a simpleton, my friend," said Qori Iškamba to the barber.' (16) pul-am nabuda-y (JL) Money-my NEG-has-been 'Oops, I don't have any money.' (17) pul-i mayda-am nabuda-ast, sumo puli Money small-my NEG-has-been you money-of nonho-ro dihed (BF) loaves-OBj give' 'I don't have any change—you pay for the loaves.' (18) ba attor guftum: holo pulam nabuda-ast (BF) To druggist I-said now money-my NEG-has-been I told the druggist, "I don't have the money just now".' (19) ah nafahmidum, ovarda-y Oh NEG-I-understood you-have-brought 'Oh, I didn't realize you'd brought it.'

y o ně or not

(20) havli-iü ba kadomküca buda-ast? House his at which street it-has-been 'Which street is his house on?'

(BF)

(21) ay rayi dur omadam, ay tasnagi-ra From way far I-came from thirst-Foe 'I've come a long way, I'm dying of thirst.'

(JR)

murdastam I-have-died-PERF n

(JR)

236

John R. Perry

?

(22) çok susamışım (TZ) Very I-thirst-EV 'I'm very thirsty.'

This function of the "perfect" has been variously characterized (to paraphrase numerous colleagues) as a response to an unexpected event ('I perceive that [contrary to my expectations]...', cf. (11), (14), (19)); awareness based on a sudden realization of an existing state of affairs (10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22); surprise at an unexpected outcome, or the reaction of an unprepared mind to an unintentional action or unforseen event (16,18,19). It is well attested in Turkic, several Balkan lan­ guages, Georgian, and Komi Zyryan, under the designations "admira­ tive" or "mirative."8 Tajik, both the Northern and the Southern dia­ lects, seems to be the only variety of Persian for which this mode and function of the "perfect" is attested. Sentence (15) has, anomalously, the "preterite" (so written in the original, in Perso-Arabic script), but the context shows unambiguously that it expresses a general judgment by the speaker of the barber's current attitudes ('I didn't realize you were so naive until now'), not a comment on his behavior on a specific occasion in the past. Farhădi comments that a past tense (he does not specify the perfect) may be used with reference to the present to express the state of mind of speaker or interlocutor on discovering a fact not previously known to one or the other.9 He rationalizes it thus: "Since the state of igno­ rance is in the past, the discovery is stated in the past, too."10 In respect of the Tajik and Afghan Persian "perfect", however, this emphasis on past temporal reference may be misplaced. For in both languages this form, if not as temporally indifferent as the Tajik "durative perfect" mekarda-ast (see section 7), may view a state of affairs not only after it has come to an end (postterminal) but while it is ongoing (intrater­ minal) in present time. Consider this statement from an Afghan school textbook: (23) Japan mamlakati-st ke az cahăr taraf ba bahr mahdud Japan country-is that from four side by sea bounded buda wa az jazăyer-e zeyădi taskil soda-ast has-been and from islands many formed has-become 'Japan is a country that is surrounded by sea and is made up of many islands.'11

Epistemic verb forms

237

The conjunction wa 'and' following the verb makes it clear that buda is no mere participle but a truncated "perfect," buda-ast; it can only mean that Japan has been, for an indefinite time past, and to common knowledge still is, surrounded by sèa. This is the temporal situation viewed by the speaker of a typical mirative "perfect" in Tajik: he has not had money in his pocket since an indefinite time past, and continues past the moment of speech to be penniless—but he has only just realized this fact, or at least its relevance (cf. also buda-ast in (44), discussed in section 9). I would therefore expand the notion of "a fact not previously known" along the lines of "awareness based on a sudden realization of an existing state of affairs" to characterize this state of mind as "sudden awareness of a fact hitherto unknown, unappreciated or not considered relevant to the present." It seems likely that this quite complex epistemic scenario can be related to other psycholinguistic situations that may generate an "anomalous" past tense. In rationalizing Balkan Slavic admiratives, dubitatives and quotatives, Friedman compares their use of a past tense to that in English utterances of the type 'He said he didn't smoke' as a report of T don't smoke' (traditionally explained as sequence of tense agreement) or 'Where was the yard sale?' as an elliptical version of 'Where did the sign say the yard sale was [= is (being held/to be held)]?'.12 Obviously in these cases, as Friedman notes, the pastness of the report is at issue, not that of the reported event, which may be ongoing or even projected. Just as in Balkan languages a frequent use of the admirative "past tense" occurs in ironic repetition (though not in English, or Persian), there are cases of a similar affective use of a past tense in, e.g., the polite 'What was it you wanted?' (as also Persian ce mixăstid?) asked of a customer who may not yet have opened his mouth ('What do you want?' and če mixăhid? being perceived as brusque or confrontational); or the classic exchange 'What did you say your name was?'—T didn't': here both the polite, non-confrontational question and the ironically recapitulative, con­ frontational reply make reference in the past to a (non-)report in the past. It is in this same sense that sentence (20) is to be understood—as yet another self-serving illocutionary utterance of the manipulative mi-

238

er

John R. Perry

ser, Qori Iškamba, who is always "discovering" that he has left his purse at home. This time he needs to know where to find a compliant dupe whose address his interlocutor has not divulged, and might be re­ luctant to do so: 'Now, where might his house be?/Where did you say he lived?' This is nothing other than a feigned "sudden awareness of a fact hitherto unknown, unappreciated or not considered relevant to the present." All the Tajik examples other than (15) use the regular "Perfect I", with the further exception of (21): this "Perfect II" using a secondary form of the verb 'to be' (murda [h]astam > murdastam 'I have died/ am dead '—it is attested in early Classical Persian prose) is character­ ized by Rastorgueva as archaic but quite common in Southern Tajik speech, especially of Badakhshan.'3 1, /-

4. Inferential: Past and present (24) bu oda çok soğuk. Birisi pencereyi açık unutmuş (TZ) This room very cold someone its-window open forgot-EV 'This room is too cold. Someone must have left the window open.' (25) gonăhi karde bude-ast ke sază-yas-ră raft (PW) A-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 (SA) One act bad he-has-done-PERF n 'He must have done something wrong.' (27) hami sumo non nayoftast-en (OR) All you bread NEG-have-found-PERF 11 'None of you has found any food?!' (28) al-ăn u-ră dide-and ke ba xăne-ye barădaras mi-rafte-ast (PW) 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 (
/PROG PERF II

'I saw him just now going to his brother's house.'

Epistemic verb forms (30) in xabar-a ki da-šumo This news-OBj who to-you 'Who told you this?'

239

dodagi? (BR) has-given-PERF 11

(31) fahmid ke hame-ye in dam-o dastgăh... He understood that all-of this paraphernalia xăter-e u bude, kabk mi-xorde ănvaqt sake-of him has-been-pp quail iMP-has-eaten then dar sof re năn-e xošk.. mi-gozašte... (PL) in tablecloth bread dry iMP-has-placed 'He realized that all this show..was for his benefit, that the sheykh had been eat­ ing quail and then put dry bread..on the table...' (32) e'lămiye... bă diăgrămhă-ye elini nesăn dăd communiqué with diagrams scientific show gave ke tir... văred-e dahăn-e molukăne sode va that shot entering mouth royal has-become and dăste be taraf-e sotun-e faqarăt... mi-rafte-ast PROG-pp to side-of column-of vertebrae iMP-has-gone vali yekbăre taqyir-e masir dade va az but suddenly change-of route has-given and from gune-ye čap... sar dar ävarde-ast (PL) cheek left head out has-brought 'The communiqué...showed with scientific diagrams that the bullet had en­ tered His Majesty's mouth and was heading for the spinal column when it sud­ denly changed course and exited through the left cheek.' (33) policiia diagramma-as nišon dod ki vay Police diagram-its show gave that those tufli ayni O.J. Simpson buda-ast (SA) shoes same-of O.J. Simpson has-been 'The police diagram showed that the shoes belonged to O.J. Simpson.'

The epistemic subcategories of inferential, presumptive and specula­ tive are intuitively related; a more general analysis would arguably subsume them all within a single category, say, "evidential" or "non-witnessed" (which might also include the broadest of these types, the quotative). But for all their semantic contiguity, they are also intu­ itively distinct, which accounts for the variety of labels (dubitative, Predpolozitel'nyj, contingent, etc.) that observers have attached to them. Different dialects use different forms for apparently similar epis­ temic nuances (56, 61), while the same form under different conditions

240

John R. Perry

(

•>

will be felt as encoding a different nuance (e.g., first instead of second person: (42), (61)). This is one reason why it could be instructive to retain the subcategories. They may be thought of as constituting a hierarchy of probability: the inferential mode expresses presumption on the basis of evidence, claiming that which is most probably true; a presumptive sentence offers no evidence other than common experience or expectation, stating that which is probably true; speculative (or "conjectural") statements leave the question open, expressing the speaker's judgment of what is possibly true, or asking the interlocutor to speculate (40, 41). Context is all-important; there will be cases where these categories blur or overlap, so that more than one interpretation will fit.14 In Northern Tajik, at least, there are additionally perhaps formal criteria by which one may judge the speaker to be more or less willing to vouch for his utterance. "Perfect I" karda-ast seems to be more appropriate to the higher realms of probability (mirative, quotative, and some inferential: 3, 5, 8; 12-14,16-18; 27, 29, 33). At the fuzzy interstices, sentence (8) for instance, is arguably inferential ('From what his mother said we gathered/learned, i.e., inferred... ') in addition to being explicitly quotative—it all depends on how explicit the mother's information was; (29) was (according to the informant) susceptible to either form (perhaps depending on how obvious to the speaker the observed person's destination was?); and in (33) the inference lies within a context of second-hand knowledge, quoted from an authoritative source. "Perfect II," like the "past conjectural" (see below), is evidently reserved for the expression of more overtly speculative reasoning (26, 35,36,37,38,40,41). In the examples given, the Turkish sentence (23) is again a classic use of mis, logically analogous to (25) and (26) in its inference from a perceived result to the most probable cause. Persian (25) uses the "past pluperfect" (paradigmatically, karde bude-ast, Lazard's "passé surcomposé") as the editorial/epistemic counterpart to the narrative "pluperfect" karde bud to comment on an (inferred) event preceding a past (observed) event; elsewhere the "perfect" karde [ast]15 functions epistemically in relation to the "preterit" kard (28, 31, 32) and the "progressive perfect" mi-karde[ast] similarly corresponds to the "imper-

Epistemic verb forms

241

feet" or "progressive past" mi-kard (28, 31, 32); in (32) the periphras­ tic "progressive perfect," dăste[ast] mi-rafte-ast is used.16 In (28), the first occurrence of the "perfect," dide-and, is probably quotative, the speaker relaying the report of eye-witnesses and their inference of the person's destination (be ... mi-rafte-ast) based on the direction he was heading or other evidence not specified. In the Tajik samples, there are three instances of a basic "Perfect I" form (27, 29, 33) and three of a "Perfect II," kardagi[-st] (26, 28, 30). The Tajik "present" progressive is achieved by use of the desemanticized auxiliary istodan 'to stand' with either form of the "perfect" (29): the reduced dialect form rafsas is formally related to standard rafta istoda-ast, but my informant states that rafta istodagi-st would also be appropriate to this sentence; cf. also (26). 5. Presumptive: Past and present (34) morde bude-ast ke in văqe sod (PW) Dead he-has-been that this happening became 'He must have been dead when this happened.' (35) in kor sudagi-s-ba xoraftagï budage-m (SA) This act happening-its-at gone-sleep I-have-been-PERF II 'I suppose I was asleep when it happened.' (36) vay az sumo ğayr-i nikl hiččí nadidagï (BR) He from you other-than good anything NEG-has-seen-PERF II 'He has never experienced anything but good from you.' (37) ü ba nazd-1 mo omada He to near

istodagi-st,

us has-come PROG PERF II

mo bosem, behüda dar tasvisem (BA) We are in-vain in agitation-are 'He's probably on his way, we're worrying needlessly.' (38) gumon-am-ba Opinion-my-in zindagi-i tu Life-of you 'I don't think/I

ap-porsol to imsola from-last-year till this-year avaz nasudagï (BR) change NEG-has-become-PERF ii doubt that your life has changed from last year to this.'

242

(•

John R. Perry

?

In the ideal Persian example (34), the "present perfect" bude-ast corresponds to a narrative "past" bud of the copula, and has no raison d'être other than as a marked comment on a situation inferred or presumed. It is glossed by Phillott, its ultimate source, as a "vulgar" means to express assumption ('must have').17 In (35), the Tajik counterpart of (34), the presumptive verb is cast not merely in the "perfect," corresponding to the narrative past budam, but in "Perfect II" budage-m, which constitutes part of the "past conjectural" paradigm.18 (These sentences may of course be interprétable as inferential, if a broader context reveals the existence of evidence for the assumption. The form of the "past participle" as gerund—sudagi—and as predicate—xoraftagl—in (35) does not have any additional significance; the latter is functionally equivalent to the simple "past" participle xorafta, or to Persian morde in (34).19 Sentence (36) similarly marks the speaker's reluctance to confirm what she has not witnessed at first hand; use of an unmarked "Perfect I" nadida-ast could be interpreted as resultative. When a statement involves a subjective judgment, explicitly acknowledged or not, there is arguably always an element of conjecture (cf. (44), (64)). The remaining two instances, likewise taken from Northern Tajik, use "Perfect II" to recapitulate a doubt, conjecture or overt expression of opinion signaled elsewhere in the sentence. 6. Speculative: Past and present (39) săyad u estebăh karde-ast Perhaps he mistake has-made 'Perhaps he's made a mistake.'

(PW)

(40) balki xato kardagi-m (SA) Maybe error I-have-made-PERF n 'Maybe I made a mistake.' (41) ü kay ho az onjo gurextagi-st? (BA) He whiles from there has-fled-PERF n 'I suppose he fled from there a while ago?'

All three examples refer to an event that possibly took place in the past relative to the point of enunciation. Depending on the precise context,

"Epistemic verb forms

243

(41) could be inferential or presumptive in nature. In view of the ex­ plicitly speculative adverb in (39) and (40) {săyad, balki 'perhaps'), it may be asked whether the perfect in each case is not merely resultative. Aspectotemporally, this would also fit (41), in that the person in ques­ tion has left and has not come back. However, the context suggests that this utterance is an attempt to elicit an unknown quantity (the time of his leaving) and is thus an invitation to speculate, or rather to confirm a speculation. 7. Epistemic verbal forms: Present and future reference Lazard states that the mediative in Persian is concerned only with past time.20 This may be true for Persian of Iran, but in other dialects the scope of epistemic verb forms (which "mediate" between the speaker and his topic) extends its reference to present and future time as well. In Tajik, the "durative perfect" forms (me-karda-ast and me-kardagi-st, glossed here as IMP) may express an indirective mode relative to present or future time.21 Strictly speaking, the "Perfect I" derivative is indifferent to time, and may refer also to past events,22 while the "Per­ fect II" refers only to present or future time. This is quite different from the durative (progressive or habitual) past—though still indirective!— of Standard Persian (28, 31, 32). Epistemic use of the forms (at least in Northern Tajik) extends over the whole semantic range, except for the mirative. In spoken Afghan Persian of at least two major regions (Kabul and Herat), there is a well-attested cluster of idioms involving the auxiliary of the periphrastic "future tense" that invokes an indirective reading in reference to an event or state in present, future, or future-in-the-past time, generating inferential, presumptive and speculative modes (though not, it seems, mirative or quotative uses). This usage has been dubbed 'dubitative',23 but this seems inappropriate except for a certain negative type (45, 50, 51, 53, 54). In its signaling the speaker's assess­ ment of the probability of an event or state, with appropriate affective undertones, the verbal complex is as broadly indirective or mediated in relation to the real future as the epistemic perfect is to the past.

244

John R. Perry

8. Quotative: Present and future (42) padaram

pagoh

az

maskau

meomadagi-st

(BA)

Father-my tomorrow from Moscow iMp-has-come-PERF n 'My father should be coming from Moscow tomorrow.' (43) xola pago meomada-y— ki guft?— rajab Aunt tomorrow iMP-has-come who said Rajab 'Aunt is coming tomorrow—who says?—Rajab.'

(JL)

The kind of indirectivity in example (42) is ostensibly quite open. Amonova's own Persian gloss of her literary Tajik example, using săyad 'perhaps', implies speculation; an idiomatic English rendering, with 'should be' or 'is supposed to', would invoke inference or pre­ sumption at the least. In practice, when the speaker "predicts" the ac­ tions of a third person, the inference is most likely to have been made from information reported, and indeed the analogy of (43), where the interlocutor in a contextually similar situation presumes that the speak­ er is relaying the report of a third party, invites a quotative interpreta­ tion (contrast (61), where the first-person hedged statement of intent can only be classed as speculative). 9. Inferential: Present and future (44) in navozandagi xudd mullogl barin buda-ast This playing self-of learnedness like has-been -u nanavozed, az xotir mebaromada-ast (BO) -and NEG-you-play from mind iMP-it-has-Ieft 'Playing a musical instrument is like reading-and-writing; if you don't play, you forget it.' (45) emröz besyărkam abr as; barf naxăt bărid (KG) Today very little cloud is snow NEG-will rain 'There's very little cloud today—I don't think it'll snow.' (46) ar sob xăt didi ke sawăna Each morning will saw-you that at-night barf bârida rafta mebăsa (KF) snow rained PROG is 'Every morning you'll see that it has been snowing all night.'

Epistemic verb forms

245

(47) u ke löcak as či xăt had? (KF) ' He who scoundrel is what will do 'What do you expect from a scoundrel like him?'

In the Tajik example, (44), the two instances of epistemic "Perfect I" as a gnomic present have different purposes. While the second, azxotir mebaromada-ast, lit. 'it leaves the mind', is logically inferred from the speaker's first statement, this first utterance—a simile just coined by the speaker for the sake of argument—is a neat illustration of "sudden awareness of (the relevance of) a fact hitherto unappreciated"; xuddi mullogl barin buda-ast '... is just like reading-and-writing' constitutes a mirative. The Afghan Persian sentences with the morpheme xăt in this cate­ gory all have an ostensibly future reference; the final verb phrase of (47) (literally 'Since he is a scoundrel, what will he do?'—i.e., a rhe­ torical 'What is his type likely to do?!') corresponds formally to a lit­ erary Persian periphrastic future. To the extent that this construction is identical with a traditional aspectotemporal complex, we may treat it here as an epistemic verb form. However, the construction is formally unstable. Most commonly it comprises a 3rd sing, "present" of the aux­ iliary xah- 'wish, will' (xăhad, vernacular forms xăd, xăt, xă) in com­ bination with an infinitive, "short" infinitive or finite form of the main verb. The canonical form of the periphrastic future in Persian (which is generally characterized as formal or literary in style) is xăh-am raft, etc., i.e., a full six-person paradigm of the auxiliary governing the short infinitive (a non-finite form composed of the past stem with a zero ending). This corresponds in principle to the construction seen in sen­ tences (45), (47), (50), (52), (53), (65), (67) and optionally in (54) and (64). Elsewhere, the dependent verb occurs as a full infinitive (56), a "past participle" ((57); also Ioannessian, not exemplified), a finite "preterit" ((46), (62); to be discussed under section 9), "pluperfect" (59), durative past (58) and present subjunctive (51), (55), (63), (66); (54) and (64) optional; (51) and (63) also with explicit subordinizer, and (60) in further combination with a series of non-finite forms of "past participle" type). The construction with the subjunctive recapitulates that of the voli­ tional sentence in standard Persian, with two differences: [1] in mod-

246

John R. Perry

ern standard Persian the auxiliary, in addition to agreement of person, requires the aspectotemporal prefix mi-/me- (mixăh-am farda berav-am 'I want to go tomorrow'), and [2] volitional and dependent verb each occupy a separate clause and need not necessarily be juxaposed. In all of the Afghan syntagms with xăh- (never mexăh-), what­ ever their variations, the two verbs are juxtaposed and appear to par­ ticipate in a single sentence. Moreover, the predominant form is an in­ variable xăt (neg. na-xăt): only in (56) and (57) is there subject agree­ ment, which is definitively absent in (58), (59), (60), and (62) (elsewhere the 3rd sing, of the auxiliary could be either personal or im­ personal). 10. Presumptive: Present and future (48) ma'lum ast ki u fardo merafta-ast Known is that he tomorrow iMP-has-gone 'It is known that he is going tomorrow.'

(BO)

(49) "Gazetai muallimon"-ro ü har rüz mexondagi-st (BO) Gazette-of Teachers-OBJ he each day iMP-has-read-PERF n 'He apparently reads the Teachers' Gazette every day.' (50) čand daqiqé dega-am saber kunên Some minute other-too patience do —dăktar săeb dër naxăt kad (KG) Doctor sahib late NEG-will do 'Wait a few minutes more—the doctor won't/shouldn't be long.' (51) naxăt (ke) befta (KF) NEG-will that he-fall 'He won't/shouldn't fall.' (52) bë-gam bas—az yădem Without-worry be from mind-my 'Don't worry—I won't forget.'

naxăt NEG-will

raft go

(KG)

(53) eqa yax bare kull-e memănă bas naxăt This-much ice for all-of guests enough NEG-will 'This much ice won't be enough for all the guests.'

kad make

(KG)

Epistemic verb forms

247

4

(54) etû(r) naxät bälal-büd (KG) This-way NEG-WÜI be-suBj/-iNF 'I doubt it.' (polite way of disagreeing) (55) dar manzilxăhad băs'ad(KB) In house he-will be-suBJ 'He will probably be at home.' (56) sabăh wáqit xăhid raftan? (KB) Morning time you-will go-iNF 'Will you be going early in the morning?' (57) riiz-ră ănjă xăhand guzašta (sic) Day-OBJ there they-will pass-PP 'They will pass the day there.'

(KB)

(58) paysë zyătagi-ra tu gerefta xăt merafti (KF) Money extra-OBJ you taken (it-)will iMP-you-went '[I suppose] it was you who always took the extra cash.' (59) rafta xăt budan (KK) Gone (it-)will they-were 'They have perhaps (already) gone.' (60) waxtê ki kăbol bud rafiqăy-s ar-röza Time that Kabul he-was friends-his daily dida rafta boda xăt-băian-es (KF) seen PROG been (it-)will-be-suBj-him 'While he was in Kabul his friends would have seen him daily.'

The two Tajik examples could obviously be interprétable as inferential sentences if we were privy to the indirect evidence available to the speaker. That the difference of form ("durative Perfect I" vs. "durative Perfect II") does not systematically distinguish present from future ref­ erence is shown by the irregular correspondence: the type mekarda-ast refers to present time in (44), to future time in (43) and (48); the type mekardagi-st refers to present (habitual) in (49), to future in (42) and (61). It is perhaps significant that during the evolution of the two distinct constructions involving the verb xästan in literary New Persian (peri­ phrastic future and volitional clause), there are examples of mixed syntagms and other obvious transitional forms, and contexts where vari-

248

John R. Perry

ous readings are possible among volitional (the primitive sense), in­ ceptive, and future.24 (There is likewise at least one example in a mod­ ern Iranian language where a volitional verb as auxiliary, governing a dependent subjunctive, expresses a future or inceptive meaning.25) The modern Afghan idioms, differentiated from each of the canonical con­ structions but not standardized, may be in course of transition. At the least, the dependent verb forms are apparently in fairly free distribu­ tion between short infinitive and subjunctive (cf. (54), which is virtu­ ally a cliché in either variant). There is a diachronic (and semantic) analogy to be made with say ad 'perhaps'. The source verb săyestan in Middle and Early New Persian was a fully functional verb, 'to be fit, able,' tending naturally to modal auxiliation; as an auxiliary it came to be restricted to impersonal use {sayad nayăyam 'It may be that I not come', with dependent subjunc­ tive) and, in spoken Standard Persian, has finally been relexicalized as an epistemic sentence adverb {Şăyadnamiăyam 'maybe I won't come', with non-dependent indicative). Afghan Persianxăh[-am, etc.] appears similarly to have undergone limited auxiliation (as a reflex of the liter­ ary Persian "future tense"), followed by restriction to the impersonal 3rd sing., and to be now in the process of relexicalization as an epis­ temic adverb xăt 'probably'. This adverbial status is obvious in cases where the main verb bears the (non-3rd sing.) person agreement. If we delete invariable xăt from (58) and (59), the sentences are still fully formed, lacking only the epistemic (here, presumptive) nuance: (58) a. paysê zyătagi-ra tu gerefta merafti Money extra-OBJ you taken iMP-went 'It was you who always took the extra cash.' (59) a. rafta budan (budand) Gone they-were 'They had (already) gone.'

Moreover, these utterances refer to events in the past; the meaningful element introduced by xăt is no longer that of futurity, but purely that of the speaker's assessment of their degree of probability. The same is true of (60). Similarly, sentence (54) comments diagnostically on the currently perceived validity of an utterance by another ('What you (he,

Epistemic verb forms

249

etc.) said is probably not so'—the event or state in the utterance may refer to any time, even past), and (55) assesses the likelihood of a present state ('He is probably at home now'). Elsewhere, xăt and re­ lated forms appear to retain a component of futurity in their polysemy. 11. Speculative: Present and future (61) fardo meomadage-m (BO) Tomorrow iMP-we-have-come-PERF ii 'We may be coming tomorrow.' (62) ăle vaxt nadărum— farda amrăetăn Now time NEG-I-have tomorrow with-you esăb xăt kadum (KG) count (it-)will I-did 'I don't have time now—I might do accounts with you tomorrow.' (63) xăt (ke) beškena (KF) it-will that it-break-suBj 'It might break.' (64) ba-xyălem ke i qesm destgir-e To-my-fancy that this kind handle-of darwăza qawitar xăt baša/-büd (KG) door stronger will be-suBj/ INF 'I think this kind of door handle would be stronger.' (65) baretăn taklîf xăt sud (KG) For-you trouble will become INF 'It might be bothersome for you.' (66) bibi-ostok az xaw xesta xăt baša? Lady-baby from sleep risen will be-suBj 'I wonder if the baby (girl) has woken up.'

(KF)

(67) ma cum[l...] istouxă šod? (HI) We what how (it-)will become 'How do we know what will happen?' (68) naxod ki baroatba man zan mesuda bošad? (BA) NEG-will that Baroat to me wife iMP-has-become-SUBJ 'Would Baroat really marry me [I wonder]?'

250

John R. Perry

The fragmentary sentence (67) from Herat is the equivalent of Stand­ ard Persian mă ce midănim četowr xăhad sod; whatever the phonolog­ ical form of the missing segment, it is clear that the "periphrastic fu­ ture" here is explicitly speculative. Farhadi's idiomatic French transla­ tion of (66) (his no. 23) makes it plain that the statement is a euphemized imperative, a request to check on a possible eventuality: "regarde si le bébé est éveillé." Surveying the whole range of these epistemic utterances, it seems likely, from the virtual equivalence of certain sentence types, that the Tajik mekarda-ast /mekardagi-st con­ struction would correspond semantically to at least part of the range of xät in Afghan Persian ((37) and (59); (48) and (56); (61) and (62)). Now that all representative forms have been displayed, let us con­ clude our speculation on the formal evolution of this semantosyntactic cluster. It appears that in many cases a frequently-occurring personal model (xăhad raft 'he/she/it will go', 3rd sing, of the canonical "peri­ phrastic future": cf. (45), (47), (50), (53); (54) and (64) optional) has been reanalyzed as impersonal (as (52) in fact is), then the personal endings were resupplied on a non-finite component of the verbal com­ plex (usually the short infinitive), instead of the auxiliary, to give xăhad kard-am (xät kadum), etc. (46, 59, 60, 62). This process is rem­ iniscent of the well-known reanalysis which transformed the passive type mană krta-m 'made by me' in Old Persian into the active man kardam T made' of Middle and New Persian. It is a further grammaticalization involving a temporal (and perhaps already modal) auxiliary, in which affix-hopping may be adverbializing the verb (as suggested above, section 10). It should not be surprising, therefore, to find new modal meanings mapped onto the changing morphosyntax of this clus­ ter.26 Perhaps related to this development is the impersonal deprecative construction with na-xăhad 'may [god] not wish' and a following sub­ junctive—shown here in a Tajik example (68), but occurring also in Persian of Iran and Afghanistan with the same connotations of disbe­ lief or astonishment. The speculative sense here is generated not only by the frozen naxod but by the form of the dependent verb: a "durative perfect" in the subjunctive (cf. the indicative forms and meanings in (42) and (49)), which has been characterized in its own right as a du­ bitative.27

Epistemic verb forms

251

Semantically, no observer is in any doubt that the forms with xăt signal an indirective mode—a contingent, not a neutral, future tense (Glassman); a dubitative, expressing presumption or conjecture (Farhădi, Ioannessian):28 in spoken Persian (especially that of Afghan­ istan) the unmarked future is expressed by the "present tense." Prag­ matically, xăt constructions appear to be favored in affective contexts such as reassurance (50, 51, 52) and remonstration, apology or polite request (54, 65, 66). There are obvious analogies with English usage (cf. the translation of (54)): 'It simply won't do', as a euphemistic re­ jection of a current (or even past) situation or behavior; 'That'll be him now' (presumptive), said when an expected visitor—as yet unseen— is at the door (contrast 'That's him', when the identification is certain). 'He'll be coming tomorrow' is presumptive (= 'He's probably coming tomorrow'), less categorical than 'He's coming tomorrow'. 12. Conclusion The categories and examples discussed here have been presented in what I hope is a heuristically convenient order. If I attempted to draw up an epistemic sliding scale, a hierarchy of reliability of knowledge, I would arrange them somewhat differently. Such a procedure may not be useful; on the other hand, Iranists especially have been reluctanct to separate the arguably aspectotemporal meanings of the "perfect" verb forms from their epistemic nuances. That there is some sort of con­ tinuum, both synchronic and diachronic, linking the aspectotemporal and the epistemic poles of certain verbal complexes, has been suggest­ ed in different ways by Windfuhr, Lazard and Johanson, among others, and seems also to emerge from the data presented here. If epistemic utterances comment on the nature, limits or validity of the speaker's knowledge of his topic, it follows that such comments should include not only an admission that his knowledge may be sec­ ond-hand, inferential or intuited (and hence unprovable) or that it may have come as a surprise, but also a declaration that his knowledge may be unassailable and unexceptionable by virtue of commonsense expe­ rience, sincere belief or some similar convention (even though unprov­ able, at least in the immediate context). This is no less an epistemic

252

John R. Perry

statement than the former. In Persian, a diagnostic statement about a past event or state tends to select a form of the "perfect tense," thus dif­ ferentiating the statement from a narrative or eyewitness account; this is Windfuhr's "distanced past" and Lazarďs "médiatif," by which the speaker signals a degree or kind of detachment from the topic of his utterance. Consider the following sentences of Standard Persian: (69) dar in sarzamin hamişe bărănhă-ye seylăsă In this region always rains torrential mi-băride-and (WP) iMP-have-rained 'In this region there always used to be torrential rains.'

•

; /!' (70) kasi tă be hâl be serăfat-e ăn nay-oftăde va Person till to state to idea-of that NEG-fallen and zahmat-e tatabbo'va taftis dar kotob-ră trouble-of tracking and search in books-OBJ dar in bab be xod răh na-dăde bude-ast (JL) in this topic to self way NEG-had given-pp 'No one so far had come up with the idea or had taken the trouble to research this topic'

The "durative perfect" and "past pluperfect" here are both character­ ized by Lazard as "rétrospectif,"29 i.e., the situation described by the speaker has since changed; there is no suggestion that it might not have been so, and the question of how the speaker acquired his information (by direct experience or hearsay, inference, etc.) remains open. The speaker's comment is thus "distanced" from its topic by a shift in the time frame or, following Johanson's terminology, by the dynamics of aspectual terminality; it is not indirective or epistemic in any of the senses postulated above. Nevertheless, I would argue that since the speaker frames and signals this viewpoint for a rhetorical purpose (to dramatize the consequences of the rains, say, or the subsequent break­ through in research—perhaps by the speaker himself!), these state­ ments are to an extent epistemic in that they foreground the speaker's conviction of the relevance of the event or state he describes to his sub­ sequent argument. In this respect they bear comparison with the mirative, which for rhetorical purposes introduces new (or neglected) infor­ mation with a dramatic flourish. Many similar uses of the "perfect" in

Epistemic verb forms

253

Persian would qualify for this interpretation; they are found in the kind of utterance which, in oral presentation, is often prefaced by an atten­ tion-getting cliché such as arz konam ike) ... 'May I state (that) I will conclude by suggesting that this and other rhetorical situa­ tions may repay further study in the context of epistemic verb forms; and by including this type under the provisional designation "constative" in a tentative hierarchy of epistemicity in Persian. The following list ranks the semantic categories exemplified above in descending or­ der of "perceived reliability of knowledge,"30 together with a note of the varieties of Persian in which they have been observed, my short­ hand term for each category, and other designations used for them in the literature cited. 1. "I declare that...": P., Af., Tj. Constative (includes at least some rétrospectif and passé révolu). 2. "I've just realized that...": Tj. Mirative (admirative; some rétro­ spectif). 3. "I've heard that...": P., Af., Tj. Quotative (rapport d'autrui, non-witnessed, non-testimonial, evidential, neočevidnoe/ non-evi­ dent). 4.1 "I infer that...": P., Af. ("perfect" and "future"), Tj. Inferential (evidential, neočevidnoe I non-evident). 4.2. "I presume that...": P., Af. ("perfect" and "future"), Tj. Presump­ tive [predpolozitel'noe I sarti I conditional). 4.3. "I guess that...": P., Af. ("perfect" and "future"), Tj. Speculative (conjectural, predpolozitel'noe, etc). I have hardly addressed here the main issue as it appears in the works of Iranists who have pondered the question of "evidentiality"—indeed, the question that seems to have suggested the detailed analysis of indi­ rectives, mediated, utterances, and epistemic verb forms in Persian to start with, viz: What is the nature of the temporal, aspectual and se­ mantic role of the "perfect tense" and its derivatives, minimally the forms karde-ast, mikarde-ast, karde bude-ast, kardagi-st and mekardagi-sü How do we unpack their polysemantic portmanteaus and relate

254

John R. Perry

them, paradigmatically and syntactically, to each other and to other aspectotemporal forms of the Persian verb? Where are the boundaries between their traditional (and actual) functions as postterminals or resultatives and their intuited (and demonstrable) roles as epistemic sig­ nals? It is to be hoped that the above consolidation of new and hitherto scattered and neglected data, and the suggestions for relating them, will stimulate further investigation of this many-faceted topic. •\ j • '

r.

f

•

Notes 1. Cf. the subtitle of Chafe—Nichols (1986), "The linguistic coding of epistemology"; and Hopper—Traugott (1993: 79), where "epistemic" is applied to the ex­ pression of possibility and probability. 2. As yet I have had access only to the abstract of this dissertation, not to the com­ plete work. 3. I have only been able to examine Part II of this publication. 4. Glassman (1970: 111, 232); Farhădi (1955: 79, 87). 5. E.g., the Persian grammars of J.A. Boyle (1966: f 911 (b) note); A.K.S. Lambton (1960: 65); G. Lazard (1957: f 227.3); W.M. Thackston (1993: f 61.1(a)). 6. Johanson (1999: 78. 7. Lazard (1985: 32 (No. 14)); Windfuhr (1982: 278 (No. 23)). 8. See, respectively, Johanson, Friedman, Boeder, and Leinonen, (this volume). 9. Farhădi (1981: 47); my paraphrase of the Persian, emphasis supplied. 10. Farhădi (1981: 47). 11. Mă'el, 40, cited in Perry (1979: 450^151). 12. Friedman (1981: 16). 13. Rastorgueva (1979: 115). It occurs frequently in material presented by Rozenfel'd (1971), but in no case does it unambiguously connote an indirective sense. 14. Cf. Lazard (1985: 28, 33). Lazard's four categories, (1) 'rapport d'autrui' (cor­ responding to my 'quotative'), (2) 'inference' , (3) 'passé révolu' (distanced past) and (4) 'rétrospective' (corresponding in some examples to my "mirative"; see above) are recapitulated in the order (4), (2), (1), (3) in Lazard (1966). 15. For the elision of the copula ast, see Windfuhr (1982: 267). 16. Cf. Windfuhr (1982: 281). 17. Windfuhr (1982: 269). Discussing this example and sentence 23, Lazard (1985 : 33) maintains that [karde] bude-ast cannot be synonymous with băyad [karde] băsad 'he must have [done]'. 18. Prosedsee vremja predpolozitel'nogo naklonenijď: Rastorgueva (1954: 559), (1963: 77). Paper's translation 'conditional' for predpolozitel'noe, 'presump­ tive, conjectural' is misleading; curiously, Amonova (1991: 6) also calls these

Epistemic verb forms

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

255

verb forms, in Persian, sarti 'conditional'. The intended sense is no doubt 'con­ tingent'. See Rastorgueva (1954: 560-561), (1963: 80-81). Lazard (1996: 21). Rastorgueva (1954: 554, 559), (1963: 63-64, 77-78); Lazard (1996: 29-30). Rastorgueva (1954: 555), (1963: 66), esp. the example beginning ana binobar in...; this is not an epistemic use, but a durative past. Farhădi (1955: 79); Kieffer (1983: 509). See Xánlari (1987, Vol. 3: 288-296). See Majidi (1980, 48, 126, 134); and the review of this by Perry (1984: 315). Cf. the discussion of English modals in Hopper—Traugott (1993: 79-86). Rastorgueva (1954: 558), (1963: 74-5); (Lazard 1996: 30). Glassman (1970: 281); Farhădi (1955: 86); Ioannessian (1987: 15). Lazard (1985: 38), (1996: 23). Cf. Chafe (1986: 262-267). Chafe's categories and rankings (esp. in Figure 1, p. 263) are not directly applicable to this listing.

References Aminová, Gulnora. 1996 Oral information. (SA) Amonova, F. R. 1991/ "Soxani az tafävot'hä-ye fărsi-ye Iran va tăjiki" [Differences between 1370 Persian of Iran and Tajik], Majalle-ye zabănsenăsi 8/1-2, 2-11. (BA) Bogdanov, L. 1930 "Stray notes on Kabuli Persian", Journal of the Asiatic Society of Ben­ gal, N.S. 26, 1-124. (KB) Chafe, Wallace 1986 "Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing", in: Chafe, Wallace—Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding ofepistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 261-272. Farhădi, Abd-ul-Ghafur [Ravăn] 1955 Le persan parlé en Afghanistan. Paris. (KF) Farhădi, Ravăn 1981/ Zabăn-e tăjiki-ye Mă-vară al-nahr [Tajik of Transoxiana]. Kabul. 1360 (BF) Friedman, Victor A. 1981 "Admirativity and confirmativity", Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 17: 12-28. (XF) Glassman, Eugene H. 1970 Conversational Dări. Kabul. (KG)

256

John R. Perry

Hopper, Paul J.—Elizabeth Closs Traugott 1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ioannesian, Iulii A. 1987 Dialekt sovremmenogo dari raiona g. Gerata. Avtoreferat dissertacii... [The Dari dialect of Herat district. Dissertation abstract], Moscow. (HI) Johanson, Lars 2000 "Viewpoint operators in European languages", in: Osten Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kieffer, Charles 1983 "Afghanistan, v. Languages", in: E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopœdia lranica I: 509. (KK) Lazard, Gilbert. 1985 "L'inférentiel ou passé distancié en persan", Studia Iranica 14:27^2. (PL) 1996 "Le médiatif en persan", in: Z. Guentchéva, (ed.), L'Enonciation médiatisée, Louvain - Paris: Peeters, 21-30. (JL) Mâ'el, Mohammad Äsaf 1969/ Tărix bară-ye senf-e panjom-e ebtedä'i [History for the fifth grade], 1348 Kabul? Majidi, M. R. 1980 Strukturelle Beschreibung des iranischen Dialekts der Stadt Semnan. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. John R. Perry 1979 "Uzbek influence on Tajik syntax: The converb constructions", in: Paul R. Clyne—William F. Hanks—Carol L. Hofbauer (eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, including Pa­ pers from the Conference on Non-Slavic languages of the USSR- Chi­ cago Linguistic Society, 448-461. 1984 Review of Majidi, Strukturelle Beschreibung des iranischen Dialekts der Stadt Semnan; in: Iranian Studies 17: 312-315. Rajä'i, Ahmad 'Ali 1964/ Yăddăsti dar băre-ye lahje-ye Boxară'i [A note on the Bukhara dia1343 lect], Mashad. (BR) Rastorgueva, V. S. 1954 Kratkij očerk grammatiki tadžikskogo jazyka [A short sketch of Tajik grammar], in: Rahimi, M. V.—L. V. Uspenskaja, Tadliksko-russkij slovar'. [Tajik-Russian dictionary]. Moscow, 529-570. 1963 Translated by H. H. Paper, A short sketch of Tajik grammar. Bloomington, IA: Indiana University/The Hague: Mouton, 1-110). (BO) Rastorgueva, V. S. (ed.) 1979 Ševai janubii zaboni tojiki. [The southern dialect of Tajik], Dushanbe. (JR)

Epistemic verb forms

257

Rozenfel'd, R. Z. 1971 Badaxšanskie govory tadiikskogo jazyka [Badakhshan dialects of Tajik]. Leningrad University. Windfuhr, Gemot 1982 "The verbal category of inference in Persian", in: Monumentům Georg Morgenstierne, II (Acta Iranica 22), 263-287. (PW) Xánlari [Khanlari], P. N. 1987/ Tărix-e zabăn-e fărsi [History of Persian]. Tehran. 1366 Zeyrek, Deniz 1994 "The function of -mis in Turkish folktales", Journal ofTurkology 2/2: 293-303. (TZ)

Abbreviations EV—evidential affix, EX—exclamation, FOC—focus marker, IMP—imperfect tense form, INF—infinitive, NEG—negative marker, OBJ—(direct) object marker, PERF— perfect tense form, PERF II—perfect tense form in -agi- or -ast-, PP—past participle form, PROG—progressive tense, SUBJ—subjunctive.

Traces of evidentiality in Classical New Persian Bo Utas The phenomenon to be discussed here appears to be somewhat elusive, which is apparent already from the rather unsettled terminology. For the purposes of this paper I shall assume that "evidential" is the broad­ est term, including both directive (based on the direct evidence of the speaker) and indirective (based on indirect evidence, like hearsay or inference). A main question would be whether a given language, at a given stage and in a given register, shows grammaticalised means of expressing one or more levels of those perspectives on an action. As for New Persian, which has been known in a great number of varieties for more than one thousand years, an investigation of this sort must needs be quite complicated. Recent attempts at establishing such a grammaticalisation in New Persian are mainly based on modern Iranian New Persian, and before passing to my main topic, i.e. possible traces of evidentiality or rather indirectivity in Classical New Persian, I shall briefly review those at­ tempts. One of the latest statements1 of this is found in the concise grammatical description of "Persian" by Gemot Windfuhr (1987: 537). There he maintains that "the complex forms mi-raft-e ast, which combines imperfective mi- with the perfect -e, and raft-é bud-e ast, a double perfect, express remote past in the literary register" but in the colloquial language "what they express is the category of inference, that is mainly second-hand knowledge, conclusion and reminiscence." He adds: "In this they are joined by the perfect form raft-é ast which also functions as the inferential aorist." He exemplifies this with a quite complex sentence which conveniently enough contains all three forms in question: (1)

zaher-án nevisandé, vàqt-i ăn năme-ră mi-nevest-è (ast), xód-aš-ra Apparently writer when that letter-OBJ DUR-write-pp (is) self-his-OBj bă in ampúl-i, ke ruz-e qàbl xarid-è bud-é (ast), košt-é (ast). with this injection-ART which day-OF before buy-pp be-pp (is) kill-pp (is) 'Apparently, the writer killed himself with this injection, which he had bought the day before, while he was writing that letter.' (Transi. Windfuhr)

260

Bo Utas

Windfuhr gives no source for this sentence, but it hardly consists of directly recorded "colloquial" phrases, but is rather a literary elaboration taken from a magazine or newspaper.2 The series of phrases containing the supposed inferential forms, mi-nevešt-e (ast), xarid-e bud-e (ast) and kost-e (ast), are introduced by the not very colloquial adverb zâher-an, 'evidently'. In this description, however, inferentiality is suggested to be grammaticalised in this particular way only in the modern, colloquial language. This seems to be a partial retreat from the views on inferentiality previously proposed by Windfuhr (1985: 416—431). The "spatial model" presented there is a complicated structure, difficult to evaluate. Without giving supporting examples, Windfuhr again presents the three Persian forms, mi-raft-e-ast, raft-e-ast and raft-e bud-e ast, as indicative "inferential past", this time matched by a non-indicative, partly coinciding series called "infèrent.[ial] c.[ounter]-f.[actual]": mi-raft-e ast, raft-e bas-ad and raft-e bud-e ast (in a table on p. 416). Here "Persian" seems to refer to the modern standard language in general. No distinction is made between "the literary register" and "colloquial". Before that, the ideas about a Persian "inferential" had been developed in an exchange between Gilbert Lazard and Gemot Windfuhr. In 1985 Gilbert Lazard published a fundamental article on this phenomenon: "L'inférentiel ou passé distancié", in which he builds on Windfuhr's quite comprehensive paper "The verbal category of inference in Persian", published in 1982. The conclusions of the two articles are rather similar. Lazard (1985: 27) summarises the uses of the series karde-ast, mikarde-ast and karde bude-ast (adding also a progressive form dášte mikarde-ast) as "passé distancié", following what Windfuhr had called "distanced past" (1982: 281). Windfuhr (1982: 264-269) makes a careful review of what other grammarians have made out of these forms, adding also a pluperfect with m/-prefix: mikarde bud (p. 266). For the latter form he refers to a counterfactual (agar) kande mibudam' 'if I had dug' found in Phillott (1919: 232). But there this form is declared to be "of doubtful accuracy" (with reference to a Classical kanda büdame) in a footnote illustrated by this poetic quotation:

Evidentiality in Classical New Persian 261 (2)

Qăzî-î tanhă sab-i mï-rafta büd I Qazi-ONE alone night-ONE DUR-go-pp was sü-yi bustăn did duzd-I hamču düd. side-OF garden saw thief-ONE like smoke 'One night a Qazi was going alone towards a garden. / When he saw a thief (pass him) like smoke.' (Transi. Phillott)

This is obviously no case of counterfactuality; if it is reported or not can not be decided from the available context. This form is, in the end, left out of the summarising chart of Windfuhr (1982: 281): direct past inferential past

(imperfective) mikard mikarde

(aorist) kard karde ast

(perfective) karde bud karde bude ast

Here Windfuhr introduces the concept "inferential", but he is basing this on a suggestion of Gilbert Lazard (1957: 148) of the existence of "un petit système du passé révolu" in Iranian Persian. Windfuhr takes this "passé révolu" in the meaning "distance' rather than "distanf past, referring both to time and location of the speaker, and regards it as the wider category within which inferentiality may be realised. Windfuhr (1982: 282-283) also turns our attention to an article by the Iranian language reformer Ahmad Kasravi, originally published in 1938, which among a great variety of proposed verbal forms lists our three "inferential" forms as nadide 'unseen' and equates them with the Azeri Turkic forms yaz-'ir-mïs, yaz-mïs/yaz-ïp and yaz-mïs-mïs, respectively. Windfuhr (1982: 283) adds: "Note also that the double function of the perfect he found in Persian may well be conditioned by the difference between -miš and -ip." Lazard's suggestion had been taken up by Windfuhr already in his State-of-the-Art Report on Persian Grammar for Trends of Linguistics in 1979, but there he placed the three forms in question in the category "reported speech", with the past tenses summarised in the following way for "contemporary literary Persian" (1979: 90): past

-reported +reported

-anterior +anterior -anterior +anterior

imperfective mixaridam mixaride (ast)

perfective xaridam xaride budam xaride (ast) xaride bude (ast)

262

Bo Utas

For early Persian ( 1 Oth-12th centuries), however, he assumes a distinction between the two subsystems of the past as +/-resultative instead of +/-reported (1979: 93). I shall come back to that point. As already mentioned, Windfuhr took his starting-point from Lazard (1957: 148), where he remarks that whereas [Iranian] Persian has developed this "petit système du passé révolu": karde-am "j'ai fait", mikarde-am "je faisais", karde bude-am "j'avais fait",4

the Tajik language has created "un nouveau mode, que Rastorgueva appelle résultatif. Les formes de ce nouveau mode ... présentent le procès non pas purement et simplement comme réel, ce qui est la fonction de l'indicatif, mais comme le résultat d'une constatation, d'un raisonnement, d'un propos entendu (ou lu), nuances qui peuvent être rendus par 'alors, donc, à ce que je vois, dit-on, paraît-il' ". In a footnote he criticises various Russian designations of this category and suggests instead the term "médiatif '.5 With this we stand, I think, at the sources of the systematization of this evidential category in New Persian. The idea obviously comes from investigations of the Tajik language by Soviet scholars. There we especially find it elaborated by V. S. Rastorgueva, e.g. in the sketch of Tajik grammar appended to the Tadžiksko-russkij slovar'. She distinguishes between/ormy očevidnye (1954: 552)—"evident forms" in the translation by Herbert Paper (1963: 59)—and formy neočevidnye (1954: 554)—"non-evident (or narrative) forms" in the translation by Paper (1963: 63). The latter are listed as: "perfect (non-evident past tense)" xondaam, "durative perfect (non-evident durative tense)" mexondaam, "pluperfect perfect (non-evident pluperfect tense)" xonda budaam, "definite (or progressive) perfect (non-evident definite or progressive tense)" xonda istoda budaam (English terminology according to Paper 1963).

So far we have regarded modern Persian and the attempts at establish­ ing a system of grammaticalised expressions of indirect evidentially or 'inferentiality' in it. As far as I know, nobody has tried to establish a similar system for Classical New Persian. Windfuhr writes in a foot­ note (1982: 263, n. 2) that he intends to discuss "the distribution of this

Evidentiality in Classical New Persian

263

category in earlier forms and dialects of Persian, in other Iranian lan­ guages and symbiotic languages as well as general linguistic implica­ tions ... in an upcoming sequel to this article." Apparently, this discus­ sion never appeared. There is, however, an indirect comment on the early classical situation in Windfuhr (1979: 93), where he categorizes the second series of past forms (the modern "inferentials") as resultative, thus: +durative -resultative -anterior6 mëxaridam +anterior mëxarida budam +resultative -anterior mëxarida am +anterior mëxarida budam

-durative/-perfective xaridam xarida budam xarida (ast) am xarida buda (ast) am

+perfective bixaridam bixarida budam bixarida am bixarida budam

On the whole, this paradigm of the verbal forms of the early classical language causes difficulties. The actual verbal system seems more fluid than that, with the various elements, such as past stem, parti­ ciples, auxiliaries, prefixes and suffixes, more freely combinable. A fixed, grammaticalised system, like the one suggested here by Windfuhr, leaves so many combinations unaccounted for that its explanato­ ry power must be questioned. Windfuhr himself recognises (1979: 93) "that bi, (ha)mě, and the negative as well as the suffix ë may co-occur in various combinations, if only rarely." To my knowledge this is not so rare, and the suffix -e, expressing durativity, habituality or counterfactuality, is even missing in his chart. The use of bi as a marker of perfectivity seems doubtful, as already pointed out by Lazard (1963: 298326). Furthermore, I am not certain that the distinction +/-resultative suggested by Windfuhr can be borne out by the distribution of these forms in the actual texts. However we best arrange the early New Persian verbal system, there seems to be no place for a grammaticalised category of inference or the like. The special forms we have discussed with regard to the modern language, i.e. the perfect with the «/-prefix, of the classical type mï-karda ast, and the double perfect, of the classical type karda buda ast, occur only isolatedly. I have looked in vain for instructive examples of the mě-perfect in early texts and can do no better than refer to Lazard (1963: 295), who gives a handful of examples, stat-

264

Bo Utas

ing that this form is employed "avec la valeur d'un passé indéfini". One of those examples even combines the prefixes ml- (properly më-) and bi-\ (3)

az pas-i paighambarăn a'imma-i din ham bar în büda-and From after-OF prophets imams-OF religion also on this be-pp-are ki haqq-i bait al-măl mï-bi-sitada-and. that rights-OF treasury DUR-PREV-take-pp-are 'Après les prophètes les imams de la religion ont, de même, (toujours) reçu leur part du Trésor.' (Kašf al-mahjüb of Hujvïrî, d. 1072/73; transi. Lazard)

In later classical language mê-perfects appear now and then, but generally without conceivable inferential meaning (or even distanced past), as in this example from the Nafahăt ul-uns of Jămî (of 1476 A.D.), referring to the work of Ansărî leading to the Tabaqät us-süfiya, as based on SulamL (4)

suxanăn-i digar-i ba'zîazmasăyix ki darin kitäbmazkür na-šuda Words-OF other-OF some of shaikhs who in this book mentioned not-become-pp va ba'zi az azvăq va mavâjïd-i xvadbar an mïy-afzûd va yak-ï az and some of intuitions and in ventions-OF self on that DUR-added and one-ONE of muhibbăn va murldanăn-ră jam' mï-karda va dar qaid-i loving-PLUR and pupils that-OBJ collection DUR-make-pp andin bond-OF kitâbat mîy-avarda writing DUR-bring-PP 'He added to it other words of some of the shaikhs who were not mentioned in this book and some of his own intuitions and inventions, and one of [his] loving pupils collected it and put it into writing.' (Jam! 1337: 4)

Examples of the double perfect are also uncommon. Again the best thing I can do is to refer to Lazard (1963: 342), who furnishes us with a few examples, e.g.: (5)

sabhă ki ü xvas xufta bûda-ast va man az bahr-i ü jang Nights when he well sleep-pp be-PP-is and I for sake-OF he battle karda-am make-PP-am 'Les nuits où j'ai combattu pour lui, tandis qu'il dormait paisiblement.' (Iskandarnăma, around llthcent. A.D.; transi. Lazard)

Here the double perfect, xufta buda ast, may be regarded as a special

Evidentiality in Classical New Persian

265

case, xuftan being a transformative verb 'go to bed/sleep', the perfect tense of which has a present meaning. Up to now I have not commented upon the simple perfect. It is the functional and interpretational possibilities of this form that have been declared the basis for the development of the series of "inferential" forms in the modern language, expressed by its filling two slots in the system proposed by Lazard and Windfuhr. Is it possible to show the same range of meaning in the classical language? An analysis of the classical perfect, of the type karda-am, and its shadow paradigm, the so-called 'perfectum secundum', type kard-astam, is a big and compli­ cated task, which can not be fully accomplished here. The last-men­ tioned second series of early classical perfect forms is based on the old past stem (= the past participle) and is probably formed with an auxil­ iary based on present forms of the verb estădan/istădan 'to stand': 1. sg. 2. 3.

kard-astam kard-astï kard-ast

pi.

kard-astëm kard-astëd kard-astand

It should be noted that the third person singular coincides with the contracted (or rather older) form of the ordinary perfect (and there is even a possibility that this is the basis of the whole new perfect paradigm). According to Jeremiáš (1993: 107-110), who recently discussed these perfectum secundum forms, they have little if any difference in meaning from the ordinary perfect and do not have any special indirective function. A further complication that can not be treated here is the tendency of using bare perfect participles in positions that imply functions of a perfect. These are generally regarded simply as shortened forms and are treated accordingly by grammarians. This might not be the whole truth, however. It should, no doubt, be investigated more deeply, but must still be accepted here. There are obvious difficulties involved in discerning semantic distinctions in old texts. The method of testing possible changes of meaning by exchanging one verbal form with another is quite uncertain, if at all possible, in these contexts. But let us look at some concrete examples of perfect forms with possible indirective shades of meaning. Here is one example from the Gülistan of Sa'dï (d. 1292):

266 (6)

Bo Utas băr-l vazir az samăyil-i ü dar hazrat-i malik simma-'ï mı-guft ki Once vazir of qualities-OF he in presence-OF king something DUR-said that tarbiyat-i 'ăqilăn dar-ü asar karda-ast va jahl-i qadïm az teaching-OF wise-PLUR on-he effect make-pp-is and ignorance-OF previous from jibillat-i ü ba-dar burda, malik tabassum ămad u gufi nature-OF he away bring-pp king smile came and said 'Once the vazir mentioned something of his qualities in the presence of the king saying: 'the teaching of the wise men has had an effect on him and has taken away the previous ignorance from his nature' ; the king smiled and said ...'(Sa'dïl340: 19)

The point of the story is that the fine education had only apparently changed the character of a certain son of a robber, but is this "apparently" really expressed through the use of the perfect (asar karda ast)! How could we possibly know? Another example: (7)

dar In isnă nivišta-yi Laulau ba-săh-i Misrămad ki čunan In this interval letter-OF L. to-king-OF M. came that thus ba-mă rasida ki Bahman ba-šahr-i tô rafta-ast , to-we reach-PP that B. to-country-OF you go-pp-is 'In the meantime a letter by Laulau came to the king of Misr saying: 'it has reached us that Bahman has gone to your country.' (Tarsus! 1344: 7)

The context tells us beyond a doubt that the journey of Bahman was 'reported' to, not witnessed by, this Laulau, and the perfect might ex­ press some distance to this statement. But again: it is not necessary for a reader to bother about this, because the state of the matter is clear from the context anyway. It should be noticed that the 'reporting' is also expressed by the (abbreviated) perfect. This Dărăb-năma presents, on the whole, an interesting text as re­ gards expressions of past action, since it is obviously based on oral sto­ ry-telling and employs a somewhat lower and freer style than the ordi­ nary adab prose of the time (6th cent. A.H.). Here is another example of a perfect form in a possible indirective context: (8)

vazir... gUyad ki šumá darvlš büdîd va ïn măi az kujă Vazir says that you poor were and these riches from where hăsil kardld? sumă juz ganj na-yăfta-îd acquisition made you except treasure not-find-PP-are 'The vazir ... says: you were poor, and from where have you got these riches?

Evidentiality in Classical New Persian

267

You must have found (lit. have found nothing but) a treasure.' (Tarsusi 1344: 14)

Here we seem to have a certain contrast between the simple past forms in the first sentence (büdîd, kardïd) and the perfect (na-yăfta-îd) in the second, inferring sentence. (9)

tün ma'lüm kardam ki tö farzand-i man büda-î az zindan When known I made that you child-OF I be-pp-are from prison dar ăvardam-at ...va în xabar dar vilăyat uftăd ki Dărăb out I brought-you and this news in province fell that D. pisar-i amir Mardü büda-ast son-OF amir M. be-pp-is 'When I got to know that you must be my child, I brought you out of prison ... and this news spread in the province that Dărăb had turned out to be the son of amir Mardü.' (Tarsus! 1344: 21)

This is an interesting example, but my indirect translation might not be necessary. Maybe rather an adverb such as az avval ('from the begin­ ning/all the time') is implied. Or perhaps that would have been ex­ pressed by mi-perfects: mî-büda-ı and mî-büda-astl In other instances, however, the simple (aoristic) past may occur in similar contexts in the same text: (10) amir Amir 'Amir men?'

Mardü guft ai 'ajab măgar mardăn-ră kăr-î uftăd M. said o wonder maybe men-OBJ something befell Mardü said: o [I] wonder, could something have happened to [my] (Tarsus! 1344: 18)

Here, the indirect question marked by magar may have decided the choice of verbal form. An example of a reported statement expressed by the simple past may be adduced from the Safar-năma of Năsir-i Khusrau (11th centu­ ry): (11) hikăyat kardand ki bad-in šahr zilzila uftăd Story they made that on-this city earthquake fell 'They told [us] that an earthquake had hit this city.' (Năsir-i Khusrau 1335: 7)

However, one manuscript is reported to have the variant uftăda, i.e. the

268

Bo Utas

bare past participle; this indicates something of the considerable textological uncertainties that must be taken into account in the evaluation of such texts. It is, of course possible, to adduce innumerable examples of this type, but I do not think that will help us to distinguish clearly between different types of meaning in the early and late classical perfect forms. We have to assume that they cover a rather broad range of meaning, extending also to the reported and inferred, but it may remain beyond the reach of a modern reader to grasp in how far these forms were used expressively to indicate indirecţi vity. Apart from the shades of meaning that possibly could be traced in the perfect, an indirectiv perspective on action may, of course, be ex­ pressed by various semantic means in Classical New Persian. These can be of many types, e.g.: (12) va dar šahr-i lxlăt ba-si zabăn suxan güyand: tăzî u părsî u And in city-OFl. in-three language word they say Arabic and Persian and armanı va zann-i man ăn buvad ki lxlăt bad-ïn sabab năm-i Armenian and surmise-OF I that is that I. for-this reason name-oF ăn šahr nihăda-and that city put-PP-they are 'And in the city of Ikhlät they speak in three languages: Arabic, Persian and Armenian, and it is my surmise that they have given it the name Ikhlăt for that reason." (Năsir-i Khusrau 1335: 7)

Here an expression for surmise is followed by the perfect. (13) va ba-har panjăh gaz-ï burj-ï 'azimsăxta, ham az în sang-i And on-each fifty gaz-ONE tower-ONE big make-PP also from this stone-OF safid ki gufta sud, va sar-i bâra hama kungura-hă bar-nahăda white which say-PP became and top-OF wall everywhere turrets on-place-PP čunan-ki güyı imrüz ustăd dast az vai kašlda so that you would say to-day master hand from it take-PP 'And at every fifty gaz a big tower was made, also from this white stone which was mentioned, and on top of the wall everywhere turrets were placed, so that it were as if the master had taken his hands from it that very day.' (Năsir-i Khusrau 1335: 8)

An expression for assumption (here rhetorical), literally meaning 'so that you would say [that]', is followed by the bare past participle.

Evidentiality in Classical New Persian

269

Another example using just cunăn-ki 'so that/as if may be adduced from the Tazkirat ul-auliyă' of 'Attăr (d. c. 1220): (14) yak sab bar taxt xufta büd něm-šab saqf-i xăna bi-junbïd One night on throne asleep he was mid-night roof-OF house PREV-shook cunăn-ki kas-ë bar băm më-ravad as-if someone on roof DUR-walks 'One night he was sleeping on the throne; at midnight the ceiling of the hall shook as if someone were walking on the roof.' ('Attăr 1905: 86)

The conjunction cunăn-ki 'as if is followed by a present form with the durative prefix më-, i.e. the king (of Balkh, Ibrahim b. Adham) inferred that someone was walking on the roof (his thoughts are quite regularly expressed by the present tense). In the next sentence he shouts: "Who is it?" In summary, I must admit that the result of my investigation is meagre and mainly to be expressed in the negative. There seems to be no regular way in Classical New Persian, neither grammatical nor se­ mantic, of expressing an inferential or reportative perspective on an action. When necessary, there is a great variety of semantic means of making such a perspective explicit, but no regular construction or lex­ ical item, particle, adverb or the like, appears to be specifically used for this purpose. The complex forms {mî-perfect and double perfect) that are supposed to have such a function in modern Persian, are ex­ tremely rare in the classical language and do not seem to convey espe­ cially this meaning. The simple perfect, however, has a range of func­ tions that include obvious cases of inference and report. In the inherent meanings of this form it is, of course, possible to see a starting-point for a later systematic development. Notes 1- Wormser 1987: 21-28 also includes two paragraphs on indirectivity in Modern Persian, and Rossi 1989 likewise mentions Persian "inferentials" in connection with his study of such forms in Baluchi. 2- Cf. Lazard, this volume, p. 210, remarking that it is presumably a description of the suicide of the writer Sădeq Hedăyat. The brackets around the copula ast added to the participles found in the quotation by Windfuhr are missing in the version by Lazard.

270

Bo Utas

3. Note the shifting position of the mi-prefix ! 4. Cf. also Lazard 1957: 144-149, where "passé révolu" is desribed as one of the two principal values of the perfect forms ("le parfait", "l'imparfait composé" and "le passé surcomposé"). 5. Cf. Lazard, this volume! 6. Corrected from '+anterior\

References 'Attăr, Farïd ud-dln .n 1905 Tazkirat ul-auliyď, ed. by R. Nicholson. London-Leiden: Brill. Comrie, Bernard (ed.) 1987 The world's major languages. London: Routledge de Fouchécour, C.-H.—Ph. Gignoux (eds.) 1989 Etudes irano-aryennes offertes à Gilbert Lazard. (Studia Iranica, Cahier 7). Paris. Jămî, 'Abd ur-Rahmăn ' e, 1337 Nafahăt ul-uns, ed. by M TauhïdîpOr. Tehran: Mahmüdî. . :•• Jeremiáš, Éva 1993 "On the genesis of the periphrastic progressive in Iranian languages", in: W. Skalmowski-A. van Tongerloo (eds.), 99-116. Lazard, Gilbert 1956 "Caractères distinctifs de la langue tadjik", Bulletin de la Société de linguistique 52 (publ. 1957): 117-147. 1957 Grammaire du persan contemporain. Paris: Klincksieck. 1963 La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose persane. Paris: Klincksieck. 1985 "L'inférentiel ou passé distancié en persan", Studia Iranica 14: 2742. this volume Le médiatif: considérations théoriques et application à l'iranien. Năsir-i Khusrau 1335 Safar-näma, ed. by M. Dablr Siyăqî. Tehran: Zavvär. Phillott, D. C. 1919 Higher Persian grammar for the use of the Calcutta University show­ ing differences between Afghan and Modern Persian. Calcutta: Uni­ versity. Rastorgueva, V. S. 1954 "Kratkij očerk grammatiki tadžikskogo jazyka", in: M. V. Raximi-L. V. Uspenskaja, 527-570. 1963 A short sketch of Tajik grammar, transi, by H. H. Paper. (International Journal of American Linguistics 29:4).

Evidentiality in Classical New Persian

271

Raximi, M. V.—L. V. Uspenskaya 1954 Tadžiksko-russkij slovar'. Moskva: GUNS Rossi, Adriano V. 1989 "L'inferenziale in Baluchi", in: C.-H- de Fouchécour—Ph. Gignoux (eds.), 283-291. Sa'dî, M. 1340 Gülistan, ed. M. 'A. Furüghl. Tehran: Iqbăl. Skalmowski; W.—van Tongerloo A. (eds.) 1993 Medioiranica. Proceedings of the International Colloquium organ­ ized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuvenfrom the 21st to the 23rd of May 1990. Leuven: Peeters. Tarsus!, Abu Tăhir 1344 Dărăb-năma, ed. by Dh. Safă, Vol. I. Tehran: BTNK. Windfuhr, Gemot L. 7979 Persian grammar. History and state of its study. (Trends in Linguis­ tics, State-of-the-Art Reports 12). The Hague-Paris-New York: Mou­ ton. 1982 "The verbal category of inference in Persian", in: Monumentům Georg Morgenstierne II (= Acta Iranica 22), Leiden: Brill, 263-279. 1985 "A spatial model for tense, aspect, and mood", Folia linguistica 19: 415-461. 1987 "Persian", in: Comrie, Bernard (ed.), 523-565. Wormser, Andreas 1987 Aspekt und Tempus im modernen Persischen. Eine Untersuchung an­ hand von Hedayats Erzählung "sag-e welgard". Bern: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft (Arbeitspapier 22).

Abbreviations ART—article, DUR—durative, OBJ—object, OF—ezăfe (connector), ONE—indefinite article, PLUR—plural, PP—-past participle.

Other language areas

Evidentiality in Georgian Winfried Boeder In spite of the rather small number of its speakers, Georgian as a whole is a well-known language in linguistic circles. Still, it might be reasonable to begin with a few words on the genetic classification of Georgian (Section 1) and, in view of the areal-linguistic emphasis of this volume, to give a short outline of Turkic-Georgian relations in history (2). To prepare the ground, I will then give a short survey of the verbal system of the Georgian literary language (3) and consider a few categories that are semantically similar to the Georgian evidential (4): the quotative, the future, and a particle which is said to have the same meaning as the evidential perfect. After a discussion of the different meanings registered by traditional native Georgian grammars (5-7) and a glimpse at non-literary variants (8.), I will submit a tentative hypothesis that tries to explain how these meanings relate to the well-documented resultative meaning the perfect had in Old Georgian (9.).1 1. Genetic relationship Genetically, Georgian is neither Turkic nor Indo-European, it is probably not even related to the autochthonous Northern Caucasian languages such as Abkhaz, Cherkez, Chechen-Ingush or Avar. Its close relatives are a few languages spoken in the western parts of the Southern Caucasus area: Svan in the mountains of the Caucasus, Mingrelian in the plains of ancient Colchis, and Laz in the Pontic regions of North-East Turkey. Georgian, Svan, Mingrelian and Laz form the so-called Kartvelian language family, and they all share the feature of "evidentiality". This feature is not a common heritage from Proto-Kartvelian, but seems to be a rather recent phenomenon, because it is not attested in Old Georgian (see 5.9), the literary language that flourished for hundreds of years from the 5th century. On the other hand, evidentiality is one of the features shared by many (or most) Ian-

276

Winfried Boeder

guages of the different Caucasian language families.2 It is one of the many areal phenomena in the Caucasus and Turkey that have been interpreted as resulting from "convergence".3 Exactly which of the Caucasian languages have evidential forms and meanings remains to be determined. Note that Western Armenian, which used to be spoken in Eastern Turkey, has a morphologically distinct evidential form (Donabédian 1996), while in East Armenian, as in its immediate neighbour Georgian, the evidential is one of the meanings of the perfect.4 Inside the Kartvelian group, the western languages (Laz, Mingrelian, Svan) and some western dialects of Georgian have developed a more elaborate system of evidential verb forms (see 8), but I cannot go into detail here and will concentrate on the better-known variants of the Georgian Standard language. Anyway, what we may learn from the geographical distribution is not different from what we already know from the Balkans and many Northern Eurasian areas: evidentiality is an areal phenomenon that is easily taken up by speakers of different dialects and languages. 2. Contacts between Georgian and Turkish Most Caucasian languages have been adjacent to, or historically in contact with, Turkic in the broader sense. In the case of Georgian, this contact has existed for at least5 several hundred years of Turkish domination in large parts of Georgia, in particular in its western and southern areas, which are also the areas with the richest system of evidential verb forms. Also, one part of present-day North-East Turkey was— and to a very limited extent still is—a Georgian-speaking area. It is not easy to assess the linguistic impact of the alternating Persian (or Safavid-Turkic) and Ottoman Turkish garrisons in Georgia and of other forms of the "all-pervading symbiosis" (Golden 1979: 203) between Georgians and the Turkish before the advent of the Russians around the year 1800, but from the sources, we know that the Georgian aristocracy in the southern parts of Georgia were bilingual from around the 17th century, in particular those who had converted to Islam, while large parts of the population still spoke Georgian. In addition, the cities of Transcaucasia have been multilingual since antiquity: people spoke,

Evidentiality in Georgian

277

for instance, Armenian, Persian and "Tatar", i.e. some type of Azerbaijani Turkic. Georgia's eastern neighbour, Azerbaijan, has become an almost exclusively Turkic-speaking country during the last few centuries, and there is a sizable Azerbaijani population in the southeastern part of the present-day Republic of Georgia. On the other hand, a small pocket of Georgian speakers survives in Azerbaijan.6 So we may say that there was plenty opportunity for contact between the languages, which manifests itself in a large body of Turkic loan-words in Georgian (see e.g. Golden 1979). In fact, the close similarity between Georgian and Turkish "evidential" forms was noticed a long time ago.7 However, two provisos are in order here. Firstly, the assumption of Turkish influence is not incompatible with the view that resultative verb forms like the Georgian perfect can easily and "independently" develop evidential meanings (Lohmann 1937): it is one of those cases of contact that is indeed "likely to have supported latent tendencies towards indirectivity" (Johanson 1996: 87). Second, phenomena arising from language contact can spread far beyond the zone of immediate contact: Svan was always remote from Ottoman Turkish domination, but its evidential forms may well be modelled after those of its influential neighbour language: Mingrelian in Western Georgia. In other words, if the Mingrelian system of evidentiality is partly due to Turkic language contact, it may have been a mediating model for Svan.

3. The verbal system of Georgian One of the most important forms of coding evidentiality is the use of specific verb forms. Similar to most languages,8 literary Georgian has no such special morphological category,9 but one of the meanings of the so-called perfect tense is "evidential". Georgian has a very complex verb system, which I will not go into detail here.10 Suffice it to say that the perfect largely follows the morphological and syntactic patterns of the stative or of the resultative passive.11 Compare (a) with (b) and (e) with (d): a. mas is u-cer-i-a (stative passive) (s)he-Dat it(Nom) 3IO-write-Marker-3S 'It is written for/on him/her.'

278

Winfried Boeder

b. ma-s is mi-u-çer-i-a megobr-is-tvis (perfect active) (s)he-Dat it(Nom) Prev-3IO-write-Marker-3S friend-Gen-for '(s)he has written it to his/her friend.' e. is da-çer-il-i-a (resultative present) it(Nom) Prev-write-PP-Nom-it.is 'It is written.' d. is da-cer-il-a (perfect passive) it(Nom) Prev-write-PP-3S 'It has been written.'

i'| ;, ", '' /, >•,•<

The Georgian perfect is part of a verbal system that shows striking similarities to that of older Indo-European languages like Old Greek and Sanskrit (Lohmann 1937). It comprises three groups or series of tenses and moods, each series being characterized by distinctive morphological and syntactic properties: a present series, an aorist series and a perfect series. I. The present series (present stem system) comprising two subseries in Modern Georgian: a. The imperfective subseries: present, imperfect, subjunctive present (= subjunctive la); b. The perfective subseries: future, conditional, subjunctive future (= subjunctive lb); II. The (mostly) perfective aorist series (aorist stem system): aorist, optative (= subjunctive of the aorist series, subjunctive II); III. The (mostly) perfective perfect series (perfect stem system): perfect, pluperfect, subjunctive perfect (= subjunctive III). Note that case-marking in subjects and objects varies according to these series. In particular when reading the glosses, some rules of case alignment should be kept in mind: with present series verb forms, subjects are in the nominative and objects are in the dative (see e.g. (4)); with aorist verb forms, subjects of transitive and of some intransitive verbs are in the ergative, subjects of intransitive verbs and direct objects of transitive verbs are in the nominative, and indirect objects in the dative (see e.g. the second clause of (17)). With perfect series verb forms, subjects of transitive and of some intransitive verbs are in the

Evidentiality in Georgian

279

dative (see e.g. (54), (84)), subjects of intransitive verbs and direct ob­ jects are in the nominative, while indirect objects are demoted and marked by a postposition -tvis 'for' (see e.g. (78), (95)). The indicative aorist is the unmarked narrative tense. The future subseries (lb), in particular the future and conditional, and the perfect series III, in particular the perfect,12 are most relevant for our purposes. The future and the conditional are, among other things, used for guesses, and therefore offer a good background with which to contrast the perfect (see 4.2). The perfect on the other hand, which was purely resultative in Old Georgian, has evidentiality as one of its meanings in Modern Georgian.

4. Semantically similar categories Let me begin with some categories that are somehow similar to evi­ dentiality and which allow us to better understand the specificity and linguistic embedding of the evidential perfect in the system of the Georgian language. 4.1. Quotative Georgian has quotative particles to mark reported speech, e.g. -o for 3rd person "speakers", which in colloquial speech can occur on each constituent boundary: (1)

mica-ši-Q okro-s kila iq 'o-o_ (I 47) earth-in-Quot gold-Gen jar(Nom) it.was(Aor)-Ouot 'In the earth, there was a gold jar, it is said.'

(2)

ezo-s kar-ep-ši qaraul-i hqam-o am beg-sa-o (I 41-42) courtyard-Gen door-Pl-in guard-Nom he.has.him-Quot this(Obl) beg-Dat- Ouot 'This beg has a guard at the door of his courtyard, it is said.'

(3)

Čad-ze tit-eb-i daakakuna, tu gamocxva-o (N. Dumba3e) maize.bread-on finger-Pl-Nom he.tapped.them.on.it(Aor), if it.was.baked(Aor)-Quot 'He tapped with his fingers on the maize-bread, to see if it was baked.'

280

Winfried Boeder

Note that speakers (or "thinkers") are always recoverable in these contexts.—The quotative is almost obligatory with proverbs, i.e. "something that everyone knows" (Palmer 1986: 70): (4)

Tatar-i da Kartvel-i orive ert-s ambobdnen da ertmanet-isa ara gaegebodat-ra-o Tatar-Nom and Georgian-Nom both(Nom) one-Dat they.said.it(Impf) and one.another-Gen not they.understood.it(Impf)-something(Nom)-Quot 'The Tatar and the Georgian both were saying the same thing, but did not understand one another.'

Even here, a generic speaker like "people" is understood: "People say..." or "it is said generally ...". 4.2. Future forms

i

Georgian future forms can have an epistemic meaning of uncertainty, e.g. in: (5)

xel-is mixedv-it 3egl-i X s. ganekutvneba (C. Cankievi) hand-Gen regard-Instr monument 10th cent. it.will.belong.to.it(Fut) 'With regard to the handwriting, the text probably belongs to the 10th century.'

(6)

tu ... ded-is amag-s apaseb, modi, karg-i adamian-i iknebi-o (r41) if.. .mother-Gen care-Dat you.appreciate.it(Pres), come, good-Nom human.being-Nom you. will.be(Fut)-Quot 'If you make such a point of your mother's care, well, you must be a good man, he said'.

This use is not confined to declaratives. In questions it expresses the uncertainty of their sincerity condition (namely, that the speaker does not know for sure): (7) a. sa-idan iknebi-t ? where-from you.will.be-Pl(Fut) 'Where will you come from?' b. rogora x-ar ?—rogor v-iknebi ? how 2S-be(Pres) ?—how 1 S-will.be(Fut) ? 'How are you ?—How will I be ?'

Evidentiality in Georgian

281

For the past, the conditional, i.e. the past forms of the future, are used. Compare (8) with (9): (8)

axla v-iknebi-t as at-i kvaml-i (I 85) now lS-will.be-Pl(Fut) hundred ten-Nom household-Nom 'We are perhaps a hundred and ten households now (I would say).'

(9)

Amilaxvar-i ikneboda švid-i, rva koml-i. glex-eb-i ikneboda sam-as-i (I 26) A.-Nom it.would.be(Cond) seven-Nom, eight(Nom) household-Nom, peasant- Pl-Nom it.would.be(Cond) three-hundred-Nom 'Amilakhvari comprised perhaps seven, eight households. Peasants there were perhaps 300 (, I would say...)'

(10) dainaxa ert-i moxuc-i kac-i romel-i-c as oc-i d-is ikneboda (Bl 64) he.perceived.him one-Norn old-Nom man-Nom who-Nom-Rel hundred twenty-Ge/i year-Gen he.would.be(Cond) 'He saw an old man who was perhaps 120 years old.' (11) şalian ševcuxdi, magram ra- ra-s vizamdi ! (VI 21.1.96) very I.got.worried(Aor), but what-Part-Dat I.would.do.it(Cond) ? 'I was very worried, but what could I do!'

Resultative forms are also possible (perfect passive participle + future of "to have"). Compare the conditional in (12) with the resultative fu­ ture in (13): (12) čem-s barat-s miirebdi-t my-Dat letter-Dat you.would.receive.it-PKConď) 'You will have received my letter.' (13) ukve cem-i barat-i mijeb-ul-i g-ekneba-t (MD 12.6.80) already my-Nom letter-Nom receive-PP-Nom 20-it.will.be-Pl 'You will have already received my letter (and it will be with you).'

The future, then, has a usual modal meaning and denotes "a degree of confidence" (Palmer 1986: 65).13 4.3. Particles Georgian has many modal particles, among them turme 'apparently',14

282

Winfried Boeder

which the leading native grammarian, Akaki Sani3e (1973: § 281) seems to interpret as a synonym of the evidential perfect: (14) çasula (perfect) = cavida (aorist) turme 'Apparently, s/he has gone.'

V

And indeed, this particle is necessary to express evidentiality with non-past events:15 ( 15) saçqal gogos tavis-is tit-eb-it mogrov-il-is pul-it ert-i čitmerdin-i uğidnia. ima-s [sc. Elisabed-s] unaxavs da caurtmevia. exla turme tav-zed ikravs (Ilia Çavçava3e: Kacia adamiani?) poor girl-Dat her-Gen/Instr finger-Pl-Instr collect-PP-Gen/Instr money-Instr one-Nom silk.kerchief-Nom she.has.bought.itfPerf). that-Dat [sc. Elizabeth- Dat] she.has,seen.itIPerf) and she.has.taken.it.awav(Perf). now apparently head-on she.puts.it(for)herselfTPres) 'The poor girl apparently bought a silk kerchief with the money she had col­ lected with her fingers, Elizabeth apparently saw it and took it away. Now ap­ parently she puts it on her head.' (16) turme samsaxur-ši unda vqopilviqavi (RK) apparently office-in it.is.necessary I.had.been(pluperfect) 'It seems I should have been in the office'.

Notice that in ( 16), turme refers to unda 'it is necessary', not to the plu­ perfect main verb that functions as a past subjunctive, turme does not occur with the subjunctive, the imperative or the conditional.16 Note the co-occurrence of both turme and the perfect in: (17) bališ-tan dakavšireb-it gamaxsenda, rom turme ukve moxuc poet Akaki Çeretel-sa-c ert-ma lamaz-ma mandilosan-ma ačuka bališ-i. ama-ze Akaki-s utkvams: ... (MD) pillow-at connection-Instr I.remembered(Aor), that apparently already old poet Akaki Tseretel-Dat-too one-Erg beautiful-Erg lady-Erg she.gave.it.to.him(Aor) pillow-Nom. this-on Akaki-Dat he.has.said.it(Perf) 'In connection with the pillow I remembered, that, as they say, one beautiful lady gave the already aged poet Akaki Tsereteli a pillow for a present. On this, Akaki is said to have said: ...'

turme is sometimes added to the perfect to underline its evidential meaning. They form a "harmonic combination", to use Palmer's term (1986: 63). So (18) and (19) are essentially synonymous:

Evidentiality in Georgian

283

( 18) sen turme axal-i saxl-i agišenebia you apparently new-Nom house-Nom you.have.built.it(Perf) (19) šen axal-i saxl-i agišenebia you new-Nom house-Nom you.have.built.it(Perf) 'You apparently built a house.'

4.4. Evidential particles in the dialects There are Georgian dialects that use qopil(a) '(etymologically:) it has been (3rd person perfect)' as a particle in the sense of turme, e.g. Ingilo, a dialect spoken in an Azerbaijani surrounding: (20) e gada-j magra cavlovs qopil (Jangi3e 1978: 85-86) this(Nom) youth-Norn strongly he.learnsfPres) "it.has.been" 'This youth apparently learns well.' (21) parira cxovrovdnen qopil (ib.) miserably they.lived(Impf) "it.has.been" 'They apparently lived miserably.' (22) čem keč-i, cxröv šen gičami qopila (ib.) my(Nom) goat-Norn, sheep(Nom) you you.have.eaten.itCPerf) "it.has.been" 'Apparently, you have eaten my goat and my sheep.' (23) er kac qopil (a), parir kac qopil (b). ver ucxovrni qopil (e), ka-j ţamsamoz ver icoms qopil (d) (D 237) one(Nom) man(Nom) he.has.been(Perf) (a), poor(Nom) man(Nom) he.has.been(Perf). not.possible he.has.lived(Perf) "it.has.been" (e), good-Nom shirt(Nom) not.possible he.puts.oniPres') "it.has.been" (d) 'There was (a) a man, they say, he was (b) a poor man, they say. He couldn't live, they say (e), they say, he cannot put on a good shirt, they say (d).'

qopil occurs immediately after finite verbs to form evidentials. Notice that in the last example qopil occurs with different functions: both as an evidential perfect of "to be" ([a]-[b]), and as an evidential particle ([c]-[d]) with a finite perfect and present verb form, respectively.— Imnaišvili (1955: 123) interprets qopil as a caique of the Azerbaijani evidential copula form imiš 's/he / it is / was said to be'.17 However, Žangi3e (1978: 85) points out that there is a slight difference: qopil is

284

Winfried Boeder

an invariable particle, and while it is added to the inflected verb form in Georgian, it is the copula imis that is added to infinite verb forms in Azerbaijani and other Turkic languages (see Johanson, this volume). On the other hand, qopila-ml% is also used in Khevsur, a dialect spoken in an East Georgian mountain area that used to be in close contact with North Caucasian Chechen-Ingush: (24) ert xana-c qopila-m Arxvat-s Kist-eb-is laškar daec (Arabuli 1980: 149) one time-Part "it.has.been"-Part Arkhot-Dat Kist-Pl-Gen host(Nom) it.fell.on.it(Aor) 'Once, they say, the host of the Kists fell upon the village of Arkhoti'.

Arabuli (1980), a native Khevsur from the village of Juta, observed this usage in his dialect. He points out that in several Kartvelian languages and dialects, the inflected copula is suffixed to certain finite verb forms, and he argues against Imnaisvili's caique theory. And indeed, there are several Georgian particles that go back to finite verb forms, and qopil(a) as a particle parallels Standard Georgian ikneb 'perhaps' < ikneba 'it will be (Future)'.19 Still, internal developments can easily reinforce contact-induced innovation. And there is good reason for considering qopil as an areal phenomenon due to "code copying" (Johanson): Ingush may have a counterpart of Khevsur,20 and West Armenian, again a contact language of Turkish, seems to match Ingilo qopil.21 There is some indication that Turkish-Azerbaijani (i)miš, the most frequent and obviously very salient 3rd singular form of the copula, could be interpreted as a fixed evidential meaning indicator: Tat, an Iranian language spoken in North Azerbaijan, has borrowed the form mis as a "modal particle" with an inferential and quotative meaning.22 In addition, there are many exact or very close parallels of qopil in other languages.23

4.5. Confirmative In view of the opposition between evidential, confirmative and neutral forms in languages like Lak (Friedman 1984) and in some Balkan languages (Friedman 1986), it should be noted that in Western Georgia, which is the area with the most elaborated systems of evidential forms

(see 1. and 8.), some of the Kartvelian dialects have a confirmative particle k(v)e-, ko-: (25) tu gadmogagdo, ke šekčams (D 466) if it.threw.you, Particle it.will.eat.you(Fut) 'If it [sc. the horse] throws you, it will definitely eat you.' (26) ke_ gitxari, mara ar deiğere Particle I.told.it.to.you(Aor), but not you.believed.it(Aor) 'I did tell you, but you didn't believe.'

It is an interesting question whether ke/ko- is in complementary distri­ bution with the evidential perfect and or/the particle turme. 5. The evidential meaning of the perfect in Modern Georgian Now let us look at what traditional native grammar has to tell us about the perfect.24 The usual modern Georgian term for the morphological tense category, turmeobiti, was coined by A. Sani3e; it is derived from the particle turme described above.25 Some of the Russian terms neočevidnoe, zaočnoe, zaglaznoe 'what is beyond eye-witnessing' go back to the 19th century.26 They look like a translation of Pacini's con­ cise rule parokşe ' [the perfect is used with something that is] out of eye-sight',27 and are a probable source of A. Šani3e's semantic term unaxavi 'not-seen', unaxaoba '(lit.) not-having-been-seen-ness'. It is not by chance that it refers to the implicationally highest type of direct evidence, which is visual rather than, for example, auditory (Willett 1988: 59). Although this is by no means the only meaning of the per­ fect, the terms of this tradition suggest its high salience,28 and it is appropriate to begin with this category of meaning. 5.1. Non-witnessedness The perfect is used for events that the speaker hasn't witnessed and which he or she infers from a present state. An example is: (27) tovl-i mosula 'snow-Nom it.has.come(Perf)'

286

Winfried Boeder

on which Šani3e (1973: § 261) comments as follows: "In this case, I draw the hearer's attention to the fact that I haven't seen the snow com­ ing. I know about it because I see the difference between the states of yesterday and of today: yesterday nothing was in my courtyard, but to­ day it is covered with snow. This difference gives me the possibility to draw a conclusion about the coming of snow". This conclusion is an interpretation29 or inference of causes. As Aksu-Koç and Slobin (1986: 162) observe, "the speaker was in some sense not quite prepared for the event in question". (27) contrasts with: (28) tovl-i movida 'snow-Nom it.came(Aor)'

..

where the aorist is neutral: it doesn't tell whether the speaker wit­ nessed the fact or not.30 The aorist seems to be the unmarked member of the opposition.31 It is possible to combine turme 'apparently' with the perfect in this sense (cf. (18)): (29) turme tovl-i mosula 'Apparently, it has snowed (perfect).' (30) turme vmcdarivar, torem gağobebdi (Ilia Çavçava3e apud Peikrišvili 1974: 65) apparently I.have.been.mistaken(Perř), otherwise I. would.be.better.than.you(Cond) 'I must have been mistaken, otherwise I would be better than you'.

5.2. Inference But this is only one variant of the inferential meaning. There is an ad­ ditional type: the speaker comes to a "summarizing" (Pxaka3e 1984: 111), evaluative conclusion about something that he or she witnessed him- or herself. The perfect in this sense is not limited to the predica­ tion of processes, as Aksu-Koç and Slobin (1986: 161) claim for the Turkish inferential -mis; on the contrary, qopila 'has been' cannot re­ fer to hearsay in: (31) es şalian šemacuxebel-i da sakmaod xangrşliv-i daavadeba qopila (MD) this(Nom) very worrying-Nom and sufficiently longlasting-Nom illness(Nom) it.has.been(Perf) '[After relating that she has been ill for a long time, the writer says:] This was. a very painful and rather long illness, I must say.'

Evidentiality in Georgian

287

(32) ra gul-ketil-i qopila is angeloz-i (Myvimeli) what heart-good-Nom he.has.been(Perf) that(Nom) angel-Nom ' [At the end of a story about an angel who helped a child:] How kind-hearted that angel was !'

In this example, the perfect means: "I have come to the conclusion that such and such [has been and] is the case", which is a kind of combina­ tion of evidential and existential meanings (see 6.4).32 Consider the following examples: (33) sibere ar qopila karg-i (MD) old.age(Nom) not it.has.been(Perf) good-Nom '[After describing her health problems, the writer says:] Old age iş not good' [in the sense of: 'Old age really is no good, I must say'. The writer's later com­ ment was: "Old age is bad... that old age is bad, other people have known it before, too, but for me it became known now, when I grew old"; see note 23.] (34) - ho da šavic scored eg aris, rasac hxedav ese igi, bindi, bneli, araperi, šavi.— šavi! araperi! šavi! mas_ šavi araperi qopila ... maš_ araperic šavi qopila (M. Žavaxišvili) '[A blind girl asks her father what "black" means. The father says:] "Yes, and black is(Pres) also exactly this, what you see(Pres), that is: dusk, dark, nothing, black."—"Black! Nothing! Black! Then black iş (perfect) nothing ...Then nothing iş (perfect) black, too." ' (35) mašasadame. martla gcodnia Kartul-i (RK) consequently, truely vou.know.it(Perf) Georgian-Nom 'So, you really know Georgian.' (36) mašasadame. martla ğanmrtel-i vqopilvar (M. Žavaxišvili apud Peikrišvili 1974: 65) consequently, truely healthy-Nom I.have.been(Perf) 'So. I am really in good health.' (37) me šen-i bed-i vqopilvar-o da gaiketa beced-i tit-ze (T 49) I(Nom) your-Nom fate-Nom I.have.been(Perf)-Quot and she.did.it.to.herself(Aor) ring-Nom finger-on '[A hero wants to gain a woman for his brother; after many difficulties he finds her. During the night she tries to put a ring on his finger, and is going to kill him. But he seizes her by her finger, and she says:] I am your fate, she said, and put the ring on her finger [i.e., from all that happened I come to the conclusion that you inevitably must be my future husband].'

288

Winfried Boeder

In all these examples, the perfect does not mean: 'I have come to the conclusion that such and such was the case'. In general, the perfect of stative verbs like "to be, to have, to know, to love" etc. can have both past and present meanings (Rogava 1953: 30-31). So (36) also means: 'So, I was in good health'. Notice that the "conclusion" meaning is un­ derlined by the additional use of the conjunction maš(asadame) 'so, then' in (34)-(36). 5.3. Admirative

.

The inferential and summarizing, and indeed all uses of the evidential perfect presuppose that the speaker "did not know before" (see com­ ment in [33]). In many cases, this "unexpectedness" is connected with an emotional element, and results in a so-called "admirative" sense,33 which expresses "surprise at a newly discovered and previously un­ suspected fact" (Friedman 1988: 127), an "experience of surpassed ex­ pectations" (Aksu-Koç—Slobin 1986: 162), which need not, however, be a "pleasant" (ib.) one: (38) es ra cecxl-ši čavvardnilvar (Grigol Orbeliani apud Peikrišvili 1974: 65) this(Nom) what fire-in I.have.fallen.into(Perf) 'Into what fire have I fallen !'

Note that "unexpectedness" in this sense refers to what has not been anticipated, not necessarily to what is contrary to expectation. Not every example of the hearsay use, for example, should be interpreted as an instance of a "contrary to expectation" use, unless we want it to be watered down to mean "newsworthiness". The admirative usage is most frequent with stative verbs.34 Again, the stative forms denote a generalizing conclusion35 derived from past experience. Examples such as (32) are "summarizing" and "admira­ tive" at the same time. They mean "that the speaker was, in some sense, not quite prepared for the event in question" (Aksu-Koç— Slobin 1986: 162):36

Evidentiality in Georgian

289

(39) siţqva-s ga^lev, dre-is ik-it ayar davYvaro sen-i modgm-is sisxl-i, ra tkbil-i qopila adamian-is xma ! (T 22) word-Dat I.giv.it.to.you, day-Gen there-Instr no.more I.shall.shed.it(Opt) yon-Gen race-Gen blood-Nom, what sweet-Nom it.has.heeniPerf) human.being-Gen voice(Nom) 'I give you my word, from this day on, I will not shed the blood of your race any more, how sweet iş man's voice!' (40) ra ka-i kac-i qopila what good-Nom man-Nom he.has.been(Perf) 'What a good man he is!' (41 ) qoca Y sens vaîkacoba-s, rom mamac-i qopilxar da me ki saukunot šen-i viknebi-o (Bl 104) cheers your-Dat manlihood-Dat, that man-Nom you.have.been(Perf) and I but for.ever your-Nom I.will.be-Quot 'Praise to your manlihood, that you are a real man, therefore I will be yours for­ ever!'

5.4. Irony The "ironical" or "dubitative" use also occurs in Georgian.37 There is "some previous statement which is being mocked by repetition, either real or implied" (Friedman this volume and 1988: 128): (42) man sen-ze met-i ids.—namdvilad met-i scodnia ! (RK) (s)he(Erg) you-on more-Nom s/he.knows.it(Pres).—indeed more-Nom s/ he.has.known.it(Perf) ' "(S)he knows more than you."—"Indeed, s/he knows more!" ' (43) moxuc-i xar !—aba, diax, moxuc-i vqopilvar (RK) old-Nom you.are(Pres) !—Just.so, yes, old-Nom I.have.been(Perf) ' "You are old!"—"Oh yes, of course, I am old." '

Again we have an inference: "(Oh, I did not know, but) if you say so, it must (of course) be true", which, given its blatantly unwarranted premise, can be taken as ironical.

290

Winfried Boeder

5.5. Hearsay In some examples, a hearsay interpretation is plausible: (44) ori tvis cin me tkvěn vrčeli baraţi gamogigzavnet ... baraţi gamosagzavnad miveci čems natesav gogonas. im dres talián çvimda da kariani amindi iqo. natesav gogonas baraţi xelidan gavardnia da kučaši çqlis da ţalaxis gubeŠi čavardnia. /converti ise dasvrila, rom misamarti sruliad çaslila da baratic gapuçebula. černi natesavi gogo mas šemdeg čemtan ar mosula. moridebisagan es ambavi damimala ... gušin ki movida misi deda ... (MD) 'Two months ago, I sent (aorist) you a long letter. ... To mail it, I gave (aorist) it to a girl, a relative of mine. On this day, there was (aorist) a heavy rain and windy weather. The letter fell (perfect) from that girl's hand, and in the street, it fell (perfect) into a puddle of water and mud. The envelope became wet (per­ fect), so that the address was effaced (perfect) and the letter was spoiled (per­ fect), too. The girl, my relative, didn't come (perfect) to me after that. She hid (aorist) it from me out of embarrassment... Yesterday, however, her mother came (aorist)...'

We may infer that the source of hearsay was the girl's mother in this case, but in fact, the speaker is not necessarily recoverable as it is with the quotative. 5.6. Tradition As in other languages with evidential forms, the perfect is often used in narratives to underline that the speaker follows a tradition:38 (45) cem-i papi-eb-i ak dasaxlebulan sam kvaml-at (I 68) my-Nom forefather-Pl-Nom here they.have.settled(Perf) three household-Adv 'My forefathers settled here in three families, they say'.

The following example gives a historical account in the perfect, but adds a conjecture in the future: (46) uçin qopila erti kaci Kopale, talián didi mdidari qopila, qolia blomat purkamečoba, samoci su nikora purkameči qopila, danarceni tide sxva ikneboda. imas qolia erti svili, utxovnia Kaxetis tavadis kali, gamougzavnia intasa samoci uremi rvino. "..." utkvams im tavads. Kopalesisbočkebidauclia ... 040) 'Formerly, there was (perfect) a man Kopale [in this area], he was (perfect) very rich, he had (perfect) many cows and buffaloes, three hundred all had

Evidentiality in Georgian

291

(perfect) a blaze, and he will have had (conditional) still others. He had (per­ fect) one son, [and] he asked (perfect) for the prince of Kakheti's daughter's hand. He sent (perfect) him sixty carts [loaded with] wine. "..." said (perfect) the prince. Kopale emptied (perfect) those casks...'

While the future expresses a modal attitude of uncertainty, the perfect does not: it leaves no doubt as to the correctness of the report, but simply expresses the indirect source of it. The usage in story-telling is divided: in contrast to Turkish (AksuKoç—Slobin 1986: 164), most fairy-tales have the aorist, but a few are in the perfect (e.g. D no. 17, p. 24: Khevsurian);39 others have both per­ fect and aorist (e.g. D no. 260, p. 317: Kartlian) or even perfect, future, and aorist (e.g. D no. 253, p. 366: Meskhian) or conditional, imperfect, aorist (e.g. D no. 275, p. 338: Djavakhian from Akhalkalaki). The gen­ re-specific usage remains to be investigated, but I would guess that the aorist is the unmarked "plot-advancing" (Johanson) tense of story-tell­ ing, while the perfect means (e.g. anecdotic) "tradition", without, how­ ever, precluding temporal sequence.40 5.7. Evidentiality in interrogative sentences With a reservation to be specified below (5.8), the opposition between evidential and non-evidential forms is restricted to non-modal asser­ tions (see Johanson in this volume).41 Interrogative sentences look like a breach of this constraint: (47)

xom sesaşlebel-i qopila ? (G. Dočanašvili in Pxaka3e 1984: 126) Particle possible-Nom it.has.been(Perf) ? 'This is possible, isn't it?'

(48) a. ra momsvlia ? what it.has.come.to.me(Perf) ? b. ra mogsvlia, kaco ? what it.has.come.to.you(Perf), man ? (49) a. es ra tiţ-i moprinda? this what(Nom) bird-Nom it.flew.here(Aor) b. es ra tîţ-i moprenila? ' this what(Nom) bird-Nom it.has.flown.here(Perf)

292

Winfried Boeder

However, (47) means that somebody had said it is not possible, but it turns out to be possible. The particle xom gives the question an epistemic bias toward the affirmative: "I am (only somewhat) in doubt whether to infer that it is possible". But this interrogativity does not impair the essentially assertive character of the question.—(48a) is not a "real" question, but an "admirative" exclamation: "That's a fine mess I've got into!". Similarly, (48b) is exclamatory, and it means that somebody told me about "your misfortune". (49) is a minimal pair that, according to Sani3e (1973: § 261), resists any differential translation into Russian. (49a) is a real question: "What kind of bird is this that came flying here?", but (49b) expresses unexpectedness and is again "admirative": "What a bird this is that came flying here!" is perhaps a possible translation. 5.8. Embedded evidentials Notice the use of the perfect in embedded clauses, where evidentiality is not a property of the primary speaker's (or author's) inference: (50) 3al-ze gamixarda, rom karg-ad, qovel-gvar-iproblem-eb-is gareše gimgzavria (VG) force-on it.became.happy.for.me(Aor), that good-Adv, all-kind-Gen problem-Pl-Gen outside you.have.travelled(Perf) 'I was very glad to hear that you travelled well, without any problem.' (51) mixvda, rom karg-i sakme ar uknia (Bl 118) he.understood.it(Aor), that good-Nom thing(Nom) not he.has.made.it(Perf) 'He understood that what he had done wasn't good.' (52) xelmcip-is kalisvil-ma rom gaigo, mamas karg-i vašl-eb-i uqidia-o, adga da gamoartva (Bl 82) king-Gen daughter-Erg when she.understood.it(Aor), father-Dat good-Dat apple-Pl-Nom he.has.bought.them(Perf)-Quot, she.rose(Aor) and she.took.it(Aor) 'When the king's daughter heard: "Father has bought good apples", she went to take one.'

In (50), the inferring person is the writer and recipient of hearsay (or rather of the addressee's letter), in (51) it is the subject of the matrix

Evidentiality in Georgian

293

clause who summarizes his reasoning. (52) contains a mixture of "di­ rect speech" (with the quotative -o) and hearsay which owes its evi­ dential perfect to the king's daughter being the recipient of the news, and not to the "original" speech of her informants. Similarly, Pxaka3e (1984: 118) rightly points out that the "hearsay" facts are not always "unknown" to the speaker, but rather to the listener:42 (53) tavis-i megobar-i kal-is—Lena-s ambav-s hqveboda: igi turme am dil-it, vinme Griša xel-ši auţacnia, ţansacml-ian-ad zYva-ši šeuqvania (O. Ioseliani) her-Gen friend-Ge/z woman-Gen—Lena-Gen matter-Dat she.told.it.to.her- (Impf): she(Nom) apparently this(Obl) morning-Instr, somebody(Nom) Grisha(Nom) hand-in he.has.carried.her.away(Perf), clothes-having-Adv sea-in he.has.led.her.into(Perf) 'She was telling her friend Lena's story: apparently, some Grisha had carried her off with his hands this morning, had brought her into the sea with her clothes on.'

With this example of free indirect speech compare the following ex­ ample, where a perception ("he sees") of the protagonist or "recipient" is only implied: (54) modis dapikrebul-i. ert crel gvel-s ţqav-i gauxdia da gza-ze gdia (r 37) he.comes(Pres) lost.in.thought-Nom. one colourful snake-Dat slough-Nom it.has.cast.it(Perf) and way-on it.lies(present stative passive) '[A peasant goes on his way, worried. Here] he comes in deep thoughts [and he sees:] One colourful snake has cast its slough and it lies on his path.'

Embedding offers crucial insight into the semantics of the perfect:43 (55) darçmunebul-i ara var, rom es çeril-i daçera convinced-Nom not Lam, that this(Nom) letter-Nom s/he.wrote.it(Aor) 'I am not convinced that s/he wrote this letter.' (* ... rom es çeril-i dauçeria '... that this(Nom) letter-Nom (s)he.has.writ­ ten. it(Perf)') (56) ečv-i makvs rom es çeril-i daçera doubt-Nom I.have.it that this(Nom) letter-Nom (s)he.wrote.it(Aor) 'I doubt it that s/he wrote this letter.' (* ... rom es çeril-i dauçeria '.. .that this(Nom) letter-Nom (s)he.has.written.it(Perf)')

294

Winfried Boeder

(57) damaviçqda, rom es çeril-i daçera (* ... rom es çeril-i dauçeria) i< I.forgot.it(Aor), that this(Nom) letter-Nom (s)he.wrote.it(Aor) (*...that this(Nom) lut­ ter-Nom s/he. has. written. it(Perf)) 'I forgot that s/he wrote / had written this letter.' (58) gavige, rom es çeril-i daçera ' I.understood.it(Aor), that this(Nom) letter-Nom (s)he.wrote.it(Aor') ; f '.' 'I have heard that s/he wrote this letter.' gavige, rom es çeril-i dauçeria I.understood.it(Aor), that this(Nom) letter-Nom s/he.has.written.itiPerf) 'I have heard that s/he wrote this letter' (in the sense of: 'Somebody told me'). (59) vici, rom es çeril-i daçera I.know.it, that this(Nom) letter-Nom s/he.wrote.it(Aor) 'I know that (s)he wrote (aorist) this letter.' vici, rom es çeril-i dauçeria I.know.it, that this(Nom) letter-Nom (s)he.has, written.it(Perf) 'I know that s/he wrote this letter.' (in the sense of: 'I already know because somebody told me'). 4 4

f

If we assume that assertion is a main clause privilege, embedded clauses as in (55)-(57) conform to this restriction (see 5.7). With poss­ ible truth, as in (55)-(56), the perfect is inacceptable (similarly after sesaşlebelia 'it is possible (that)',45 etc.). Similarly, the presupposed complement clauses of factive verbs, as in (57), do not allow the per­ fect (similarly with mçqenia 'it offends, bothers me', ucnauria 'it is strange', etc.).46 But these sentences contrast with others that do allow a contrast between evidential and non-evidential forms. Consider the evidential perfect forms in (41), (50)-(52) and (58)-(59): embedded evidentials seem to be possible where they are in consonance with, form a "harmonic combination" with, the semantics of their matrix clause: admiration in (41) ("I admire you for..."), hearsay in (50), (52) and (58)-(59), conclusion in (51). 5.9. Summary of the evidential types of meaning a. The evidential perfect denotes one or the other kind of conclusion or "inference" from what the speaker or "recipient" (see 5.8) experienced him- or herself or what s/he heard from others.

Evidentiality in Georgian

295

b. The evidential perfect occurs in non-modal, main clause assertions (see 5.7) or in semantically "harmonic combinations" of matrix and embedded clauses (see 5.8). e. Although "the source of a speaker's information can skew the relation between his/her conception of the truth of a situation and the strength of his/her assertion about that situation" (Willett 1988: 86), the Georgian perfect does not by itself denote a (low) degree of "confidence" or "strength of commitment of the speaker" (Palmer 1986: 64),47 nor does the speaker (necessarily) deny responsibility for the statement.48 d. The evidential perfect always has a specific relation to the present situation. The inference is based on evidence the speaker or the protagonist has (irrespective of the time when it came to his or her attention), and its result is current knowledge of something the speaker did not know before s/he drew the conclusion. e. The evidential meaning is perfectly compatible, though rare (Kavtara3e 1956: 180), with 1st person subjects: not only with actions achieved in a state of drunkenness or the like,49 but with each of the uses mentioned above (see [36]-[38]). f. Perfect forms differ from the non-evidential forms mentioned in section 4. In contrast to the future forms, the evidential perfect does not express uncertainty by itself (see 5.8), although this modal meaning may be a concomitant phenomenon in some contexts: the interpreter of the snow in (27) can be quite sure that it snowed, the lady speaking of her illness in (31) is sure that it was rather long, the admirer in (40) has no doubt about his judgment, and the king's daughter in (52) can certainly rely on the news that her father bought a good apple.50 Similarly, the hearsay meaning does not imply that the speaker has any particular teller of the event in mind. Hearsay is just one source of information from which the speaker may draw his conclusion, i.e. "the evidence on which it is based" is not "crucial in determining the choice of forms" (Friedman 1986: 185-186). g. The particle turme is combinable with every type of evidential perfect. With its evidential meaning, turme comes close to the perfect, but it is different from it in that it may be combined with any tense (see [15]-[18]), and has no particular connection with the present. Take, for instance, the example interpreted by Kavtara3e (1956: 183):

296

Winfried Boeder

(60) a. miça-ze balax-eb-ši maxe qopila dadgm-ul-i earth-on grass-Pl-in snare(Nom) it.has.been(Perf) set-PP-Nom í; 'On the earth in the grass a snare was set.' b. miça-ze balax-eb-ši [...] maxe turme iqo dadgm-ul-i (lak. Gogebašvili) earth-on grass-Pl-in [...] snare(Nom) apparently it.was(Aor) set-PP-Nom 'On the earth in the grass apparently a snare was set.' ':

Most speakers of Georgian consider (60a) and (60b) to be completely synonymous. But there could be a difference. The evidential perfect variant a. says that the speaker or the "recipient" (see 5.8) comes to the conclusion now (or at the time of perception with embedded clauses in a broad sense) that this is what happened or what the case was. The particle version b. also characterizes a fact as gained by inference. But it is my impression that this version does not necessarily imply a present conclusion: that the snare was there may have become appar­ ent at any time.51 However, I leave it to the native speakers to decide on the subtle difference between perfect and particle use (or their com­ bination, for that matter).52 Historically, turme is independent of the perfect, and it remains to be established if it predates clear cases of the evidential perfect.53 h. Finally, in contrast with its non-evidential uses, the evidential uses of the perfect do not exclude definite temporal localization by time adverbials:54 (61) gušin-cin moğamagire-eb-is kreba qopila (K. Lortkipani3e apud Megrelišvili 1986: 143) yesterday-before workman-Pi-Gen gathering(Nom) it.has.been(Perf) 'The day before yesterday, there was a meeting of the workmen, they say.'

5.10. Old Georgian The question of when the "evidential" variants of the perfect arose in Georgian is controversial. In part this is because some authors take fac­ tual non-witnessedness as evidence for an evidential meaning. While e.g. Kavtara3e (1956: 183) denies any evidential use of the Old Geor­ gian perfect, Ninua and Sarjvela3e (1985) adduce many examples from the oldest texts which "express such actions where the speaker was not present." An example is a passage from a 5th century text, Jacob of Tsurtavi's "Martyrdom of Saint Shushanik":

Evidentiality in Georgian

297

(62) sen čem-i xaţ-i damqu da sagebel-sa čem-sa nacar-i gardaasx da sen-i adgil-i dagiţevebies da sxu-ad çarsul-xar (Šušanikis çameba IV) you my-Nom icon-Nom you.turned.it.down(Aor) and bed-Dat my-Dat ash-Nom you.strew.it(Aor) and your-Nom place-Nom you.have.left.it(Perf) and other-Adv go.off-PP-you.are(Perf) 'You turned down my icon and strew ashes on my bed and you have left your place and have gone elsewhere.'

Now it is clear from the context that the speaker, Saint Shushanik, hasn't "seen" her husband's leaving, but has heard about it (Ninua and Sar3vela3e 1985: 79). But this is an insufficient criterion because aorists are also used the same way.55 Nothing prevents us from giving the perfect forms a resultative interpretation. In fact, apart from some examples with an "existential" present perfect meaning (cf. ad (73) be­ low and Pxaka3e 1984: 97, 100,102) and a performative meaning (see (96)), this is the meaning that seems to account for Old Georgian per­ fect forms in general (Deeters 1930: 178; Pxaka3e 1984: 37-77): (63) me vitar micnobies, col-i šen-i sandsom-il-ars šen-gan (Šušanikis çameba IV) I as I.have.got.to.know.itfPerf). wife-Nom your-Nom separate-PP-Nom-she.is(Perf) you-from 'As I have got to know, your wife has separated from you.'

It is not at all clear to me when the first cases of evidential perfect forms are attested. It remains to be established if late medieval ex­ amples such as the following require a hearsay or admirative interpre­ tation (Pxaka3e 1984: 112; 115)—a problem connected with consider­ able problems of philological and linguistic methodology: (64) auria kalak-i da uxocia čem-i ğar-i (Moses of Khoni: Amirandareğaniani, 12th century) he.has.taken.it(Perf) city-Norn and he.has.killed.it(Perf) my-Nom army-Norn 'He has taken the city and killed my army [they say ?]' (65) magram aset-is paţron-is me qopilvar qmobil-i (ib.) but such-Gen lord-Gen I I.have.beenfPerf) vassal-Nom 'But I am (perfect) the vassal of such a lord.'

For the time being, the hypothesis that the evidential meaning of the Georgian perfect developed or was reinforced under the influence of

298

Winfried Boeder

Turkish-Georgian bilingualism is a real possibility, as far as we know. In Modern Georgian, the resultative meaning is largely covered by analytic constructions: dacer-il-i-a 'write-PP-Nom-it.is' = 'it is/has been written', daceril-i makvs 'written-Nom I.have.iť = 'I have writ­ ten it' (Boeder, to appear). But 19th and 20th century Georgian still preserves resultative perfect forms with a meaning "between aorist and present":56 (66) es cxen-i švil-i-vit gamizrdia (M. Žavaxišvili in Peikrišvili 1974: 64) this(Nom) horse-Nom child-Nom-like I.have.brought.it.up(Perf) 'This horse I have brought up like a child.' (67) deda-čem-is saplav-tan mimicia m-is-tvis siţqva (B. Čxei3e in Peikrišvili 1974: 57) mother-my-Gen tomb-at I.have.given.it(Perf) she-Gen-for word(Nom) 'At the tomb of my mother I have given her my word.'

However, the development of a non-resultative "past" meaning (Pxaka3e 1984: 79-89) of the perfect and its relation to the meanings of the periphrastic forms remains to be clarified. 6. Non-evidential uses of the perfect As in so many languages of the "Balkan-Pontic-Caspian area" (Fried­ man 1984: 145), there are several types of non-evidential use of the perfect. I will list them here without discussing them in detail. In the native grammatical tradition, the fundamental distinction between ev­ idential and non-evidential uses is not drawn. An interesting question could be which of the following non-evidential types of meaning are found with Turkish -mw-forms, but I feel unable to deal with this prob­ lem. The following three meanings (6.1-6.3) can all be subsumed under the so-called "existential" meaning known from the English present perfect (McCawley 1971). All varieties mean that something occurred at least once ("ever") or repeatedly or never during a relevant period of time leading up to the present ("so far", "yet"57) or to some point in time specified in the context.

Evidentiality in Georgian

299

6.1. The "at least once" meaning Many authors58 mention a perfect of "repetition":59 (68) bevr-ğer usagno-d, bevr-ğer azr-it ayelvebula (I. Çavçava3e inPxaka3e 1984: 98) many-time causeless-Adv, many-time reason-Instr he.has.been.worried(Perf) 'Often he was worried without reason, often for some reason.' (69) es ambav-i me gamigonia mama-cem-iz-gana da moxuc-i xalx-iz-gana (I 79) this(Nom) matter-Nom I Lhave.understood.it father-my-Gen-from and old-Gen people-Gen-from 'I have heard this from my father and from old people.' (70) cut-i-sopel-i ese-a,— rame dre-s utenebia, ra-c mţroba-s daukcevia siqvarul-s ušenebia (folk-song, possibly going back to I Çavçava3e) moment-Gerc-world-Nom this(Nom)-it.is, night(Nom) day-Dat it.has.lighted.it.up(Perf) what-Rel hostility-Dat it.has.destroyed.it(Perf) love-Dat it.has. built. it.up(Perf) 'This is the world of fleeting life: the day has lighted up the day, what hostility has destroyed love has built it up.'

The meaning is: "this has happened again and again", and, by a "gno­ mic" generalization of the past, "it happens as a rule". As the evidential perfect has a near-synonym particle + aorist equivalent (4.3), so the "it­ erative" perfect has a counterpart: aorist + xolme 'frequently, used to'.60 Disregarding its textual specificity (see below 6.6), (69) is a near-equivalent of: es ambavi me gavigone xolme mamačemizgana T üşedjo hear (aorist) this from my father'.61 This type of perfect is not at all restricted to "repeated action". The "at least once" meaning is obvious in: (71) tu ar vcdebi, me tkven sadme minaxixar-t (Droša 1970 apud Peikrišvili 1974' 54) if not I.err(Pres), I you somewhere I.have.seen.you-Pl(Perf) 'If I am not mistaken, I have seen you somewhere.'

300

Winfried Boeder

(72) tu viţqvi rom am-gvar-i krebul-i odesme čamocemula (ZK) if I.will.say.it(Fut) that this-kind-Nom collection-Nom ever it.has.been.edited(Perf) 'If I say that such a collection has appeared ever before.' (73) odes qop-il-ars akamomde, tumca mama-ta da deda-ta ert-ad eqama pur-i ? (Jacob of Tsurtavi: Šušanikis çameba VI) ever be-PP-it.is(Perf) till.now, that man-PlObl and woman-PlObl one-Adv they.had.eaten.it(pluperfect) bread-Nom 'Whenever has it been the custom for men and women to dine together?' (transi. D. M. Lang)

The Old Georgian example (73) shows that the "existential", non-resultative perfect, in contrast to the evidential perfect (see 5.10), goes back to the time of the oldest literary tradition. 6.2. Fes-no-questions; temporal localization With yes-no-questions, the perfect is "almost the norm" (Vogt 197.1: 193): (74) pariz-ši qopilxar ? Paris-in you.have.been(Perf) ? 'Have you (ever) been to Paris?'

The perfect is used "where there is no concrete time reference" (Pxaka3e 1984: 126). But the aorist is possible: (75) pariz-ši iqavi ? Paris-in you.were(Aor) ? 'Were you in Paris ?'

This form is used, for example, if I know that the addressee planned to go to Paris at a specific time. In general, the lack of temporal localization is a well-known char­ acteristic of the existential perfect, which distinguishes it from the evidential perfect (cp. 5.9h): (76) sen kac-i ar mogiklavs. kac-isa-tvis ar mogiparavs f...] ra-c unda gekna, is ar giknia?—diar, [...] misvams da miçamia. ar-c ert-i dye msier-i ar yğapilyüii (I. Čavčava3e apud Kavtara3e 1956: 188)

Evidentiality in Georgian

301

you man-Nom not you.have.killed.him, man-Gen-for not-too you.have.stolen.it [...] what(Nom)-Rel it.is.necessary you.had.done.it(pluperfect), that(Nom) not you.have.done.it.(Perf)?—yes, [...] I.have.drunk(Perf) and I.have.eaten(Perf), one-Nom day(Nom) hungry-Nom not I.have.been(Perf) 'Have you ever killed anybody, you have not robbed anybody [...] Have you not done what you were supposed to ?—Yes, [...] I have always drunk and eat­ en, on no day have I been hungry.' 62

6.3. Negation All grammars mention the use of the perfect with negatives: (77) ukan dabruneb-ul-i ara-vin unaxavt (T 21) back return-PP-Nom no-one they.have.seen.himfPerfi 'Nobody has ever seen anybody who returned [from there].' (78) [katam-i] çamoiqvana saxl-ši. saxl-ši misvl-isa-s katam-i ara-vine-s-tvis ar uçyenebia. ise daamçqvdia (Bl 76) [hen-Nom] he.brought.it.with.him(Aor) house-in. house-in going.there-Gen-Dat hen-Nom no-one-Gen-for not he.showed.it.to.himCPerfi. so he.locked.it.up(Aor) 'He took the hen into his house. On going to his house, he didn't show it to any­ body, he locked it up so.' (79) kal-s 3alian-i gaukvirda, magram ara-per-i ar utkvams (Bl 112) woman-Dat very-Nom it.was.surprising.to.her(Aor), but no-thing-Nom noj. she.has.said.it(Perf) 'The woman was very surprised, but she said nothing.' (80) Kacia çabarbacda, magram ar dakceula (D. Kldiašvili apud Pxaka3e 1984: 129) Katsia he.reeled(Impf), but not he.fell.downfPerf) 'Katsia reeled, but did not fall down.' (81) qvela-n-i vir-eb-at gadikcnen, xelmcip-is meţ-i imiţom, rom ima-s ar uçamia [sc. vašl-i], radgan sxva-s umaspinşldeboda (Bl 82) all-Pl-Nom ass-Pl-Adv they.became(Aor), king-Gen additional-Nom therefore, that that.one-Dat not he.has.eaten.it(Perf) [sc. apple-Nom], because other-Dat he.treat­ ed. them(Impf) 'All became asses, except the king, for the reason that he had not eaten [an apple], because he treated the others [sc.with apples]'.

302

Winfried Boeder

Grammars and native speakers unanimously say that the negated per­ fect contrasts with the negated aorist in that the latter denotes a refusal to do something, a "purposeful non-performance of the action" (Fried­ man 1988: 132): (82) dedaber-ma utxra: aket nu mixval, torem cocxal-i ver dabrundebi-o ! qmaçvil-ma ar dauğera (Bl 112) old.woman-Erg she.said.to.him: here.wards not.imperativeyou.will.go(Fut), otherwise living-Nom not.possible you.will.return-Quot ! young.man-Erg not he.believed.her(Aoť) 'The old woman told him: Don't go this way, otherwise you will not be able to return alive! The young man did not believe her.' (83) roţo dro-ze ar mitxari ? (BI 56) why time-on not you.told,it.to,me(Aor') ? 'Why didn't you tell me in time?'

Compare the following minimal pair a. vs b.: (84) a. im rames ik darčnen, magram Irmisa-s ar dasşinebia (T 51 ) that(Obl) night-Dat there they.stayed(Aor), but Irmisa-Dat not he.has.fallen.asleep(Perf) 'That night they stayed there, but Irmisa did not fall sleep.' b. Irmisa-m im rame-s ar daişina {Y 52) Irmisa-Erg that(Obl) night-Dat not he.went.to.sleep(Aor) 'Irmisa did not go to sleep that night [because a dragon was expected to come]'.

However, this meaning is needs absent from non-volitive verb forms: (85) saqvarel-is-tvis vaxs{a)m-is mirtmeva surda magram katam-i ki QZ daurča, radganac švil-eb-ma šecames (Bl 78) lover-Gen-for supper-Gen offering(Nom) she.wanted.it but chicken-Nom however not i t. was .left, for. her( Aor). for child-Pi-Erg thev.ate.it.up(Aor') 'She wanted to offer her lover a supper, but there wasn't left any chicken for her because her sons had eaten it.' (86) saramo-s rom deda dabrunda da kalisvil-eb-i saxl-si ar daxvda, ţiril-i morto (Bl 88) evening-Dat when mother(Nom) she.returned(Aor) and daughter-Pl-Nom house-in not she.met.them(Aoť). weeping-Nom she.raised.it(Aor) 'In the evening, when the mother returned and did not find her daughters at home, she began to weep.'

Evidentiality in Georgian (87)

303

yoxa-s rka ar amouvida da kočikoči-s eşaxoden-o (Bl 2,5; a proverb) cow-Dat horn(Nom) not it.came.up.to.heriAor) and little.calf-Dat they.called.her(Impf)-Quot 'A cow did not get a horn, and they called her "little calf'.'

Taken as a whole, the opposition between negated aorist, as in (85)(87), and negated perfect, as in (80), seems to be that the negated aorist is more "concrete" and "categorical", as informants usually say.63 It is more "concrete" in the sense that it is temporally located, while the ne­ gated perfect is temporally indefinite. The aorist is "categorical" in the sense that it does not leave undecided the possibility of occurrence (as with the "not yet" of the negative perfect). But the opposition between negated aorist and negated perfect probably has to be differentiated ac­ cording to the volitional vs. non-volitional semantics of the verb. With non-volitional verb forms, the opposition simply mirrors the semantics of non-negated forms. The negated aorists in (85)-(87) are unmarked. They mean that something was not the case at a specific time: in (85), the disappearing of the chicken meat is a "dynamic" event that occurred at a specific time, namely when the children ate it (which is a fact mentioned in the preceding context). Negation in gen­ eral means defeated expectancy,64 but the negated aorist in (86)-(87) specifically means that the participants expected it to happen at that time, but it did not:65 the woman did not see her children who were sup­ posed to be there; the horn did not come out as nature would make the observer expect. The corrresponding perfect forms, on the other hand, would have either an evidential or an existential meaning. Depending on the respective context, (87) a. rka ar amosula horn(Nom) not it.has.come.up(Perf)

can mean either: 'the horn apparently has not come forth' or 'the horn has not yet / never come forth'. The latter meaning is the "perfectum nondum facti" (Johanson, forthcoming), which simply states "that the possibility of occurrence is not excluded, but it has not occurred yet"66 (Talakva3e 1959: 169, note 1) during the relevant period of time. With volitional verbs, the specific meaning of the negated aorist ("did not want to") results from the fact that the participants and ob-

304

Winfried Boeder

servers of the situation expected somebody to act in the specified way, and if he or she did not, it is natural to impute a refusal to act. The per­ fect, on the other hand, has two meanings again: ar ucamia (cf. [81]) can mean either: 's/he apparently has not eaten it' or simply: 's/he did not eat it'. With the latter meaning, the perfect of volitional verbs seems to be the unmarked member of the opposition between negated aorist and negated perfect. And while the "existential" perfect meaning of negated non-volitional verbs has a present-time reference ("not yet"), the relevant period of time with the perfect of volitional verbs can, but need not, lead up to the time of speaking: while it does so in (ll),67 it leads up to the moment of coming home in (78), to some mo­ ment in the past, for instance the end of wondering in (79), and to that of reeling in (80). In (81), the relevant period is probably the time be­ tween the king's treating the others with apples and a reference time in the past, namely the moment when the "witness" of the story saw that they became asses. 6.4. Compatibility of meanings The factual features of the "existential perfect" described above, for instance its "iterative meaning", are compatible with evidentiality. Pxaka3e (1984: 119) points out that "rarely, a form denoting "non-wit­ nessed" can also denote repeated action": (88) da sen ki ramden-ğer-me šesulxar saxl-ši (A. Qazbegi) and you however some-time-Part you,have.entered(Perf) house-in 'But apparently you entered the house several times.'

This sentence allows the use of the evidential particle turme and of temporal localization (e.g. "yesterday"). Similarly, evidentiality (hear­ say in (89) and inference in (90)) can be combined with negation:68 (89) ver gauqviat bina, ar qopila sakm-ian-i adgil-i (I. Abaši3e Pxaka3e 1984: 134) not.possible they.have.divided.it(Perf) flat(Nom), not it.has.beentPerf) matter-having-Nom place-Nom 'They could not divide the flat, there was no place of work.'

Evidentiality in Georgian

305

(90) tkven kac-eb-i arara qopilxart (A. Qazbegi ib.) you(Pl) man-Pl-Nom not.anvmore vou(PP.have.beeníPerf) 'You are no men anymore.'

And, as V. Friedman has pointed out to me, admirative usage, which refers to the unexpected discovery of a preexisting state, combines evidentiality and existentiality (see 5.2). However, these cases do not necessarily mean that the evidential perfect and the existential perfect are combined in the sense that in some languages, for instance, perfectivity is hierarchically "superimposed" on imperfects (Comrie 1976: 32). The perfect in a sentence like (88) is evidential, not existential. 6.5. Meanings, variants and ambiguities Note that some meanings of the English present perfect mentioned by McCawley (1971) are not rendered by perfect forms in Georgian: "hot news" {Malcolm X has just been assassinated) are in the aorist.69 Also, a translation of English: I've known Max since 1960 will be in the present (vicnob 'I know him'), as in German: (91) amden-i xan-i-a gqidulob da ver miqidnixar (A. Çereteli apud Pxaka3e 1984: 133) so.much-Nom time-Nom-it.is I.buy.you(Pres) and not.possible I.have.bought.you(Perf) 'I have been buying you for a long time, and yet I have not been able to buy you'.

Finally, results as in: I've caught the flu are expressed by aorist forms (gavcivdi lit. 'I got cold'). The existential presupposition of the famous sentence: Einstein has visited Princeton (McCawley 1971: 106) is absent from both the aorist and perfect variants: (92) a. Lenin-i Pariz-ši iqo Lenin-Nom Paris-in he.was(Aor) 'Lenin was in Paris (at that time).' b. Lenin-i Pariz-ši qopila Lenin-Nom Paris-in he.has.been(Perf) 'Lenin has been in Paris (at least once).'

306

Winfried Boeder

Neither of these variants seems to imply that Lenin is still alive. It should be noted that a sentence like (92b) is ambiguous: it either means that Lenin was in Paris at least once or that I come to the con­ clusion that he was (or is said to have been there). I have no ambiguity tests as they are used in lexical semantics to offer, and the important question of what "invariant meaning", "chief contextual variant" and "other contextual variants" in the Jakobsonian sense are in the case of the Georgian perfect cannot be answered here (Friedman 1988: 121122). But we may perhaps say that the existential and evidential read­ ings are two different meanings, they are not just contextual possi­ bilities of interpretation, as for example in (18)—(19), which means ei­ ther '(I was told/I hear) you have built a new house' or \l was a guest in your house and saw your new house, so apparently) you built a new house' (Kekelia and Davitiani 1973: 198). The evidential perfect is vague in this respect: "the source of the evidence itself is not in focus in an inferential assertion" (Willett 1988: 63; cf. 5.9a). In (92b), on the other hand, the choice between an "evidential" and an "existential" reading iş relevant in a sense to be determined below. 6.6. Pragmatic properties The existential uses of the perfect do not presuppose that the speaker "did not know before" (cp. 5.3; 5.9d). On the contrary, they denote something "that happened in the past, was so to speak forgotten, but under specific conditions can be called back to one's memory" (Talakva3e 1959: 170). What are these conditions? Although its embedding in coherent dis­ course remains to be analyzed, the Georgian "existential perfect" may safely be assumed to have a textual function specifying "the relevance of including a past event within the present", as Leinonen (1996: 139) puts it. She points out that "A sentence with an existential perfect [...] should always be textually subordinate to some claim made about the topic at hand", and she gives the following paraphrase: "There exists an event 'X V-eď in the history, classifiable as evidence, instantiation or counterargument to the topic concerning the present situation." (ib. 142), which is the "stage-setting function" of the perfect (ib. 147). In-

Evidentiality in Georgian

307

deed, in example (70), the perfect forms "instantiate" the "present sit­ uation" expressed in the first line, and they illustrate the repeatability that is typical of facts expressed by the existential perfect.70 Similarly, negative sentences as in (76) are statements that there does not exist, in the speaker's experience, "such a thing" (Leinonen 1982: 262): they are "counter examples", and expected facts in general (see 5.3 and 6.3, and the notes 34 and 63) may well play the role of "topics concerning the present situation". As noted at the beginning of section 5, the existential meaning seems to be less salient for native speakers. Its difference from the aorist meaning is probably more subtle than the evidential meanings.

7. Additional meanings of the perfect related to the present 7.1. Performative meaning71 This seems to be the only case where the Modern Georgian perfect has a "present meaning":72 On a season's greetings card you may write either (93) or (94): (93) gilocavt axal cel-s I.bless(Pres).it.to.you(Pl) new year-Dat 'A happy New Year !' (94) momilocavs axali celi I.have.blessed(Perf).it new-Nom year-Nom 'A happy New Year !' (95) es čem-i samepo šen-tvis mičukebia-o (Bl 70) this(Nom) my-Nom kingdom(Nom) you-for I.have.made.a.present(Perf)-Quot '[The king says, dying after single combat:] 'I hereby give you my kingdom, he said.'

This is the "fait-accompli" meaning, to use a term coined by Spitzer (1928) in a somewhat different context:73 by uttering a proposition which anticipates its becoming true, the speaker makes it become true. This idiomatic use has parallels in Azerbaijani and Turkish (Friedman

308

Winfried Boeder

1979: 342), but notice that this use is already attested for Old Georg­ ian: (96) 3tna-ta šen-ta dye-sa šina ert-sa ra-j mkon. mimicemia. (Giorgi Merčule: The Life ofGrigol ofKhandzta 47,2-3, ed. N. Marr; 10th cent.) brother-PlObl your-PlObl day-Dat in one-Dat what-Nom they.will.harvest.it(Opt=Fut). I.have.given.it(Perf). '[Prince Abulsad gives the following promise:] What your brethren will har­ vest within a day, I hereby give them.'

7.2. Wishes The perfect is also used as a kind of optative in wishes, curses and the like.74 Again, the event in the perfect is considered to be already true if the condition is met. These instances occur mostly in the context of conditionals, as in (94)-(95): (97) kud-i ar gvxuria. tu ver šegananebt-o (Akaki Çereteli apud Peikrišvili 1974: 59) hat-Nom notit.has.been.put.on.us.as.a.coverCPerf). if not.possible we. will.make.you.re­ gret.it(Fut) 'We shall have no hat on (= we shall not be men), if we cannot make you pay for it'. (98) ušeno-d ert dxe-sa-c nu micocxlia (B. Čxei3e apud Peikrišvili 1974: 59) without.you-Adv one day-Dat-even imperative.not I.have.livedCPerf) 'May I not live even one day without you.' (99) ui, damidga tval-eb-i, ama-s sicxe akvs ! axla amšenebia-o^ax-i (T. Razikašvili apud Peikrišvili 1974: 56) oh.dear, they.stood.still(Aor) eye-Pl-Nom, this-Dat heat(Nom) he.has.it(Pres)! now I. have, built. it.upťPerO-Ouot family-Nom 'Oh dear me, may I lose my sight [= a curse], this one has fever! Now my fam­ ily will be happy (ironical) !' (100) aba gvinadirnia dres !—tkva Papuna-m (A. Beliašvili apud Peikrišvili 1974: 59) now! we.have.hunted(Perf) today !—he.said.it(Aor) Papuna-Erg 'Now, let us hunt today !—said Papuna.'

Evidentiality in Georgian

309

The meaning of (100) is: as the necessary conditions are met or are favourable, it is already decided that we will go hunting. Besides the "fait-accompli" meaning, the optative reading could be connected with the archaic optative use of the aorist (Vogt 1971: 197), as in the first clause of (99). It is traditionally explained by the loss of the optative particle -mca,15 which may be used explicitly (Pxaka3e 1984: 133): (101) ara-mc gamobrunebulxar! (L. Gotua) not-Particle you.have.returned(Perf) 'May you not return!' (a toast addressing a deceased person)

7.3. Conditionals The perfect is often used in negative conditionals: (102) kac-i ar vqppilvar, tu gazapxul-ze škola argvkonia(B. Čxei3e apud Peikrišvili 1974: 59) man-Nom not I.have.been(Perf). if spring-on school(Nom) not we.have,had,it(Perf) 'I shall not be a man, if we have no school in spring.'

but also in positive conditional clauses, which parallels the normal use of the aorist in the protasis: (103) tu ert-i lukma gagišvia. kiser-s mogčrit-o (Meskhian apud Peikrišvili 1988: 55) if one-Nom morsel(Nom) vou.have.let.it.dfopfPerf). neck-Dat we.will.cut.it.(to)you-Quot 'If you let drop one single morsel, we will cut your neck, they said.'

8. Evidentials in the dialects and in genetically related languages The system described above is essentially that of Modern Literary Georgian. Laz, Mingrelian and Svan and their Georgian neighbour dialects in Western Georgia and some adjacent central dialects have developed a richer system which provides special evidential verb forms as counterparts not only for the non-evidential aorist but also for the present, imperfect, and future.76 Another possibility is to extend the use of the perfect to cases where the present, the imperfect etc. are used

310

Winfried Boeder

in Standard Georgian, as, for example, in a sub-dialect of Kartlian described by Kaxa3e (1979): (104) vašl~i mihkonebiat. Ruset-ši midian apple-Nom they.have.transported,it(Perf). Russia-in they.go(Pres) 'Apparently, they transport (perfect ~ present) apples, they go to Russia.' (105) ra gvian casulxar what late you.have.gone.offíPerf) 'How late you go (admirative perfect ~ present) [to the office] !' (106) even venax-ši ubariat our vineyard-in they .have. spaded(Perf) 'They used to dig (hearsay perfect ~imperfect) in our vineyard, they say.'

These formations follow a pattern known from other languages: evidential forms refer first of all to the past. In some languages, the marking of evidentiality is optional with non-past tenses (Kozinceva 1994: 100), in others it is secondary from a historical point of view. 9. A tentative hypothesis For the rest of this paper, I will venture a tentative explanation of how the evidential meanings of the Georgian perfect relate to the resultative meaning that we know from Old Georgian (5.10). Let me start with Comrie's (1976: 110) observation on perfects and evidentials. He says that "the semantic similarity [...] between perfect and inferential lies in the fact that both categories present an event not in itself, but via its results, and it is this similarity that finds formal expression in languages like Georgian, Bulgarian, and Estonian". I would like to specify the relation between these two types of result, namely between "postterminality" and "indirectivity" (Johanson 1996: 86), by pointing out that results imply a causal relation and that causality occurs in two variants: one external and one internal. Compare the type of examples described by Rutherford (1970) and others: (107) He's not coming to class because he's sick (external causality: X is the case because Y)

Evidentiality in Georgian

311

He's not coming to class, because he just called from San Diego (internal causality: I say X because Y) Mary isn't here because she has to work in her office (external causality) Mary isn't here because I don't see her (internal causality)

The point is that internal causality gives the reason for my saying something or, to be more precise, for my judgment (Keller 1993: 242). In other words, the clause of reason has an epistemic meaning ("The fact that Y causes me to think that X"). By contrast, the old resultative perfect simply expressed the fact that a present, unspecified state X is due to a past event Y: (108) X because Y

For example, "you have left your place" (see (62)) means: "your place [is empty because] you left it". These resultatives refer to a kind of conditional relation: "X because Y" is warranted because of a rule: "if A then B". If the use of resultatives is extended to an internal meaning, the kind of justification is very different: (109) I think X because there is evidence Y for X

which is not justified by a simple rule of the type: "if A, then B". Rather, all sorts of justification come into play. In other words, there are many different "indirect types of evidence" (Willett 1988: 57) which make (109) a valid argument. It is true that the rule : "if A, then B" is still a good reason for thinking (109): saying that you have left your place is well justified by pointing out that I see that you are not here. In fact, it seems that every assertion of the type (108) can be substituted for by an assertion of the type (109) with an epistemic clause of reason (Keller 1993: 245). But saying that you have left your place (= X in [109]) may also be justified by the fact that somebody else told me (= Y in [109]), which is the hearsay use of the perfect. And there are other reasons: saying that the illness has been painful (see (31)) may be justified on reflection, summarizing the details of the course of the past events from which I derive my conclusion; saying that old age IS bad (see (33)) may be justified on reflection, again summarizing the details of past events; and saying that you are fantastic (see (40)) may

312

Winfried Boeder

be justified because there was unexpected evidence for it. All these are the meanings of the Georgian evidential perfect, which are based on different "sources of evidence" like inference, hearsay etc. Note, however, that Y is left unspecified (see 6.5), as is X in (108). In a similar vein, one may speculate whether an analogous description could be given for the "existential" meaning of the perfect. Leinonen's paraphrase (see 6.6) can perhaps be assimilated to (109): "I say X, because X is evidence for Y", where Y is "the topic concerning the present situation". I do not claim that the formula in (109) is the whole story, but I think that it is an abstract representation of part of its meaning. Among other things, the performative formula (109) accounts for the fact that evidential are restricted to assertions (see 5.7-8),77 and for the present time meaning of the perfect ("there is evidence") (see 5.9d).—Now if this is correct, the change from (108) to (109) is the historical change from a purely resultative Old Georgian perfect to one of the uses of the Modern Georgian perfect, namely its evidential use. The change from (108) to (109) would then be another example of what Traugott (1988: 409) has described as a general tendency of semantic change, namely the change from external relations to internal, speaker-dependent relations, from external causality to internal causality in this case. In the languages that I know, causal relators can always be used in both senses. This may explain the relative ease with which the new, evidential meaning of the Georgian perfect could arise—regardless of whether language contact contributed to the development of this meaning or not. Notes 1. I owe many thanks to the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul for inviting me to participate in its stimulating conference on evidentials, and I am very grateful for the kind encouragement of L. Johanson, É. Csató and Chr. Schroeder to work on a topic from which I had kept away before. I wish to express my gratitude to Rezo Kiknadze (Liibeck/Tbilisi) for his generous and patient assistance as a native speaker consultant. He should not, however, be held responsible for any misinterpretation.—I am also indebted to Guram Topuria (Georgian Academy of Sciences, Tbilisi), Johannes Heinecke (Humboldt University, Berlin), Michael Job (University of Marburg), Bernard Outtier (University of Geneva),

Evidentiality in Georgian

2. 3. 4.

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. '4.

313

Florian Panitz (University of Oldenburg), Christoph Schroeder (University of Essen) and Victor Friedman (University of Chicago) for many clarifications and valuable suggestions; and to Robert McLaughlin (University of Oldenburg) for correcting the English of an earlier version of this paper. Šani3e (1941 [1981: 423, footnote 1]); (1973: § 261, note 2). Vogt (1945). Kozinceva (1995: 299).—For Šilak^e (1971: 46^17 § 64), the meanings of the East Armenian perfect "correspond almost exactly to those of the Georgian perfect, except that the Armenian perfect has a wider range of use." The East Armenian perfect seems to cover both the Georgian perfect and its analytic resultative forms ("to be" / "to have" + PP). Vogt ( 1945: 217-218) denies that the Modern Armenian perfect has an evidential meaning: "C'est curieux que le parfait de l'arménien moderne n'ait rien du sens particulier du parfait géorgien, lorsque cette nuance de sens se retrouve exactement dans les formes turques en -mis." Earlier contacts with different Turkic tribes that invaded Georgia in medieval times, or the 40,000 Qipchak Turkic warriors who settled in Georgia with their families under the reign of David II (1089-1125), are neglected here because their linguistic impact is even more difficult to assess. For a historical survey of Turkic in the Caucasus see Gadžieva (1979). Their strongly Turkicized dialect has been well described by Grigol Imnaišvili and by Venera 3angİ3e (1978), among others. Vogt (1934: 249); ŠanÍ3e (1941 [1981: 423], 1973: § 261, footnote 2). SeeWillett(1988:64). It is a "purely functional category" (Pxaka3e 1984: 109). See, for example, Vogt (1971: 163-172); Deeters (1931: 166-177) for Old and Modern Georgian, Svan, Mingrelian and Laz. See Nata3e (1955), Arabuli (1984), Harris (1985 (chapter 13)). According to Šani3e ( 1941 [1981: 423^424]), the pluperfect can have an eviden­ tial meaning, for example in: monadire gadaçva kldezed da ise dainaxa %ixvi, romelsac vargiši moscqenoda. gasuliqo kldis napirad, amoedo sami pexi kveš, meotxe ki pirdapir gaesvirada ise dacpliliqp (A. Qazbegi) 'The hunter lay down leaning over the rock, and so could see the ibex that had become weary of its exercise, had gone to the edge of a rock, had put three legs under it, but had stretched out the fourth and had thus laid down.' Šani3e argues that the hunter had not seen all these actions of the ibex and that the (underlined) pluperfect forms denote a conclusion about unwitnessed events. While this is factually cor­ rect in this context, it does not prove that the pluperfect as such has this mean­ ing.—In his later writings, Šani3e seems to have dropped this interpretation. In Abkhaz, this type of future seems to have developed into an evidential (Hewitt 1979). Russian okazyvaetsja.—tu-r-me (older form tu-re; Kavtara3e 1956: 179-180) contains the particles -re 'somewhat, a little' and -me 'indefinite particle' (cf. vin

314

Winfried Boeder

'who' : vin-me 'somebody'; rogor 'how' : rogor-me 'somehow') and tu 'if; probably, German wohl'). The Eastern Georgian Mountain dialects use tu in the sense of turme (Arabuli 1980: 153): samn mtxovaran tu ariana' sxen riqeši 'There were ("are", praesens historicum) three beggars, it is said, and they sat ("sit") on a stony riverside'.—On an early gloss of turme see note 23. 15. Šani3e (1973: § 281); Peikrišvili (1988: 56). 16. Vogt (1971: 195).—Kavtara3e (1956: 182) is rather cautious with respect to non-occurrence ("titkmis arc ixmareba"), but gives no counter-example. 17. For example: camodis qopil 'apparently, s/he comes (present) here' = kalir imiš; akawroba begebs da xanebs učeria qopila 'apparently, the begs and the khans have the people here under control' = buralary bejbr V3 xanlar tuturlar imiš. 18. with-m as in tur-me? (See footnote 13.) If so, qopila-m has a close parallel in the Komi Zyryän evidential particle völöm-kö, which is the perfect ("second past") form of "to be" plus (interrogative >) indefinite particle (M. Leinonen, this vol­ ume). 19. qopil and ikneb remotely resemble do-ren 'Prev(?)-it.is' in the Laz dialects of Vice and Arhavi which is suffixed to finite verb forms: b-zum-um-ţi-doren 'lS-measure(verb)-Impf-doren' (= 'I apparently measured it') (Čikobava 1936: 141; Arabuli 1980: 151). Today, Laz is surrounded by Turkish and has quite a few grammatical formations due to bilingualism. (See for instance Žikia 1967, Brendemoen 1996.) However, B. Brendemoen (April 23rd, 1998) pointed out to me that the archaic Turkish Black Sea dialects around Trabzon lack the eviden­ tial use of -miş in the literary language. On the other hand, Laz formerly had Ar­ menian and Greek neighbours, and it would be interesting to know if their dia­ lects had similar evidential forms. 20. Arabuli (1980: 151) thinks that Chechen-Ingush does not offer a good model for qopila. But in his source, D. Imnaisvili's analysis of Nakh (Chechen, Ingush, Bats) evidential perfect forms (1954), one possible model is omitted: the past participle XAiina 'been' of XAlar 'to be, stay'. Brillanta Buraževa (Akmola/Kazakhstan), whose ancestors came from a village not too far from Juta, (although separated from it by a mountain ridge), provided me with the following ex­ amples: a:ra v-eannd XAHH-U: 'on vyxodil/vyšel, okazyvaetsja' (where a:ra is 'out', v- class prefix for males, eanna the converb form of 'to go', xann- 'been', -w < -v-a class marker + copula); sa vošd-z ja leattB eaxd xAtina-d 'my brother-Erg this field ploughed been-inanimate.class.marker[of the dropped copula]' ('apparently, my brother has ploughed the field'). Notice that XAnn-w XAnna-d differs from qopilam as Azerbaijani imiš differs from Ingilo qopil'- l l bears the inflection marker (the copula). However, I must leave this question to the specialists of the Nakh languages. (One of them, J. Heinecke, kindly pr°" vided me with the transcription of Ingush as proposed by J. Nichols. It does not necessarily reproduce my informant's phonological system.) 21. The Armenian particle erer has developed from the inferential participle of " t 0

Evidentiality in Georgian

22.

23.

24.

25. 26.

27.

315

be" (Donabédian 1996: 95)—and the basis of the perfect form qopila is qopil-, which is the past participle of "to be". Like qopil and turme, erer is used with all tenses, the perfect included. See Donabédian (1996: 95-97) for an analysis of the subtle meanings of erer. "Podobno tadžikskomu perfektu tatskij perfekt možet takže upotrebljaťsja v predloženijax, predstavljajuščix soboj logičeskoe zakljačenie, vývod iz kakixlibo sdelannyx govorjaščim nabljudenij, a takže esli vyskazyvanie v celom javljaetsjaperedačej s čužix slov. Pri étom v pervom iz ukazannyx slučaev často, a vo vtorom—kak pravilo posle perfekta stavitsja modal'naja častica mis" (Grjunberg 1963: 88). Friedman (this volume and 1994) shows that an Aromunian dialect of Macedonia has borrowed the 3rd singular Albanian admirative marker -ka in exactly the same way. See Johanson (1996: 92-93) for a discussion of Bulgarian bil and its parallels in Kiptchak, Latvian etc. For the Uzbek particles emiš and ekan (both derived from copula forms), see Nasilov (1983). Tajik budaast, which is again the 3rd singular perfect form of "to be", seems to have similar functions (Friedman 1979: 343), and resembles Turkish and Azerbaijani imis in its quotative function (Friedman 1979: 344). Similar forms seem to occur in Yukaghir, a Siberian language ("verb suffix -lei, derived from the existential verb le-"; Willett 1988: 78), Finno-Ugric Cheremis (ul-maš verbal noun of ul- 'tobe'; Perrot 1996: 160) and American In­ dian languages (Willett 1988: 82). See e.g. Šani3e (1973: §§ 261, 281).—The earliest paraphrase of evidential meaning I know ofis found in the lexicon of prince Teimuraz Bagraţioni (1782— 1846) under the entry turme (see 4.3): es leksi danišvneli aris, odes sakmej rajme ara vuçqodet da šemdgomad ra vscnobt mas, mašin viţqvit, turme es sakme ase qopila da even ara vuçqodito (Teimuraz 1979: 63) 'This word is a designation when we did not know something, and afterwards when we consider it, then we will say: "Apparently {turme) this must have been (perfect!) so, and we did not know".' Vogt (1934: 248). See e.g. Schuchardt (1895: 37).—The "witnessed" vs. "non-witnessed" termi­ nology in recent articles seems to go back to the native (Persian-)Turkish măzi i naqli 'preterite of tradition' for the -m/i-forms and măzi i suhüdi 'preterite of witness' for the -di-iorms, (Grünenthal 1936: 134). See Grünenthal (1936: 138), Lohmann (1937: 42; 43 footnote 1). Pănini (Renou 1947: 131) uses this term to describe the meaning of the Old Indian perfect; no­ tice that the commentaries (in square brackets below) mention negation and question as additional contexts of the perfect ((c), (e); cp. 6.2-3), and that there are "synonymous" particles comparable to turme ((d), cp. 4.3) and to the itera­ tive use ((d)sasvat, cp. 6.1): a) Pănini III 2,115 parokşe "Les désinences du "lit" (= parfait) (valent quand il s'agit d'un passé qui n'est pas d'aujourd'hui, pour ex­ primer quelque chose situé) hors la vue (du sujet parlant), [jagăma 'il est allé

316

28.

29. 30.

31. 32. 33.

34. 35.

Winfried Boeder (avant aujourd'hui, et je n'en ai pas été témoin)'], b) [La Ire personne ne sera en usage que si le sujet relate une action qu'il a faite durant le sommeil ou l'ivresse.] e) [Vărttika: le "lit" vaut aussi quand il y a dénégation absolue: nâhatn kapitthïm jagâma 'non, je ne suis point allé à K.'] d) III 2,116 [le parfait et l'imparfait valent ... pour exprimer quelque chose situé hors la vue], s'il y a (pour mots complémentaires les particules) ha et šasvat [iti hăkarotI cakăra 'voilà ce qu'il a fait' (ha 'of course, to be sure (expressing the author's agreement with a view)'; šasvat 'perpetually, always; it is true, certainly' (A. A. Macdonell)).] e) III 2,117 [le parfait et l'imparfait valent ...] aussi pour désigner une période proche, dans une interrogation." Note, however, that in his grammar (1906), Mose Žanašvili used the term "iter­ ative preterite" ("namqo mravalgzisi", after Pxaka3e 1984: 8), thus highlighting one non-evidential use of the perfect (see 6.1), while the 18th century gram­ marians seem to underline its Old Georgian resultative meaning (see 5.9). For example, the Georgian patriarch Anton I writes: "this tense is called "more (?) complete preterite" (namqo usrulesi) because a verb with these endings denotes not only the completed and delimited action and suffering of an agent or patient, but also the past time elapsed after its completion" (Babunašvili 1970: 141). Anton's term could be a translation of "plus quam perfectum" (hypersyntélikos, the "long ago (pálai) past" of ancient Greek grammar). The Italian missionaries, whose Georgian grammars seem to have influenced Anton's grammatical con­ cepts and who probably did not fully understand the meaning of the Georgian perfect, called it "secondo perfetto" or "piu che perfetto", in contrast to "perfetto" = "aorist". See Babunašvili and Uturgai3e (1991: 37-41). "interprétation, une glose de l'énonciateur" (Donabédian 1996: 92). Meţreveli (1969; see also Kavtara3el956: 191 ) rightly points out this unmarked character of the aorist—in spite of Šani3e's term naxavi 'seen' to denote the "category" of non-perfect (present and aorist series; see 3.): "witnessed" (or "confirmative", Howard Aronson in Friedman 1988: 121) is not a category of Georgian grammar ("Kartulši ar dgindeba", Meţreveli 1969: 65) and the aorist occurs in contexts of both "witnessedness" and "non-witnessedness" (thus also Šani3e 1973 § 261, footnote 1).—For similar observations on Macedonian and Bulgarian see Friedman (1986: 171-172; 1988: 122-123). Friedman (1988: 133; 135; 137, footnote 9). For a different distribution of markedness in the Balkans, see Friedman (1986: 173; 1988: 125). I owe this interpretation to Victor Friedman. See Friedman (1979: 341), (1988: 133); Job (1994: 47) for parallels in the lan­ guages stretching from the Balkans to Tajikistan.—M. Job has helped me to clar­ ify the admirative use. See Friedman (1988: 127) on Bulgarian and Macedonian. Cp. Nasilov's observation on Uzbek: "Esli v rezul'tate analiza dannyx govorjaščij udostoverjaetsja v nesomennosti soobščaemogo fakta, to voznikaet otten-

Evidentiality in Georgian

36. 37.

38. 39.

40.

41.

42.

43. 44.

317

ok neožidannosti ili udivlenija" (1983: 180). Donabédian (1996: 93) points out that "admiration ou surprise" does not exclude inference. Indeed, I have the impression that "admirative" perfects always contain an inference from what the speaker has witnessed in the (immediate ?) past. "refers to a state whose veracity the speaker would have been unwilling to confirm before the moment of discovery" (Friedman 1988: 127, 133). For Turkish, Aksu-Koç and Slobin (1986: 162) call this "metaphorical" or "feigned surprise" and cite Kononov (1956: 232): "an ironical attitude toward the carrying out of an action ("Ah, so you think we went!")." Donabédian (1996: 93) speaks of "vérité consensuelle" connected with an "effacement de la subjectivité". Friedman's (1988: 132) restriction that "Georgian shows a marked difference from all the other languages in that it does not use the perfect in connected narratives" or "extended narratives (e.g. tales [...])" (Friedman 1988: 133) is too strong. (For the distribution of narrative perfect forms see Friedman 1979: 341.)—On the other hand, it is true that Georgian never uses the perfect in the idiomatic opening of fairy-tales (Friedman 1988: 132): iqo da ara iqo ra 'it.was and no(t) it.was something' = 'it was and was nothing' ~ 'once upon a time'. For discontinuous ara ... ra 'nothing' see also example (5) and Sanİ3e 1973 § 142). Johanson (1996: 88) extends the concept of "plot-advancing" to evidential forms: "In narratives, accounting for unwitnessed past events, they [sc. event-oriented indirectives] may serve as propulsive ("plot-advancing") units of the discourse basis." See also Johanson (2000). Cp. the incompatibility of turme with non-indicative moods in 4.3.—On the "mood" interpretation see also Friedman (1986: 169); (1988: 137 footnote 3).— According to Vogt (1934: 249), a modal ("conjunctive") meaning is assigned to the perfect by unsophisticated Georgians: "Ein Georgier ohne besondere gram­ matische Kenntnisse wird bei der Erklärung der Bedeutung dieses Perfekts oft sagen, es sei ein Konjunktiv. Aus dieser Färbung erklärt sich auch der häufige Gebrauch dieser Formen in negativen und fragenden Sätzen." In his semantic analysis of the Archi (East Caucasian) evidential, Kibrik (1977: 230) observes: "V rjade slučaev govorjaščij učastvuet v situacii, soderžanie kotoroj neizvestno slučajuščemu. V étix slučajax takže vozmožna kategorija zaglaznosti. [...] "Ja tebja nenavižu" [...] Slučajuščij ne znaet, čto govorjaščij ee nenavidit: zaglaznosť podčerkivaet noviznu soobščenija dlja slučajuščego." As far as I can see, this use is not possible in Georgian non-embedded clauses (or outside free indirect speech). See Friedman (1979: 345). I owe these judgments on grammaticality to Rezo Kikna3e, who is somewhat hesitant about the idiomaticity of expressions like darçmunebuli ...var in (55) and ecvi makvs in (56), which are probably caiques. According to Friedman (1979: 345), clauses such as (55) "normally require the perfect", while "native

318

45. 46. 47.

48. 49. 50. 51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

Winfried Boeder speakers will accept aorists in subordination to clauses of doubt". Friedman is silent on the ungrammaticality of the perfect in (56), and his informants think that clauses such as (59) "require the aorist". The appropriate form after "it is possible" is the pluperfect with subjunctive function: ... rom es çerili daeçera) For the distribution of the evidential with different modes of truth see Givón (1982); Kozinceva (1994: 98). In this sense it would be less appropriate to speak of "the speaker's attitude to­ ward the reliability of the truth-value of the information" (Friedman 1986: 185) or even of "subjective evaluation" (Friedman 1988: 137, footnote 3). Which is what Friedman (1988: 128) found in Macedonian and Bulgarian. See also B. Comrie's introduction to this volume. This is the use allowed by the Indian grammarian Patanjali for Sanskrit (Grü­ nenthal 1936: 138; 134 and footnote 6). See note 26, b). See Donabédian (1996: 91) for this point in Armenian. This is what Kavtara3e (1956: 183) seems to imply. He rightly insists that the perfect refers to a. present result. According to him, however, the turme + aorist variant sometimes means that the speaker was present at the event as a "passive observer", but didn't notice the relevant fact at that time and later came to the conclusion expressed by the verb; whereas the perfect means that the speaker was not present but drew his conclusion later on on the basis of a result. Donabédian (1996: 97; 106) thinks that the Armenian counterpart particle has a "valeur emblématique" and refers "à un autre garant", while the perfect is char­ acterized by "effacement du garant". I do not see this difference in the case of Georgian turme vs. perfect. However, I wonder if, for example, Donabédian's "admirative" examples with Armenian erer ~ Georgian turme refer to any other "garant" than the speaker him or herself (or the "recipient", see 5.7). It occurs in Sota Rustaveli's epos "The Man in the Panther Skin" (around 1200): vera hpoveb, dagiğereb, iqo ture učinari (132,3 in Kavtara3e 1956: 179) '[For three years try to find the knight who was reported to have been seen in the wil­ derness.] If you cannot find him, I believe you that he must have been a vision' (lit. 'not.possible you.find.him, I.believe.you, he.was(Aor) apparently invis­ ible'). See Johanson (2000). Vogt (1934: 248; cp. 1971: 191) obscures this difference by incorrectly establishing a link between non-localization and evidential (in­ stead of non-evidential) use: "Das Perfekt drückt aus, daß die Verbalhandlung stattgefunden hat, ohne daß man den genauen Zeitpunkt berücksichtigt, sei es weil man nicht bestimmt weiß, ob die Handlung wirklich stattgefunden hat, sei es daß man es nur vom Hörensagen kennt." Surprisingly, Megrelišvili (1986: 143) posits a "seme" "non-localization" for the evidential use of the perfect. Meţreveli (1969); see footnote 29.—For a similar problem with the pluperfect, see note 11.

Evidentiality in Georgian 319 56. 57. 58. 59.

60. 61.

62. 63.

64.

65. 66.

67.

Kavtara3e (1956: 188); Peikrišvili (1974: 57). See Johanson (2000) and footnote 65. For example Kavtara3e (1956: 190); Pxaka3e(1984: 94-107; 132). Pxaka3e (1984: 106-131) adds "continuation, durativity", but her examples are not convincing: mama-čem-i ar qopila saldat-i da babua-čem-i (N. Lortkipani3e) father-my-Nom not he.has.been(Perf) soldier-Norn and grandfather-myNom 'my father and my grandfather never have been soldiers'. See Pxaka3e (1984: 98). The "iterative" perfect form is perhaps attested in Rustaveli (410/412,3 apud Pxaka3e 1984: 103): me tu zepir micinia. kve-kve mitkvams idumal va I if on.face T.have.laughed(Perf). below-below I.have.said.itfPerf) secretly alas 'when I laughed on my face, deep under it I secretly said: "alas!".—Old Geor­ gian had a specific iterative verb form ("Permansiv", "Perpetualis", Georgian "xolmeobiti"). Cp. (44): 'The girl did not come to me after that' = 'She never came to me'. Kavtara3e(1956: 191). Šani3e(1973: § 281) suggests a semantic connection be­ tween negation and evidential: "one cannot see an action that has not occurred, been performed. We say this only on the basis of results or hearsay and this is the reason why the simple negation of an action is usually expressed by this tense form." However, a sentence such as (69) has no evidential meaning in itself. Cp. Heidolph's observation (1970: 99, 100) that negated sentences, like generic sentences, "entsprechen nicht der Verarbeitung von Beobachtungen und der Aufnahme neuer Erkenntnisse. Sie entsprechen vielmehr Operationen auf be­ reits vorhandenen Kenntnissen."—"Die negierten Sätze blockieren Prädikatio­ nen aus Bekanntem. Die Folge einer solchen Blockierung können zum Beispiel Teilrevisionen im Kenntnisstand oder Überprüfung von Beobachtungen sein."—For a detailed analysis of discourse presuppositions in negative clauses seeLeinonen (1982: 254-269). Kavtara3e(1956: 191). Friedman (1979: 348, footnote 10) rightly compares the meaning of the negative aorist vs perfect with "the feeling in the English / didn 't do it and / haven't done it (yet)." Pxaka3e (1984: 130) stresses this current relevance meaning. She says that the negative perfect forms "have the function of a present and render the result of the action, because the negated action denoted by the perfect is relevant (akţualuri) just at the moment of speaking." But "current relevance" and "present" are quite different things. Some of Pxaka3e's examples indeed have a kind of present time reference (for example: šen-tan salaparakod ki ar movsulvar (D. Kldiašvili) you-near in.order.to.speak however not I.have.come(Perf) 'it is not you with whom I have come to speak'), but the scope of negation cannot be dis­ cussed here. Rezo Kikna3e points out to me that the following examples with ver 'not (possible)', veyar 'not (possible) any longer' have present-time reference,

320

68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

74. 75. 76. 77.

Winfried Boeder too: ena seişleba problemaţur-i armočndes mašina-c, roca emigranţ-s is verar gamouqenebia language(Nom) it.is.possible(Pres) problematic-Nom that.it.should.turn.out(Opt) then-too, when emigrant-Dat it(Nom) not.any.long­ er he.has.used.it (Perf)' language can also become problematic when an emi­ grant cannot make use of it any longer', ver gadamiçqvetia, sait çavide not.pos­ sible I.have.decided.it(Perf), where.to I.should.go(Opt) 'I cannot make up my mind where to go' (cp. ver gadamecqveţa, sait çasulviqavi not.possible I.had.decided.it(pluperfect with subjunctive function), where.to I.had.gone.off (pluper­ fect with subjunctive function) 'I could not make up my mind where to go. Is this the present-time reference of (77)? Pxaka3e(1984: 133) contra Peikrišvili (1974: 65). The same is true for many other languages: Armenian (Kozinceva 1995: 29), Modern Greek, Bulgarian etc. (Johanson, forthcoming). Leinonen (1994: 138), based on K. Inoue's work on the perfect. Friedman (1979: 342), (1988: 133); for more examples see Peikrišvili (1974: 55). Kavtara3e(1956: 189); Vogt (1971: 195). See also Jensen (1929), Spitzer (1930) and Havers (1931: 41-43). Johanson (2000) speaks of a "fictive accomplishment of an event": / have already gone = I am going now. Kavtara3e(1956: 189-191); Pxaka3e (1984: 132-133). Peikrišvili (1974: 59); (1988: 55). Rogava (1953); Peikrišvili (1988: 56-57); Harris (1985: 296-300). As far as I can see, only (108) can be substituted for by (109). In non-assertive structures like interrogative "X because Y?", "because" is in the scope of the question operator, which it is not in the counterpart of (109): "I ask you if X, be­ cause (there is evidence) Y (for X)". For the asymmetric behaviour of assertive and non-assertive speech acts, again see Keller (1993: 242).

References Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A.—Dan I. Slobin 1986 "A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish", in: W. L. Chafe—J. Nichols (eds.), 1986: 159-167. Arabuli, Avtandil 1980 "Turmeobiti analizuri çarmoebis tavisebureba Kartvelur enata zog dialektši / Osobennosti analitičeskogo obrazovanija zaočnosti v nekotoryx kartvel'skix jazykax [Résumé 174-182] [A peculiarity of analytic forms of the evidential in some dialects of the Kartvelian languages], Macne. Enisa da liţeraţuris seria 1980/1: 149-154.

Evidentiality in Georgian

321

Babunašvili, Elene 1970 Anton Pirveli da Kartuli gramaţikis sakitxebi I Antonij i voprosy gruzinskoj grammatiki [Résumé 260-280] / Anthony and the problems of Georgian grammar [Résumé 281-1871 (Sakartvelos SSR Mecnierebata Akademia, Xelnaçerta Insţiţuţi). Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Babunašvili, Elene—Tedo Uturgaİ3e 1991 Anton Pirvelis "Kartuli rrammaţika" da misi erovnul-isţoriuli mnišvneloba I "Gruzinskaja grammatika" Antonija Pervogo i ee na­ cionál' no-istoričeskoe značenie [Résumé 80-85] [The "Georgian Grammar" of Anthony I and its national and historical significance] (Sakartvelos SSR Mecnierebata Akademia, Enatmecnierebis Insţiţuţi). Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Bleichsteiner, Robert 1931 "Beiträge zur Sprach- und Volkskunde des georgischen Stammes der Gurier", Caucasica 7: 87-110; 9: 63-87. Boeder, Winfried 1980 " 'Haben' in den Kartwelsprachen', in: Gunter Brettschneider—Chris­ tian Lehmann (eds.): Wege der Universalienforschung. Sprachwissen; schaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler (Tübin­ ger Beiträge zur Linguistik 145). Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 207-217. to appear "Some notes on the Georgian resultative". Brendemoen, Bernt 1996 "Case merge in the Black Sea dialects—a Kartvelian substrate fea­ t u r e ? " , in: A. Berta—B. Brendemoen—C. Schönig (eds.): Symbolae Turcologicae. Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, Transactions 6: 41-59. Chafe, Wallace L.—Johanna Nichols (eds.) 1986 Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (Advances in Discourse Processes 20). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deeters, Gerhard 1930 Das kharthwelische Verbum. Vergleichende Darstellung des Verbal­ baus der südkaukasischen Sprachen (Sächsische Forschungsinstitute Leipzig. Forschungsinstitut für Indogermanistik, Sprachwissen­ schaftliche Abteilung. Band 1). Leipzig: Marken & Petters. Donabédian, Anaïd 1996 "Pour une interprétation des différentes valeurs du médiatif en armén­ ien occidental", in: Z. Guentchéva (ed.), 1996: 87-108. [3angİ3e, Venera] Džangidze, Venera 1978 Ingilojskij dialekt v Azerbajdžane. Voprosy grammatičeskoj i lek-

322

Winfried Boeder sičeskoj interferencii [The Ingilo dialect in Azerbaijan. Questions of grammatical and lexical interference] (Sakartvelos SSR Mecnierebata Akademia, Aymosavletmcodneobis Instituci). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.

Jikia, Sergi 1967

"Turkul-Lazuri enobrivi urtiertobidan. 2. Turkuli sinţaksuri kalkebi Lazurši" [Turkish-Laz linguistic interrelation 2: Turkish caiques in Laz], in: Orioni. Akaki Šani3es / Akakiju Šanidze. Tbilisi: Tbilisis universiţeţis gamomcemloba, 367-377. Friedman, Victor A. 1979 "Toward a typology of status: Georgian and other non-Slavic languag­ es of the Soviet Union", in: Paul R. Cly ne—William F. Hanks—Carol L. Hofbauer (eds.): The Elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, April 20-21, 1979; Including Papers from the conference on non-Slavic languages of the USSR, April 18, 1979. Chicago: Chi­ cago Linguistic Society, 339-350. 1984 "Status in the Lak verbal system and its typological significance", Fo­ lia Slavica 1: 135-149. 1986 "Evidentially in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian", in: W. L. Chafe—J. Nichols (eds.) 1986: 168-187. 1988 "The category of evidentiality in the Balkans and the Caucasus", in: Alexander M. Schenker (ed.): American contributions to the Tenth In­ ternational Congress ofSlavists. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 121-139 1994 "Surprise! Surprise! Arumanian has had an admirative!", Indiana Slavic Studies 7: 79-89. Gadžieva, Ninel' Zejnalovna 1978 Tjurkojazyčnye areály Kavkaza [Turkic-speaking areas in the Cauca­ sus] (Akademija nauk SSSR, Institut jazykoznanija). Moskva: Nauka. rlonţi, Aleksandre 1974 Kartuli zvaprebi. Seadgina, šesavali da šenišvnebi daurto Aleksandre rionţma [Georgian fairy-tales, edited with an introduction and notes by A. Ghionti]. Tbilisi: Ganatleba. Gigineišvili, Ivane—Varlam Topuria—Ivane Kavtara3e (eds.) 1961 Kartuli dialektologia I. Kartuli enis kilota mokle ganxilva. Ţeksţebi. Leksikoni / Gruzinskaja dialektologija I. Kratkij obzor dialektov gruzinskogo jazyka. Teksty. Slovar' [Georgian dialectology I. A short sur­ vey of the dialects with texts and a lexicon] (Axali Kartuli enis katedris šromebi 3). Tbilisi: Tbilisis universiţeţis gamomcemloba. Givón, Talmy 1992 "Evidentiality and epistemic space", Studies in Language 6: 23-49. Golden, Peter B. 1979 "The Oğuz Turkic (Ottoman/Safavid) elements in Georgian: back-

Evidentiality in Georgian

323

ground and patterns", in: Abraham Ascher—Tibor Halasi-Kun—Béla K. Király (eds.): The Mutual Effects of the Islamic and Judeo-Christian Worlds: the East European pattern. New York: The Brooklyn College Press, 183-202. Grjunberg, Aleksandr L. 1963 Jazyk severoazerbajdžanskix tatov [The language of the Azerbaijanian Tats] (Akademija nauk SSSR, Institut jazykoznanija). Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Grünenthal, O. 1936 "Zum Perfekt", Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 63: 133-140. Guentchéva, Zlatka (ed.) 1996 L'énonciation médiatisée (Bibliothèque de l'information grammaticale 35). Louvain—Paris: Peeters. Harris, Alice C. 1985 Diachronie Syntax: The Kartvelian case (Syntax and Semantics 18). Orlando: Academic Press. Havers, Wilhelm 1931 Handbuch der erklärenden Syntax. Ein Versuch zur Erforschung der Bedingungen und Triebkräfte in Syntax und Stilistik (Indogermanische Bibliothek, 1. Abteilung, 1. Reihe, 20. Band). Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Heidolph, Karl Erich 1970 -——Zur Bedeutung negativer Sätze", in: Manfred Bierwisch—Karl Erich Heidolph (eds.): Progress in linguistics. A collection of papers (Janua Linguarum. Series Maior 43). Den Haag—Paris: Mouton, 88-101. Hewitt, B. George 1979 "The expression of 'inferentiality' in Abkhaz", Journal of Linguistics 15: 87-92. Imnaišvili, Davit 1954 "Turmeobiti Kisţuri 3ê u Pi s enebši" / Zaočnye formy glagola v jazykax kistinskoj gruppy [Résumé 342] [The evidential in the Nakh languages], Kartvelur enata strukturis sakitxebi 6: 327-342. Imnaišvili, Grigol 1955 "Pirveli turmeobitisa da sţaţikur zmnata çarmoeba Ingilourši" / Obrazovanie zaglaznyx form i statičeskix glagolov v ingilojskom narečii gruzinskogo jazyka [Résumé 123-124] [The formation of the perfect and of static verbs in Ingilo], Iberiul-kavkasiuri enatmecniereba 7: 119-124. 1974 Kartluri dialekti II: Ţeksţebi [The Kartlian dialect I: Texts] (Sakartvelos SSR Mecnierebata Akademia, Enatmecnierebis insţiţuţi). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.

324

Winfried Boeder

Jensen, Hans 1929 "Zur Syntax des Neugriechischen. 2. Der Aoristus pro Futuro", Indog­ ermanische Forschungen 47: 292-293. Job, Michael 1994 "Zur Funktion des Perfekts im Rgveda", in: INDOGERMANICA ET CAUCASICA. Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag herausgegeben von Roland Bielmeier und Reinhard Stempel unter Mitarbeit von René Lanzweert (Untersuchungen zur indogerma­ nischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 6). Berlin - New York: de Gruyter, 41-62. Johanson, Lars 1996 "On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives", in : Norbert Boretzky—Wern­ er Enninger—Thomas Stolz (eds.): Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen. Beiträge zum 10. Bochum-Essener Symposium [...] vom 30.6.-01.07.1995 an der Universität GH Essen (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwan­ delforschung 24). Bochum: Brockmeyer, 84-94. 2000 "Viewpoint operators in European languages", in: Osten Dahl (ed.): Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kaxa3e, Oţia 1954 "Okribulis taviseburebani" / Nekotorye osobennosti okribskogo gov­ ora [Some peculiarities of the dialect of Okribuli], Iberiul-kavkasiuri enatmecniereba 6: 163-181. 1979 "Açmqos turmeobitis šesaxeb Kartulši" [On the present perfect in Georgian], in: Arnold Čikobavas (dabadebidan 80 çlistavisadmi mİ3yvnili krebuli) / Arnol'du Stepanoviču Cikobava (sborník posvjaščennyj 80-letiju so dnja roždenija) (Sakartvelos SSR Mecnierebata Akademia). Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 180-185. Kavtara3e, Ivane 1956 "Unaxaobis kaţegoriis isţoriisatvis Kartulši" / K voprosu ob istorii kategorii zaočnosti (zaglasnosti) v gruzinskom jazyke [Résumé 193] [On the history of the category of non-witnessedness in Georgian]. Iberiul-kavkasiuri enatmecniereba 8: 179-193. Kekelia, Salva—Akaki Davitiani 1973 Kartuli ena [The Georgian language]. Pedagogiuri Insţiţuţis Bibliotekatmcodneobis pakulţeţis studenţia saxelm3yvanelo. Tbilisi: Ganatleba. Keller, Rudi 1993: "Das epistemische weil. Bedeutungswandel einer Konjunktion", in: HJ. Heringer—G. Stötzel (eds.): Sprachgeschichte und Sprachkritik.

Evidentiality in Georgian

325

Festschrift für Peter von Polcnz zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin—New York: de Gruyter, 219-247. Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1977 Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka. Tom II: Taksonomičeskaja grammatika [A tentative description of Archi II: Taxonom­ ie grammar] (Publikacii otdelenija strükturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki. Serija monografij. Vypusk 12) (Moskovskij gosudarstvennyj universitet. Filologičeskij fakul'tet). Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. Kononov, A. N. 1956 Grammatika sovremennogo tureckogo jazyka [A Grammar of Con­ temporary Turkish] Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Kozinceva, Natalija A. 1994 "Kategorija evidential'nosti (problémy tipologíčeskogo analiza)" [The category of evidentiality (problems of typological analysis)], Voprosy jazykoznanija 1994/3: 92-104. 1995 Natalia Kozintseva: Modern Eastern Armenian (Languages of the World. Materials 22). München - Newcastle: LINCOM EUROPA. Leinonen, Marja 1982 Russian aspect, "temporal'naja lokalizacija", and definiteness/indefiniteness (Neuvostoliitto-Instituutin Vuoskirja 27). Helsinki. 1994 "Interpreting the perfect: the past as explanation", Suomen kielitieteellisen yhdistyksen vuosikirja 1994 I 1994 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, 135-156. Lohmann, Johannes 1937 "1st das idg. Perfektum nominalen Ursprungs?", Zeitschrift für ver­ gleichende Sprachforschung 64: 42-61. McCawley, James D. 1971 "Tense and time reference in English", in: Charles J. Fillmore—D. Terence Langendoen (eds.): Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 96-113. Megrelišvili, Madona 1986 "I turmeobitis ţemporalur-aspekţuri varianţebi Kartulši da misi šesatqvisebi Inglisur enaši" / Temporal'no-aspektual'nye varianty rjada I zaočnogo v gruzinskom jazyke i ix anglijskie sootvetstvija [Résumé 145] [Temporal-aspectual variants of the perfect in Georgian and its counterparts in English], Macne. Enisa da liţeraţuris seria 1986,1: 138-145. Meţreveli, Teimuraz 1969 "Kartuli zmnis akţis kaţegoriisatvis" [The category of "act" in the Georgian verb], Kartuli ena da literatura skolaši 1969,1: 63-65.

326

Winfried Boeder

Nasilov, Dmitrij M. 1983 "Konstrukcii s modal'nymi slovami ékan i emiš v uzbekskom jazyke" [Constructions with the modal words ekan and emiš in Uzbek], in: V.S. Xrakovskij (ed.): Kategorii glagola i struktura predloženija. Konstrukcii s predikatnymi aktantami (Akademija nauk SSSR, Institut jazykoznanija). Leningrad: Leningradskoe otdelenie, 175-186. Nata3e, Nodar 1955 "Mesame seriis dro-kilota çarmoebisatvis Kartulši" / K voprosu ob obrazovánu vremen i naklonenij treťej serii v kartvel'skix jazykax [Résumé 99-100] [On the formation of the third series of tenses and moods in Georgian], Iberiul-kavkasiuri enatmecniereba 7: 81-100. Ninua, Gulnara—Zurab Sar^vela3e 1985 "Unaxaobis gamoxaţvisatvis 3vel Kartul çerilobit 3eglebši" / Vyraženie zaočnosti v drevnegruzinskíx pis'mennyx pamjatnikax [Résumé 85] [On the expression of non-witnessedness in the written monuments of Old Georgian], Macne. Enisa da liţeraţuris seria 1985,1:79-85. Palmer, F. R. 1986 Mood and Modality (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Pxaka3e, Dare^an 1984 / turmeobitis punkciebi Kartulši I Funkcii I rezul'tativnogo v gruzinskom jazyke [Résumé 142-147] [The functions of the present perfect in Georgian] (Tbilisis saxelmçipo universiţeţi). Tbilisi: Tbilisis universiţeţis gamomcemloba. Peikrišvili, Žužuna 1974 "Turmeobitis mnišvneloba da gamoqeneba Axai Kartulši" [Meaning and use of the perfect in Modern Georgian], Kartvelur enata sţrukţuris sakitxebi 4: 53-70. 1988 "Pirveli turmeobitis çarmoeba da mnišvneloba Kartul dialekţebsi" [The formation and the meaning of the present perfect in the Georgian dialects], Dialekţologiuri krebuli 1987. Masalebi Kartuli dialekţologiuri aţlasisatvis (Sakartvelos SSR Mecnierebata Akademia, Enatmecnierebis Insţiţuţi). Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 43-51. Perrot, Jean 1996 "L'auditif en samoyède nenets", in: Zl. Guentchéva (ed.), 1996: 157— 168. Renou, Louis 1947 La grammaire de Pănini traduite du Sanskrit avec des extraits des commentaires indigènes. Fascicule I. Paris: Klincksieck. Rogava, Giorgi 1953 "Dro-kilota meotxe Jgupis nakvtebi Kartvelur enebši" / Formy četver-

Evidentiality in Georgian

327

toj gruppy vremen i naklonenij glagolov v kartvel'skix jazykax [Résumé 31-33] [The fourth series of tenses and moods in the Kartvelian languages], Iberiul-kavkasiuri enatmecniereba 5: 17-31. Rutherford, William E. 1970 "Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English", Lan­ guage 46: 97-115. Šani3e, Akaki 1941 "Kategorija rjada v glagole. Obščie voprosy formoobrazovanii glagolov na primerax gruzinskogo jazyka (predvaritel'noe soobščenie)" / Mçkrivis kaţegoria zmnaši / Catégorie verbale de la série. ENIMKIs moambe 10: 209-229 [= Akaki Šani3e: Kartuli enis sţrukţurisa da isţoriis sakitxebi (Txzulebani tormeţ ţomad. Ţomi II) (Sakartvelos SSR Mecnierebata Akademia / Tbilisis saxelmçipo universiţeţi). Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1981, 400-430]. 1973 Kartuli enis gramaţikis sapuşvlebi I: Morpologia. Meore gamocema "[Fundamentals of Georgian grammar I: Morphology. Second edition] (Txzulebani III; 3veli Kartuli enis katedris šromebi 15). Tbilisi: Tbili­ sis universiţeţis gamomcemloba. Schuchardt, Hugo 1895 Über den passiven Charakter des Transitivs in den kaukasischen Sprachen (Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissen­ schaften in Wien. Philologisch-historische Classe 133,1). Wien: Tempsky. Silaka3e, Ivane 1971 Axali Somxuri enis gramatika. Kresţomatiita da leksikonit [A Gram­ mar of Modern Armenian. With a chrestomathy and a lexicon]. Tbili­ si: Tbilisis universiţeţis gamomcemloba. Spitzer, Leo 1928 " 'Fait-accompli'-Darstellung im Spanischen (Ein Versuch der Erfas­ sung von Wesenszügen eines Sprachstils)", in: Leo Spitzer: Stilstudi­ en 1. Sprachstile. München: Hueber, 258-294. 1930 "Vergangenheitstempus in futurischem Sinn (zu Bd. 47, S. 293 Anm.)", Indogermanische Forschungen 48: 45. Talakva3e, Mariam 1975 Kartuli enis gramaţikis sçavlebis metodika [Methods for the teaching of Georgian grammar]. Meore gamocema. Tbilisi: Ganatleba. Teimuraz Bagraţioni 1979 Çigni leksikonni. Masalebi šekriba, anbanze gaaçqtf, cinasiţqvaoba da šenišvnebi daurto Guram Šara3em / Knigi slovari. Tbilisi: Sabčota Sakartvelo.

328

Winfried Boeder

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1988 "Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization", Berkeley Linguistics Society: Proceedings 14: 406-416. Vogt, Hans 1934 Review of Deeters 1930. Indogermanische Forschungen 52:245-250. 1945 "Substrat et convergence dans l'évolution linguistique. Remarques sur l'évolution et la structure de l'arménien, du géorgien, de l'ossète et du turc". In: Studia Septentrionalia 2, 213-228 [= H.Vogt: Linguistique caucasienne et arménienne. Edited by Even Hovdhaugen and Fridrik Thordarson (Studia Caucasologica ii = The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture Oslo, Serie B 76). Oslo: Norwegian University Press / The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture 1988, 177-192]. 1971 Grammaire de la langue géorgienne (Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning. Serie B: Skrifter 57). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Willett, Thomas 1988 "A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality", Studies in Language 12: 51-97.

Abbreviations Adv = adverbial case; Aor = aorist; Bl = Bleichsteiner 1931; Cond = conditional / past of the future; D = I. Gigíneišvili—V. Topuria—I. Kavtara3e (eds.) 1961; Dat = dative; Erg = ergative; Fut = future; T = Honţi 1974; Gen = genitive (reduced form in italics); I = G. Imnaišvili 1974; Impf = imperfect; Instr = instrumental; 10 = in­ direct object; Nom = nominative; O = object; Obi = obliquus; Opt = optative / sub­ junctive of the aorist series / subjunctive II; Part = particle; Perf = perfect; PI = plural; PP = participle perfect passive; Pres = present; Prev = preverb; Quot = quotative par­ ticle; Rel = particle attached to the relative pronoun; S = subject; 1 = 1st person, 2 = 2nd person, 3 = 3rd person; other abbreviations refer to private letter writers.

Confírmative/nonconfirmative in Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance, and Albanian with additional observations on Turkish, Romani, Georgian, and Lak Victor A. Friedman 1. Introduction More than twenty years ago (Friedman 1977a: 34-52), I proposed that the synthetic pasts of Macedonian are marked for confirmativity, i.e., the speaker's vouching for the truth of the information rather than some more literal notion such as 'witnessed' (much like the situation described for Bulgarian by Aronson 1967: 87). Based on the evidence of my field research, I went on to propose that the Macedonian past tense descended from the Common Slavic resultative perfect using the /-participle (sometimes called the indefinite past) did not carry any sort of marking for reportedness, but rather was an unmarked past vis-à-vis the marked confirmative past, and thus had nonconfirmativity as its chief contextual variant meaning. Although my basic framework was founded on Jakobson (1957 [1971]), there was no place in my analysis for his category of evidential (EnEns/Es in Jakobson's formulation), since it was clear from the data that, contrary to Jakobson's and others' assertions, the actual source of information ("evidence") was not crucial in determining the choice of verb form. Rather, it was the speaker's attitude toward that information (which often, but not always, was influenced by its source) that determined the choice. Using analyses that developed from discussions with H. Aronson (published in Aronson 1977: 14 and Friedman 1977a: 7), I argued that it was the grammatical category of status, defined as the relation of the participant in the speech event (Ps) to the narrated event (EN), that was expressed by the opposition confirmative / nonconfirmative. Moreover, it also became clear that in new paradigms utilizing /-participles which devel°ped in Macedonian (and Bulgarian) during the late medieval and ear-

330

Victor A. Friedman

ly modern periods, it was precisely 'nonconfirmative' that became the invariant meaning. In subsequent research I examined related phenom­ ena in other Balkan and also some Caucasian languages. In this paper, I shall survey the results of some of that research.11 shall conclude the paper with an outline of topics relevant for further investigations of status and its interactions with other grammatical categories. 2. Balkan Slavic The relevant forms of Balkan Slavic necessary for understanding the functioning of status in those languages are outlined in Table 1 (based on Friedman 1986: 170).2 Table 1. lsg. and 3sg. of 'do' (imperfective) in Bulgarian and Macedonian Bulgarian

Confirmative Past Unmarked Past

Nonconfirmative

AORIST

pravix pravi

săm pravil e pravil

săm pravil pravil

IMPERFECT

pravex praveše

săm pravel e pravel

săm pravel pravel

PLUPERFECT (aorist)

bjax pravil beše pravil

[săm bil pravil] [ e bil pravil]

săm bil pravil bil pravil

PLUPERFECT (imperfect)

(bjax pravel) (beše pravel)

(săm bil pravel) (e bil pravel)

săm bil pravel bil pravel

Macedonian AORIST

Confirmative Past Unmarked Past (na)praviv sum {na}pravil {na} pravi {na}pravil

Pluperfect bev {na}pravil beše {na}pravil

IMPERFECT

pravev praveše

sum pravel pravel

bev pravel beše pravel

Perfect imam praveno ima praveno

Pluperfect imav praveno imaše praveno

NonconPv Past sum imal praveno imal praveno

IMA SERIES

[] = possible; () = dialectal; {}=only occurs with perfective verbs

Confirmativ e/nonconfirmative

331

2.1. Confirmative vs. nonconfirmative in Balkan Slavic The following examples illusrate the fact that the basic meaning of the opposition in question is confirmative / nonconfirmative:3 (1)

No potoa se slučija raboti za koi ne znaev. but after-that IN they-happened things about which not I-knew 'But after that things happened which I didn't know about.' (Nova Makedonija 19.VI.74: 5) [Mac]

(2)

Beše tamo. she-was there. ' She was there. ' [said of someone who was at a conference the speaker did not attend] (May 1981) [Big.]

(3)

Káži како begaše. tell how you-eloped -^ 'Tell [the story of] how you eloped.' [Said by a legitimate daughter to her mother] (September 1973) [Mac]

(4) a. Ne veruvam not I-believe b./Ve vjarvam not I-believe 'I don't believe

deka toj go napravili[* ]napraví toa. that he it did-M/he-did that če to] napravili'[* ]napraví tova. that he did-M/he-did that that he did it.' [Mac.]/[Blg.](Friedman 1978: 110)

(5)

Zuza: "Blaže bi[ vo Moskva." Kosta: "Da, beše." Z. В. was-M in Moscow K. Yes he-was 'Zuza: "Blaže was in Moscow." Kosta: "Yes, [I know] he was." ' (October 1986) [Mac]

(6)

Mu se javiv na vujko mi. Ne beše doma, to-him IN I-called to uncle to-me not he-was at-home na plaza bU_. at beach was-M 'I called my uncle. He wasn't home, apparently he was at the beach.' [Based on a telephone call] (August 1992)

Example (1) is a Macedonian translation of an English sentence uttered by Richard Nixon on the Watergate tapes. The aorist clearly refers to unwitnessed events of whose veracity the speaker is nonetheless convinced. In context, the same use of confirmative aorists for unwitnessed events is true of examples (2) and (3). Example (4) shows that

332

Victor A. Friedman

the confirmative past cannot be subordinated to a verb that overtly and felicitously contradicts confirmation (Friedman 1976).4 Examples (5) and (6) show contrasting use of the confirmative and unmarked past. In each case, the source of the information is the same report, but the speakers relate to that information differently. Thus in (5) both Zuza and Kosta know that Blaže was in Moscow only on the basis of having been told. Zuza presents the information without confirmation and thus, by implication in this context, as hearsay, whereas Kosta re­ sponds with the confirmative since he considers the information well established.5 In (6), the speaker has only his aunt's report as evidence for both statements, but he chooses to place greater emphasis on his conviction of the first statement, since his uncle would have been ex­ pected to come to the phone had he been home, whereas he might or might not have actually been at the beach. 2.2. Unmarked past in Macedonian The following examples illustrate the fact that the Macedonian past paradigm based on the /-participle functions as the unmarked past rath­ er than being marked for nonconfirmation: (7)

Bugarite od Sofija — w h o ne doagjaa vo Ohrid? ,; the-Bulgarians from S. why not they-came in Ohrid Tie bea... ne se sekavam točno... tie bile they they-were not IN I-remember exactly they were-p vo Ohrid porano... Bea vo maj mesec! I taka in O. earlier they-were in may month and so nemase pari. there-wasn't money 'The Bulgarians from Sofia, why didn't they come to Ohrid [in August]? They were ... I don't remember exactly, they were in Ohrid earlier—they were there in May—and so there wasn't enough money.' (December 1995)

(8)

Zatoa Sto formata в EŠE ŘEŠENO odgovara na SE for-that what the-form it-was decided-N answers to IN REŠI, t.e.na minatoto opredeleno vreme,кое go it-decided i.e. to the-past definite tense which it upotrebuvame za označuvanje dějstva što şe vršele we-use for indication actions what IN performed-p

ili or

Confirmative/nonconfirmative şe izvršile IN accomplished-P

333

vo opredelen moment vo minatoto. in definite moment in the-past

'It is because the form HAD BEEN DECIDED corresponds to WAS DECIDED, i.e., to

the past definite tense, which we use to indicate actions that were performed or accomplished at a definite time in the past.' (Minova-Gurkova 1984) (9)

Liceto кое podnelo baranje za nostrifikaci]a, odnosno The-person who submitted-N application for validation ( or priznavanje na ekvivalencija na svidetelstvo steknato vo recognition of equivalence of diploma earned-N in stranstvo, može uslovno da go posetuva narednoto abroad he-can conditionally that it he-attend the-appropriate oddelenie, dokolku postapkata ne e završena do istekot grade insofar-as the-process not is completed-F until the-expiration na rokot za upis na ucenicite vo učiliště. of the-deadline for registration of the-pupils in school 'A person who has submitted an application for the validation or recognition of equivalency of a diploma earned abroad may provisionally attend the appropri­ ate class insofar as the process is not completed before the expiration of the deadline for the registration of students in the school.' {Služben vesník na Re­ publika Makedonija 20.IX.95, Vol.51, No. 44, p. 1134)

(10) Tatko mi bi[ mnogu meraklija za cveka. Father to-me was-м very fond for flowers 'My father was/used to be very fond of flowers.' (December 1973) (11) Dosta sme rabotele. Enough we-are worked-p 'We have worked enough.' (April 1974)

In (7), the alternation between confirmative and unmarked pasts has nothing to do with the source of information, but rather with the speaker's relationship to his own recollection of witnessed facts. In (8) and (9), the unmarked past is used in its neutral, defining (or perfect) func­ tion. In (8) the unmarked past is used to define the meaning of a form that is confirmative, while in (9) the unmarked past refers to any po­ tential case of a situation. Examples (10) and (11) are both uses of the unmarked past that relate to its lack of marking for status. The first, ut­ tered by a speaker reminiscing about her childhood memories, renders a habitual action or state in the distant past of relevance to the present (the conversation was about flowers), while the second, uttered by one

334

Victor A. Friedman

old man to another referring to their right to retirement, is a simple present resultative. 2.3. Auxiliary omission in Bulgarian For the most part, the Bulgarian treatment of status is, mutatis mutandis, the same as in Macedonian. Although there are important differences in the development of new analytic paradigms based on different auxiliaries—Bulgarian uses the unmarked past of 'be' (3sg. bil ) plus the old resultative participle in -/ while Macedonian has de­ veloped an entirely new set of perfects using the auxiliary 'have' (3sg. present ima, imperfect imaše, unmarked past imal) plus the neuter ver­ bal adjective—the basic opposition confirmative / nonconfirmative based on the inherited tense forms is roughly the same.6 There is, how­ ever, one important difference between Macedonian and Bulgarian status usage in the inherited paradigmatic sets:7 whereas the Macedo­ nian unmarked past never uses the auxiliary in the third person, the Bulgarian equivalent has the option of using it or omitting it.8 The al­ ternation is treated in all current standard descriptions as constitutive of two separate homonymous paradigms that are differentiated only in the third person. Empirical investigation of actually occurring oral and written usage, however, reveals that the basis of auxiliary omission is neither the source of the information nor the speaker's attitude toward the information itself (Friedman 1982a: 159-160). Rather, presence versus absence of the auxiliary is a pragmatic device encoding narra­ tive perspective (distance, see Fielder 1995, 1996: 216, 1997: 177179). Space does not permit a complete elaboration of the arguments, and so only a few examples will be adduced here. ( 12) Ami az pomnja majka mu, bre,... učela me e_ But I I-remember mother to-him hey taught-F me is pesni da peja. songs that I-sing 'Well, but I remember his mother, man,... she used to teach me songs to sing.' (Stankov 1967:341) (13) ...vednăz e_ pătuval once is traveled-M

ot Burgas nadolu kam granicata— selo from B. down toward the-border village

Confirmative/nonconfirmative

335

Fakija — i pătuval toj — stignal e večerta do njakakvo F. — and traveled-M he — arrived-M is the-evening to some selo s rejs i sled tova trjabvalo da premine village with bus and after that needed-N that he-goes-on / '... once he traveled from Burgas down toward the border—(-the village of Fakija—and so he traveled—in the evening he got to some village with bus service and then he was supposed to go on.' (Roth 1979: 177) (14) V semejnite razkazi se podčertavaše, če Nanka e_ bila in the-family stories IN it-emphasized that N. is was-F ljubimata sestra na Savata... Nanka e prodălzavala da the-favorite sister of the-S.... N. is continued-F that nariča brat si Sava văpreki če toj sam se_ e otkazal she-call brother own S. despite that he self IN is renounced-м ot tova si ime kato smjatal, če ne mu priljaga from that own name as considered-м that not to-him it-suits dobré i viel imeto na vujka si... well and took-м the-name of uncle own 'The family stories always emphasized that Nanka was the favorite sister of Sa­ va. .. Nanka continued to call him Sava, although he himself renounced his own given name since he considered it unbecoming and took the name of his uncle.' ("Septemvri" 1986, 5: 115, cited in Williams 1988) (15) Elica otvărna, če [e]_ zaspala mnogo kušno. E. she-replied that [is] slept-F much late 'Elica replied that she had slept very late.' [author did not use auxiliary, 7 out of 8 informants insist only with auxiliary is acceptable] (McClain 1991)

Example (12) illustrates that the imperfect /-participle can occur with the auxiliary and moreover is not limited to reported contexts. Exam­ ples (13) and (14) show the auxiliary both present and absent when de­ scribing events known from the same source of information. The dif­ ference is clearly not one of evidentiality but of the relationship of the event to the narrative itself. In (13), the exact same event is described both with and without the auxiliary. The first usage, with the auxiliary, sets the scene, the background, while the subsequent, foregrounded narrative is without the auxiliary. In (14), the omission of the auxiliary signals a shift in narrative perspective. Although the source of infor­ mation throughout is "the family stories", the auxiliary is used in de­ scribing Nanka and then omitted when the perspective shifts to Sava's own point of view. Example (15) illustrates the gap between prescrip-

336

Victor A. Friedman

tion and practice. Although the original sentence was auxiliariless, seven out of eight native speakers insisted that the auxiliary had to be present. In similar examples, McClain (1991) found that speakers were more or less evenly split over whether the auxiliary was required or forbidden. Although space does not permit us to enter into the details of the discourse function of third person auxiliary omission with the Bulgarian /-participle, the foregoing examples illustrate that this phe­ nomenon is not paradigm-forming, neither is it conditioned by the source of information. 2.4. Bulgarian and Turkish Let us now turn to Turkish in comparison with Bulgarian. The situa­ tion in Turkish has been described in great and admirable detail by Johanson (1971: 280-310) and Aksu-Koç (1988: 21-26), and so I shall only dwell here on the superficial parallels and significant differences between the two.9 Table 2 (cf. Friedman 1978: 112) shows the appar­ ent parallels between Turkish and Bulgarian as observed in much of the comparative literature (e.g., Mirčev 1958: 211). Table 2. Bulgarian and Turkish "perfects" of 'do'

lsg 2sg 3sg

BULGARIAN "Perfect" Nonconfirmative napravil săm napravil si napravil e napravil

TURKISH "Perfect" Nonconfirmative yapmışım yapmışsın yapmıştır yapmış

Leaving to one side the specific functioning of -miş within the Turkish system, the key issue I wish to discuss here is the superficial parallel between the two sets of third person forms. The use of the Turkish par­ ticle -dir is frequently treated in comparative literature as the model for manipulations of the auxiliary in Bulgarian (see Friedman 1978: 112). In fact, however, the two processes are completely different. In Turk­ ish, -dir is a clitic particle that can be added to any person in a variety of tense forms as a kind of emphatic or terminative particle. In its cop­ ulative function it is normally omitted unless such emphasis is re-

Confirmative/nonconfirmative

337

quired. Examples (16) and (17) illustrate such uses of -dir in functions that have no Bulgarian equivalent. (16) Hayatımda onun kadar çok az insanı beğenmiş ve in-my-life of-him like very few the-person valued-mzj and saymısımdır respected-mý-1-am-is 'In my life, I have valued and respected very few people as much as him.' (Johanson 1971:299) (17) a.

Biliyorsunuz. you-are-knowing 'You know.' (Lewis 1967: 139) b. Biliyorsunuzdur. you-are-knowing-is 'You surely know.' (Lewis 1967: 139)

Examples (18)-(20) are taken from a Bulgarian-language grammar of Turkish. Without going into details (see Fielder 1994 for additional analysis), the main point that these examples illustrate is that there does not exist the type of isomorphism between Bulgarian and Turkish verb form usage that one might expect if Bulgarian auxiliary omission were the actual equivalent of Turkish -dir usage. Thus in (18) a Turk­ ish d/-past corresponds to a Bulgarian old perfect without auxiliary, in (19) a Turkish m/^-past without -dir corresponds to a Bulgarian old perfect with the auxiliary, while in (20) the Turkish m/j-past corre­ sponds to a Bulgarian confirmative. (18) a. Zayçar naçalniki her halde Belgať tan [sic] kať î emirler Z. its-official every in-case from-Belgrade strict orders almış olmalıdır ki, kaçakları hepsi iade etti. received-m/.s'^ must-be-is that the-runaways all return made-dí b. Navseki slučaj,Zajčarskijatokolijskinačalniktrjabva da e polučil on every case the-Z. regional official it-must that he-is received-м strogi zapovedi ot Belgrad, ce vărnal vsički begalci strict orders from Belgrade that returned-M all runaways 'In any case, the Zajčar [regional] official must have received strict orders from Belgrade, so that he returned all of the runaways.' (Gălăbov 1949: 270) (Turk. čft-past/Bulg. past indef. without aux.)

338

Victor A. Friedman

(19) a. Bu otuz beş seneyi, dediğin gibi,... geçirmişler. f this 30 5 the-year of-his-saying as they-got-along-m/j b. Kakto kaza, tezi trideset i pet godini te şa_ prekarali. as he-said these 30 and 5 years they they-are got-along-p 'As he said, they got along for these thirty-five years. ' (Gălăbov 1949: 114) (Turk, miş-past w/out -dir/Bnlg. past indef. + aux.) (20) a. Öğretmenler nihayet başka bir çare düşünmüşler. teachers finally other one means they-thought-тц b. Naj-posle ucitelite namislixa drugo sredstvo. most-after the-teachers they-thought other means 'Finally the teachers thought of a different means.' (Gălăbov 1949: 341) (Turk, wij-past w/out -dir/Bulg. past def.)

2.5. Auxiliary omission in South Slavic The omission of the auxiliary in the third person in Bulgarian is part of a general pattern of auxiliary loss in the Common Slavic perfect that was carried to its logical extreme in East Slavic, where the auxiliary has been lost in all three persons. In Standard Macedonian and the Western dialects on which it is based, auxiliary loss occurs only in the third person, but it is complete in that person. The situation in Southern West South Slavic (the former Serbo-Croatian) is quite similar to Bul­ garian insofar as the tendency to omit the auxiliary is basically prag­ matically determined in the third person, as in example (21 ):10 (21) Došao, kážu, Petar сате-м they-say P. 'They say Peter carne.' (Koneski 1965: 148)

No one has ever suggested that the auxiliariless perfect in Southern West South Slavic constitutes the basis for a separate paradigm. More­ over, it should be clear that whatever the occasional superficial simi­ larities between Bulgarian and Turkish, the two phenomena are quite distinct. The Turkish phenomenon is the result of the addition of an emphatic particle, while the Bulgarian is a pragmatically determined interpretation of the omission of an auxiliary.

Confirmative/nonconfirmative 339

2.6. Marked nonconfirmativity in Balkan Slavic At this point we are ready to examine the uses of the unmarked past with apparent present meaning in Balkan Slavic. The following types of usage are often cited as justifications for the claim that the so-called reported neutralizes the opposition of present and past tense. In fact, however, such usages always have reference to a real or presumed past event, speech act, or state of affairs. They thus represent a kind of ex­ pressive tense agreement not unlike the English sequence of tenses in its surface realization. The apparent present usages of the unmarked past are of three types (see also Friedman 1977a: 72-78, 1999: 515): 1) explicit nonconfirmativity with the implication or statement that the information is derived from a report (reportedness), 2) the expression of surprise at a pre-existing state of affairs that the speaker would not have been willing to vouch for prior to discovery (admirativity), and 3) the expression of sarcastic disbelief, i.e., expressively marked rejec­ tion of confirmation (dubitativity). In each case, the correct English translation of this type of usage involves a present tense form, but like­ wise in each instance there is actually some past reference that allows the Balkan Slavic unmarked past to be used, as can be seen from the following examples:11 (22) Čovekov bi[ od Amerika. this-person was-M from A. 'This guy [said he] was from America.' (May 1974) (23) She forgot to tell me she didn't eat meat. (24) She asked if I was the new girl, and I said I guessed I was. (25) Lidija Re reče [deka] nez naela. L. will she-says [that] not knew-F 'Lidija will say she didn't know.' *Lidija will say she doesn't know.' (Friedman 1977a: 71) (26) Ti şi bi[ . Rom! Ne sum znael. you are were-M Rom not I-am knew-м 'Why, you are a Rom! I didn't know.' (November 1973)

340

Victor A. Friedman

(27) Begal! ran-M •'He's running (as a thief suddenly flees).' (Friedman 1982b: 66) (28) —Toj poveke od tebe znae. —Toj povelče znad! —he more from you he-knows —he more knew-м '—He knows more than you do.—He knows more, indeed! ' (Friedman 1977a: 78)

In example (22), the statement was made by a cleaning lady, explain­ ing to a student that (I had said) I was from America. There was no nu­ ance of disbelief in her statement, but given the fact that I spoke fluent Macedonian she had no evidence for my statement other than my own report, and she chose not to add her personal confirmation upon repeat­ ing it. Although the statement could be rendered with a present tense verb form in English, the effect is more like that of sequence of tenses, as illustrated by examples (23) and (24). Example (25) demonstrates that the unmarked past must indeed refer to a past statement. It cannot be used to report an anticipated but not actually made future statement. Similarly, the unmarked past in example (26) expresses surprise at the present discovery of a pre-existing state. It is infelicitous to use this form to describe an event that actually begins to take place at the mo­ ment of speech. By shifting an originally present tense statement into the unmarked past in the second sentence of (28), the speaker is engag­ ing in ironic repetition, which specifically refers to and rejects the va­ lidity of a previously made statement. Thus all these types of usage of the unmarked past, which can be felicitously translated by English present tenses, nonetheless contain some type of past reference. This is demonstrated by the fact that they cannot be used felicitously in the absence of such a reference to the past. Later in this paper, when dis­ cussing the Albanian admirative, which is a true marked nonconfirmative with a true present tense, we shall have occasion to provide con­ trasting examples which support the claims being made here. It is important to note that while it is confirmativity which is marked in the inherited past tenses in Balkan Slavic, with nonconfirmativity being the chief contextual variant meaning of the unmarked past, in the new past tenses that have developed since the break-up of Common Slavic, nonconfirmativity has become the marked meaning of those

Confirmative/nonconfirmative

341

forms using an unmarked past as an auxiliary. Moreover, in the ex­ treme southwest of Macedonia, where paradigms using the old /-parti­ ciple have been completely replaced by new formations (perfects and pluperfects using the auxiliary ima 'have' plus the neuter verbal adjec­ tive [the old past passive participle] and a future particle plus imperfect for the conditional), the only remnants of the unmarked past are those with markedly nonconfirmative meanings, i.e., the reported, admira­ tive, and dubitative meanings described above (see Friedman 1986: 179, 1988a: 39). Examples (29)-(31) show that the new Macedonian perfect with the unmarked past of 'have' cannot be used for events that the speaker would have to confirm, while examples (32)-(33) exem­ plify similarly nonconfirmative forms in Bulgarian, using the un­ marked past of 'be' as the auxiliary. (29) *Jas vidov како toj go imal napraveno toa, I I-saw how he it had-м done-N it 'He saw how/that he had done it.' (cf. Friedman 1977a: 110) [Mac] (30) Mislam deka toj go imal napraveno toa. I-think that he it had-м done-N it 'I think he did it.' (cf. Friedman 1977a: 111) [Mac] (31) Sto mam, moiebi sum go imal storeno. what I-know maybe I-am it had-м done-N 'Who knows, maybe I have done it.' (cf. Friedman 1977a: 111) [Mac] (32) Míro ne M napravil. nothing not was-M did-м 'He (claims he) hasn't done anything.' (September 1995) [Big.] (33) Stankievične bil hodil v Plovdiv. S. not was-M went-M in P. 'Stankiewicz [has supposedly/apparently] never been to Plovdiv.' (September 1988) [Big.]

To sum up the Balkan Slavic situation, we know from Old Church Sla­ vonic that during the early medieval period status was not a grammat­ ical category in the South Slavic verbal system. By the early modern Period, the system as it is currently attested in the various languages Was in place. It was thus during the Ottoman occupation that the past

342

Victor A. Friedman

definite became marked for confirmativity, the old perfect became the unmarked past (as in the rest of Slavic) but also acquired the chief contextual variant meaning of 'nonconfirmative' (as in Turkish), and 'nonconfirmative' became the marked meaning for newly developed past tenses using the /-participle of the old perfect. In those Macedonian dialects where the new perfect in 'have' completely replaced the old perfect in 'be', the /-participle survives only in expressive nonconfirmative contexts. In much of Bulgarian (including the literary language), as well as in Eastern Macedonian dialects and also Southern West South Slavic, presence versus absence of the auxiliary in the third person of the old perfect is manipulated as a discourse phenomenon marking narrative distance, but not evidentiality per se. Let us now turn to strikingly similar but nonetheless quite distinct phenomena in Albani-

3. Marked nonconfirmativity in Albanian Table 3 gives the first person singular of the present and past indicatives of a maximal Albanian paradigm.12 As can be seen, the admirative is based on an inverted perfect, i.e., the auxiliary 'have' (lsg. pres. kam) of the active perfect is suffixed to a reduced short participle. It is interesting to note that while both the present and imperfect auxiliaries can be used to form the admirative, the aorist cannot. Table 3. lsg. indicative of 'have' in Albanian

Present Perfect Imperfect Pluperfect (impf.) Double Perfect Double Pluperfect Aorist 2nd Pluperfect (aor.) 2nd Double Pluperfect (aor.)

Nonadmirative kam kam pasur kisha kisha pasur kam pasë pasur kisha pasë pasur pata pata pasur pata pasë pasur

Admirative paskam paskam pasur paskësha paskësha pasur paskam pasë pasur paskësha pasë pasur — — —

Confirmative/nonconfirmative

343

The admirative is traditionally described as expressing surprise (cf. Friedman 1980: 17), but in fact it is a marked nonconfirmative, ex­ pressing the three basic types of nonconfirmative meaning described for the Balkan Slavic /-form: reportedness, dubitativity, and admirativity (Friedman 1981).13 The following examples illustrate typical us­ ages: (34) Qeshë i lumtur I-was FT pleased mire me shëndel well with health 'I was delighted to 1995)

të dëgjoja se qenkeni that I-heard that you-are-A të gjithë. FT all hear that you all are in good health.' (Personal letter, April

(35) Ai paska njëleter. he he-has-A a letter '[He says] he has a letter.' (August 1976) (36) Ti kërcyeke shumë mire! you you-dance-A very well 'You dance well! ' (August 1995) (37) Sipas një neokomunisti serb Kosova na qenka "pjesa më e according a neocommunist Serb Kosovo to-us it-is-A the-piece most PT sigurt e Serbisë." secure FT of-Serbia 'According to a Serbian neocommunist, Kosova iş "the most secure part of Serbia." ' (Kosovo Information Center, Informatori ditor, nr. 1167, 26 IX 1995)

Examples (34) and (35) are pure nonconfirmative admiratives based on reports. The first is from a letter written after a telephone conversa­ tion with the addressee, while the second is taken from a conversation in which the speaker was reporting my words to a third person. (I was trying to track down a letter that I had been told had come for me while I was in Prishtina.) In both cases there are nuances of surprise or dis­ belief, but only insofar as the marked nonconfirmation that character­ izes the invariant meaning of the Albanian admirative must, by defini­ tion, involve the withholding of personal confirmation. Example (36) is a typical expression of sincere surprise at the discovery of an unex­ pected fact, and (37) expresses sarcastic disbelief of the statement beln g reported, i.e., pure admirativity and dubitativity, respectively.

344

Victor A. Friedman

3.1. Albanian nonconfirmativity vs Balkan Slavic and Turkish Ever since Weigand (1923-1924, 1925) first noted the similarity be­ tween Balkan Slavic uses of the unmarked past with apparent present meaning to express marked nonconfirmativity (especially surprise as in example 26 above) and the Albanian present admirative, the two have been treated as comparable phenomena. Example (38) which is taken from the Bulgarian novel Baj Ganjo and the respective Macedo­ nian, Albanian, and Turkish translations (Konstantinov 1895, 1967, 1975, 1972), is typical in this respect: (38) a. Bravo, be Gunjo—povikna se baj Ganjo,—ti s[ Ш cjal bravo heyG. he-exclaimed IN Mr. G. you you-are was-M entire Bismark. (Konstantinov 1895 [1973]: 109) [Big.] B. b. Bravo, he Gunjo —vikna baj Ganjo,—ti şi bi[ eel bravo heyG. he-exclaimed Mr. G. you you-are was-м entire Bismark. (Konstantinov 1967: 119) [Mac] B. e. Bravo oreGuno—thirri baj Ganuai entuziazmuar—ti aenke bravo heyG. he-exclaimedMr. G. PT amazed you you-are-A njëBismark i vërtetë. (Konstantinov 1975: 123) [Alb.] a B. PT true d. Bravo be Gunyo! dedi. Sen maşallah büsbütün bir Bismark' bravo hey G. he-said you praise-God complete one B. missin be. you-are-misň hey (Konstantinov 1972: 188) [Turk.] 'Bravo Gunjo—exclaimed Baj Ganjo—you are a veritable Bismark.'

In fact, however, the Albanian present admirative is a true present, and is thus quite different from the Balkan Slavic uses of the unmarked past and the Turkish uses of -miş to signal nonconfirmativity. The Bal­ kan Slavic unmarked past, as noted above, must always refer to a pre-existing state, and as such always has a nuance of pastness. Exam­ ple (40c) indicates the same type of restriction for Turkish. This is not the case with the Albanian admirative, as can be seen in examples (39)-(42) and Table 4 below. (39) Po vrapuaka! PG he-runs-A 'He's running!' [Alb.]

Confirmative/nonconfirmative (40) a. Ku qenka mjeshtri? [Alb.] where he-is-A the-boss b. Kadě bi[ majstorot? where was-м the -boss c. Usta neredeymiş? boss where-w/j 'Where iş the boss?' [Alb.] / *[Mac] / *[Turk.] 14 (41) а. В rej, hepten magare bi[ tozi čovek. hey complete ass was-м this person (Konstantinov 1895 [1973]: 88, 89) [Big.] b. В rej, epten magare bi[ toj čovek! hey complete ass was-м this person (Konstantinov 1967: 91, 93) [Mac] e. Vay anasını, bu herif hepten de esekmis be! woe the-his-mother this guy complete and ass-mis hey (Konstantinov 1972: 144, 146) [Turk.] d. Bre! gomar i madh paska qënë ky njeri! hey ass FT big he-has-A been this person (Konstantinov 1975:96) [Alb.] - [perfect] e. Ore, fare gomar paskësh aënë ky njeri! hey complete ass he-had-A been this person (Konstantinov 1975: 98) [Alb.] - [pluperfect] "What an ass that guy iş! ' f. Ama njerëz fare pa mend qënkëshin këta... but people completely without mind they-were-A these (Konstantinov 1975:24) [Alb.] - [impferfect] 'What fools are these...' (42) a. Vij săvsem bez hljab jadete! —uëudva se baj Ganjo you completely without bread you-eat wonders IN Mr. G. (Konstantinov 1895 [1973]: 58) [Big.] b. Vie sosema bez leb jadete —se čudi baj Ganjo. you completely without bread you-eat IN wonders Mr. G. (Konstantinov 1967: 50) [Mac] e. Çudi qysh e hëngërki ju gjellën, fare pa strange that it you-eat-A you the-food completely without büke!— tha baj Ganuai çuditur. bread he-said Mr. G. PT amazed (Konstantinov 1975: 58) [Alb.] d. Siz ekmeksiz mi içiyorsunuz şu çorbayı yahu? diye You bread-less Q your-are-drinking this the-soup hey saying de şaşar Bay Ganii. and wonders Mr. G.

345

346

Victor A. Friedman (Konstantinov 1972: 79) [Turk.] 'You are eating (the soup) entirely without bread—Baj Ganjo said with amazement.'

Table 4. Admiratives in Albanian, Bulgarian and Turkish

Albanian Bulgarian Turkish

present admirative 59 — —

present tense — 44 42

nothing — 9 10

some form of past tense (Blg.in-/Turk.in-mif) — 6 7

Example (39) is the Albanian translation of example (27); the particle po marks progressive aspect and can only occur with the present and imperfect. This example demonstrates clearly that the Albanian present admirative functions as a true present whereas the Balkan Slavic admirative use of the unmarked past does not. Example (40) is a further illustration of this point. The context here is a man walking into a barber shop. Seeing only the assistant and not the boss, he asks in surprise: "Where is the boss?" He is referring to the boss's location at precisely and only the moment of speech, and in such a context the present admirative is perfectly natural in Albanian whereas the un­ marked past cannot be so used in Slavic nor can -miş be so used in Turkish, only a true present tense would be acceptable.15 The example sentences in (41) further illustrate the fact that the Balkan Slavic use of the unmarked past and the equivalent Turkish use of -miş to express surprise at a newly discovered fact, although translated with an Eng­ lish present to refer to the moment of discovery, in fact refer to a pre-existing state in the past (much like the canonical stative perfect). These sentences are all taken from Konstantinov's (1895) Baj Ganjo and its various translations. The title character is in the habit of ex­ claiming at the stupidity of other people, and the expression meaning 'What a [dumb] ass that guy is!' occurs twice, while a similar excla­ mation expressing surprise at the foolishness of a group of people oc­ curs in another location. In each of these instances, the Balkan Slavic uses the unmarked past bil and Turkish uses -mis, but in Albanian, the translator availed herself of the fact that when the Albanian admirative refers precisely to the discovery of a pre-existing state, one can use a

Confirmative/nonconfirmative ЪА1

past rather than a present admirative to refer to that pre-existing state while simultaneously referencing surprise. Thus (41d-f) each use a different Albanian past admirative to translate the admirative use of the Balkan Slavic unmarked past (and Turkish -miş) in (41a-c). Exam­ ple (42) and Table 4 illustrate the fact that the Albanian present admi­ rative most often corresponds to a true present in languages such as Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Turkish. Table 4 gives the total number of present admiratives in the Albanian translation oiBaj Ganjo and the number of times these forms corresponded to present tenses in the Bul­ garian original and the Turkish translation, as well as the number of occurrences that did not have exact equivalents due to differences in translation style and those occurrences that did correspond to a Bul­ garian /-participle and a Turkish form in -mis}6 As can be seen clearly, the overwhelming majority of Albanian present admiratives corre­ spond to ordinary presents in the other languages. Example (42) is a typical illustration. Moreover, admiratives using the Balkan Slavic unmarked past are in fact the rarest. The point is that Albanian has developed an entire paradigm of marked nonconfirmatives, including a true present, whereas in Balkan Slavic the use of the unmarked past to express nonconfirmative nuances with apparently present meaning does not, in fact, represent a neutralization of tense but rather always contains a reference to a past, pre-existing state (cf. Friedman 1982b: 66).

4. Balkan Romance 4.1. Nonconfirmativity in Megleno-Romanian Turning now to Balkan Romance, we come to three very distinct mani­ festations of nonconfirmativity among the three Balkan Romance lan­ guages, viz. Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Daco-Romanian. Megleno-Romanian has an inverted perfect (the present auxiliary meaning 'have' postposed to the past participle, see Table 5), which is formally like the Albanian admirative but semantically like Macedo­ nian nonconfirmative uses of the unmarked past. Typical examples are given in sentences (43)-(45), which are cited exactly as in Atanasov

348

Victor A. Friedman

(1990: 220), i.e., Megleno-Romanian with Macedonian and French translations. Table 5. The Megleno-Romanian inverted perfect of 'see' vizut-ăm

vizut-ăm

vizút-aoi

vizút-at

-

,

„

'

-

,

-

*

\\. ': i '

vizut-au vizut-au (43) a. ă bră, tu fost-ăi mari om! a hey you been-have big man b. a be, ti s[ M golem čovekí [Mac] a hey you you-are was-м big person 'Mais je viens d'apprendre que tu eş une personne importante!' (Atanasov 1990:221) (44) a. nu vut-au bun ğiiû not had-have good life b. nemalé dobar život. [Mac] not-had-p good life 'On dit que leur vie conjugale n'est pas réussie.' (Atanasov 1990: 221) (45) a. ier fost-ăi ăn cătun yesterday been-have to village b. vcera şi bi[ na selo. [Mac] yesterday you-are was-м to village 'J'ai entendu parler (on m'a dit) que hiers tu étais (as été) au village/à la cam­ pagne.' (Atanasov 1990: 221)

4.2. Nonconfirmativity in Aromanian Aromanian generally lacks nonconfirmative verb forms—at least ac­ cording to the available descriptions of dialects from Greece and Mac­ edonia and the small amount of fieldwork I have been able to conduct in Albania—except in the Frasheriote (Fărşălot) dialect of the village of Gorna Belica (Beala di supra) in southwestern Macedonia. In this dialect, the third person singular Albanian admirative marker -ka has been borrowed as an invariant particle which, suffixed to a past parti­ cipial base (usually underlyingly the masculine plural from an imper­ fect stem), functions exactly like the Albanian admirative (for details

Confirmative/nonconfirmative

349

see Friedman 1994b: 84-85). It does not inflect for person, but can en­ ter into oppositions of other verbal categories. Table 6 (based on Markovik 1995: 80) gives a comparison of the Frasheriote Aromanian and Standard Albanian forms showing some of these distinctions. Table 6. Aromanian {Fărşălot of Beala di supra) and Albanian indicatives (3sg. 'work')

present perfect pluperfect 2nd pluperfect double perfect double pluperfect

NONADMIRATIVE lukră punon ari lukrată ka punuar ave lukrată kish punuar avu lukrată pat punuar ari avut lukrată ka pasë punuar ave avut lukrată kish pasë punuar

ADMIRATIVE lukracka avuska luktrată — — ari avuska lukrată ave avuska lukrată

punuaka paska punuar paskësh punuar — paska pase punuar paskësh pasë punuar

2nd double pluperfect avu avut lukrată pat pasë punuar —

Example (46) is a typical example in context and is followed by Mac­ edonian and English translations.17 The Aromanian admirative has the same nuances of nonconfirmation, surprise, and disbelief recorded for the Albanian and for nonconfirmative uses of the Balkan Slavic un­ marked past. (46) Una meu ďspit hanœja tu Bitul'i, ma di multu a to me friend lives in В. but from much o"ră пи п(з) avem văjută. Aseră vini năs(n3s)la times not us we-have seen-F yesterday came he to mini ku Mercedes.Mi I'oi di minti [Mi me with M. me it took from mind [me čudosi] : Abe tora tini fuska avut om! amazed hey now you are-А rich man Eden moj prijatel živeevo Bitola,no odamna one my friend lives in B. but long-time-ago se nemáme viděno. Včera toj dojde kaj mene so IN not-we-have seen-N yesterday he he-came by me with Mercedes. Se šašardisav: A be segati s[ bi[ bogat čovek! M. IN I-wondered well hey now you you-are was-м rich person 'A friend of mine lives in Bitola, but we had not seen one another for a long time. Yesterday he came to my place in a Mercedes. I was amazed: Hey, you are a rich man now!' [Mac] (August 1992)

350

Victor A. Friedman

4.3. The Daco-Romanian presumptive mood In Daco-Romanian, the so-called presumptive mood (modul prezum­ tiv), also has the three basic types of nonconfirmative meaning de­ scribed above. Unlike the forms we have been considering thus far, however, the Daco-Romanian presumptive makes use of a modal par­ ticle (see Table 7; any of the modal particles in column one can be combined with invariant // 'be' and either the present or past par­ ticiple).18 Moreover, when formed with the invariant marker of the fu­ ture (o, i) or subjunctive (să), it is like the Aromanian admirative inso­ far as it does not mark person. Examples (47)-(49) are typical present presumptives showing that all three types of modal particle can be used with no appreciable difference in meaning. Examples (50) and (51), from the Romanian translation of Baj Ganjo (Konstantinov 1964: 96-97), show present and past presumptives corresponding to the Bal­ kan Slavic nonconfirmative past and the Turkish -mis form. In (50) the usage is pure nonconfirmative, while in (51) it is dubitative. Sentence (50) uses a present presumptive, since it refers to a state of affairs that might still obtain in the present, whereas (51) uses a past presumptive, since the action to which it refers is entirely in the past. It is interesting to note that while a Romanian presumptive will often (although not al­ ways) correspond to a Balkan Slavic and Turkish nonconfirmative in the respective translations of Baj Ganjo, the Romanian presumptive and the Albanian admirative never correspond. This may be connected with the fact that the Albanian paradigms are completely divorced from their original perfect meanings whereas the relevant Balkan Slavic and Turkish forms are not. In their deployment of pragmatic cri­ teria, the Balkan Slavic and Turkish thus mediate between the indica­ tive status of Albanian and the nonconfirmative modality of Daco-Ro­ manian. Different types of contact phenomena may also be involved (cf. Friedman 1998a: 39 and note 9). Table 7. Presumptive of 'work' l-2-3sg-l-2-3pl voi-vei-va-vom-ve ţi-vof o" Г oi-oi-o-om-o ţi-or să as-ai-ar-am-a Ji-ar

(future) lucrînd (present) (subjunctive) { fi } (conditional) lucrat (past/perfect)

Confirmative/nonconfirmative

351

(47)

Mihai, oare şă fj existînd strigoi? M. really that been existing ghosts 'Mihai, do ghosts really exist?' (Vasiliu 1966: 224)

(48)

—Iţi zice lumea "Niculăiţă Minciună? —Mi-g_ fj zicînd you they-call the-world N. the-liar me-will been calling '—Do they call you Nick the liar —They supposedly call me that.' (Vasiliu 1966: 224)

(49)

Pe lîngă urs se spune că ar fi avînd si această on along bear IN says that has-co been having and this pajură care-l priveghează. eagle that-him guards 'Alongside the bear it is said that there is a golden eagle that keeps a vigil over him.' (Vasiliu 1966: 224)

(50) a. Cînd se întoarse,veni cu surdomutul, îmi spuse cum că when IN returned he-came with the-deaf-mute to-me he-said how that băiatul qr_ fi_ avînd în Bulgaria un frate ofiţer, ori the-boy has-co been having in B. a brother officer or funcţionar—numi-aduc aminte—, care avea să-i trimităcîte-o official not to-me-it-comes to-mind who had that-to-him send per-a sută de franci pe lună... (Konstantinov 1964: 97) [Rom.] 100 of francs on month b. Kato dojde tazi godina s gluhonjamotomomče, kaza mi, when he-came that year with the-deaf-mute boy he-said to-me če tuj momce imalo и vas, v Bălgarija, brat činovnik that that boy had-N by you in Bulgaria brother official ili oficerin —ne pomnja,— kojto štjal da mu otpušti po or officer not I-remember who would that to-him send apiece sto franka ežemesečno... (Konstantinov 1895 [1973]: 82) [Big.] 100 francs monthly c. Koga dojde taa godina so gluvo-nemoto dete, mi reče, when he-came that year with the-deaf-mute child to-me he-said deka toa imalo kaj vas, vo Bugarija, brat činovnik that he had-N by you in Bulgaria brother official ali oficer —ne pametam, koj ke mu prakal sekoj mesec or officer not I-remember who will to-him send-м every month po sto franka... (Konstantinov 1967: 83)[Mac] apiece 100 francs d. Kur erdhi këtë vit përsëri, po táni i shoqëruar nga djali when he-came this year again but now PT accompanied by the-boy shurdh e memec, mé tha se ai fèmijè kishte ne deaf and mute to-me he-said that that child had in

352

Victor A. Friedman vëndin tuaj, në Bullgari,një vëlla nëpunës a oficer—s'më country your in Bulgaria a brother official or officer not'to-me kujtohet ç'më tha— që do t'i dërgonte njëqind it-is-remembered what'to-mehe-said—that will that'to-him sent 100 franga per çdo muaj... (Konstantinov 1975: 89) [Alb.] francs for each month e. Bu yıl, beraberinde sağır ve dilsiz çocukla geldiği zaman this year together deaf and mute with-child its-having-come time bana şunları yutturdu: Sözde bu çocuğun Bulgaristan'da memur mu, to-me these deceived-cří in-a-word thisof-child in-Bulgaria official Q ; subay mı, pek iyi hatırlayamıyorum, ağabey si varmış.!...] officer Q, very well I-can-not-remembering older-brother txist-miş kardeşine her ay yüz frank gönderecekmiş. to-his-brother each month 100 franc he-will-send-ffzi'f (Konstantinov 1972: 129) [Turk.] 'When he came back that year with a deaf-mute Iad, he told me that this boy had a brother who was an official or an officer—I don't remember which— in your country, in Bulgaria, who was going to send him one hundred francs a month....'

(51) a. Bai Ganiu îmi ceru să-i fac cinste, deoarece pe drum Mr. G. me wanted that-to-him I-make treat because on road o£ _ß_ fumat din tutunul lui. (Konstantinov 1964:96) [Rom.] I-have-co been smoked from the-toboacco to-him b. Baj Ganjo poiska az da pocerpja, poneže iz pătja Mr. G. he-wanted I that I-treat because along the-road săm pusil ot negovijatjutjun. (Konstantinov 1895 [1973]: 81) [Big.] I-am smoked-M from the-his tobacco e. Baj Ganjo pobara jas da cestám oti po pat sum pušel Mr. G. he-sought I that I-treat since along road I-am smoked-M od negoviot tutun. (Konstantinov 1967: 82) [Mac] from the-his tobacco d. Baj Ganua deshte ta qirasnja une, sepse rrugës kisha Mr. G. he-wanted that-him I-treated I because from-road I-had pire nga duhani Í tij. (Konstantinov 1975: 88) [Alb.] drunk from the-tobacco PT his e. Büfede, Bay Ganü, yenip içilecek şeyleri benim ısmarlamam in-buffet Mr. G. eat-and drinkable the-things of-me my-ordering gerektiğini ileri sürdü. Cnünkü yolda hep onun tütününden its-necessity forward advanced because on-road all of-him from-tobacco içmişiz. (Konstantinov 1972: 128) [Turk.] we-dťmk-mis 'Baj Ganjo wanted me to treat him, since on the road I had smoked some of his tobacco.'

Confirmative/nonconfirmative

353

5. Romani We can mention in passing that according to Kostov (1973: 108), the Romani dialect of Sliven in eastern Bulgaria has borrowed the -/ of the old resultative participle in the form of -// (the plural) and reinterpreted it as a marker of reportedness, as in example (52), given here with the Bulgarian translation supplied by Kostov: (52) a. ti kanatu nakhinas-li manusa opre phrucjatar, šunejlas-li and when passed-li people on from-bridge was-heard-li racjasa: "Pavljo, Pavljo!" with-night P. P. b. ; kogato minavaU_ xora po mosta, čuvalo se and when passed-p people along the-bridge heard-N IN prez nošta: "Pavljo, Pavljo!" [Big.] (Kostov 1973: 108) through the-night P. P. 'And as people passed over the bridge, through the night was heard: "Pavljo, Pavljo!" '

Matras (1994: 206-207) argues that the opposition between participial forms that agree with the subject in gender and gender-neutral forms that take the expected person marker in the third person singular simple preterit of intransitive verbs of motion and change of state in Kalderaš Romani is determined by discourse factors similar to Balkan evidentials. Thus forms with the personal affix (e.g., gela 'came') de­ note personal (exclusive) knowledge whereas the participial affix (e.g., masc. geh, fem. geli) denote deduction from shared (inclusive) knowledge (Matras 1994: 206-207). Due to considerations of space, it will not be possible to go into greater details here. 6. The Caucasus Although status oppositions are also found in all the Caucasian lan­ guages, we shall examine only two here, one Kartvelian (Georgian) and the other Daghestanian (Lak). Due to limitations of space, we shall only consider here certain details distinguishing the Caucasian lan­ guages from the Balkan ones vis-à-vis status.19 Both Georgian and Lak have perfects that are associated with nonconfirmativity and aorists

354

Victor A. Friedman

that are associated with, among other things, confirmativity.20 Unlike the Balkan languages, however, which have quotative and dubitative words such as Bulgarian kaj, Albanian gjoja, and Romanian cică, Georgian and Lak have quotative clitics (e.g. Georgian -o, Lak -ťar) that specifically mark reported speech, as in the following Georgian example: (53) Vanom ra mindao? Vano-Е what I-want-QT 'What did Vano say he wanted?' (Kim Braithwaite: personal communication)

Georgian has typical admirative uses of the perfect (surprise at a newly discovered pre-existing state) as in (54), and moreover uses the perfect as a performative as in (55), but, as in the Balkan languages, cannot use the perfect to express surprise at an on-going act (56):21 (54) Ra lamazi gogo q'opilxar. what beautiful girl you-have-been 'What a beautiful girl you are!' (Friedman 1979: 341) (55) Momilocavs! 1-have-congratulated-you 'Congratulations!' (Friedman 1979: 342) (56) Is e erili dagie'eriaf this letter you-have-written 'You have written/*are writing that letter!' (Friedman 1977b: 25)

•" ,/ .

Lak, however, does not have admirative uses of its perfect, nor does it have dubitative uses of the type illustrated by example (28) above. Lak does have a set of verb forms not found in any of the other languages being considered here, viz. the assertive.22 In the present tense in ordi­ nary conversation, the assertive has an effect similar to the use of Eng­ lish do in affirmative sentences, as in example (57). The Lak assertive, however, is the normal tense for objective, neutral statements in offi­ cial style, as in (58) and (59). Such usage at the colloquial level, how­ ever, is emphatic, much like the use of -dir in Turkish. Thus, (60) is the colloquial version of (59).

Confirmative/nonconfirmative

355

(57) Na čagar čičara I čičaissara. I letter I-write / I-do-write 'I write/do write a letter.' (Friedman 1988a: 132) (58) Isiral stil'danuvu asar k' ic'lagan eu lu buvssa maqru, business in-style impression producing decorative being words kalimarttugu İsla ppadajssar. and-phrases used are-not 'In business style, emotive and decorative words and phrases are not used.' (Friedman 1994a) (59) Ärkinssakssa masinarttu baqqašivrijn buvnu, cila č'umal necessary cars absence having-been its-own of-time qus t'ajla qqadurkssar. goods send did-not-go 'Due to the absence of necessary cars, the goods were not sent in time.' (Fried­ man 1994a: 116) (60) Häq'inu čanssa masinarttu bija. Qus t'ajla dükkan žušša qqaxurna. today few cars were goods send to-go from-us was-not-done 'There were too few cars today. We didn't send the goods.' (Friedman 1994a: 116)

Lak also possesses defective confirmative paradigms that only occur in the first person. For the other two persons, forms from a paradigm not marked for confirmativity are used (cf. Friedman 1984: 137-138). 7. The Balkans and the Caucasus 7.1. Verb choice in formulas Formulaic usages also highlight similarities and differences among the different manifestations of status. Thus, for example, the traditional beginning of a fairy tale that functions as the equivalent of the English Once upon a time generally translates 'Once there was and once there was not'. Balkan Slavic, Turkish, and Lak all use perfect-type (nonconfirmative) forms, while Albanian, Balkan Romance, and Georgian use simple preterits, as in (61). In proverbs, however, the patterning is a bit different. For past tense proverbs that constitute miniature alle­ gorical stories, Balkan Slavic and Turkish use nonconfirmatives (un-

356

Victor A. Friedman

marked pasts), whereas Georgian uses the aorist plus a quotative par­ ticle and Lak uses the assertive (62-63). (61)

bilo (Imalo edno vreme) [Mac. & Big.] ne was-N there-was-N one time not na ç'ishte[kVo.) se to-us whaťit-was that ma nu şi ira ira [ Aromanian] şi T> but not and it-was it-was and but yokmuş [Turk.] bir varmış Bir not-exist-№\y one exist-mis\ one iq'o [Georgian] ara da Iq'o it-was not and it-was qqaivk' un ur [ Lak] ur, Ivk'un having-been was not-having-been was 'Once upon a time ...' (Friedman 1988a: 132) Bih was-N Ishte it-was

kovat bivola, (62) Vidjala žabata če ; tja navirala kraka. [Big.] saw-F the-frog that they-shoe the-buffalo and she lifted-F the-leg Öküze nal çakırdığını görmüş, kurbağa da ayağını to-ox horseshoe its-hammering having-seen frog too its-the-foot kaldırmış. [Turk.] \X-\\i\.-mis Viděla žabata deka bivolo go kovat i sama dignala saw-F the-frog that the-water-buffalo it they-shoe and herself lifted-F nogata. [Mac] the-foot Bedaurebsa e' eddnen baq'aq'mac pexi aisvirao. fGeo.] horses they-were-shoeing frog-too foot ít-Iifted-QT 'The frog saw them shoeing the ox/horses/water buffalo and lifted its foot, too. ' (Friedman 1989-1990: 668) (63) Magareto i na hadžilak da hodi, a pak magare se_ vrăsta. [Big.] the-ass and on pilgrimage that it-goes and yet ass IN it-returns ierusalims niori gagzavnes, dabrunda da isev q' ardao. [Geo.] to-Jerusalem garlic went it-returned and still it-stank-QT Kä' valin lavgunni kunu laččul timus пас и х~ипи Ka'aba it-went saying garlic garlic sweet having-become QQobuc'ajssar [Lak] it-not-returns 'Garlic [donkey] went on a pilgrimage, but it came back stinking [still a don­ key].' (Friedman 1989-1990: 667)

Confirmative/nonconfirmative

357

7.2. Conclusion In the course of this paper, I have tried to show the similarities and dif­ ferences among the Balkan languages that have some sort of grammat­ ical coding in the verb for the category of status. I have argued that the label evidential is infelicitous, since the motivation for verb form choice is the attitude of the speaker toward the information, which, while often determined or influenced by the source of the information (evidence), is nonetheless not obligatorily (or grammatically) depend­ ent upon it. The Balkan Slavic opposition confirmative/nonconfirma­ tive very much resembles the Turkish opposition between the past tenses in -di and -miş, whereas the Albanian and Balkan Romance paradigms encode only nonconfirmativity. In the Caucasus, as repre­ sented here by Georgian and Lak, a remarkably similar set of meanings are encoded in similar types of past tense forms, but there are also sig­ nificant differences that are no doubt linked to the interrelationship among these forms and the rest of the verbal systems in which they are embedded. Linguistic contact with Turkish, which of all the languages considered here has the oldest attested status forms, is a possible source or at least motivating impetus for developments in the Balkans and the Caucasus, but at the same time, certain typological universale (e.g., the constellation of meanings associated with marked noncon­ firmativity) may also be involved as explanatory factors. I shall con­ clude this paper with an outline of topics for investigation I first pro­ posed in Friedman (1979:346, cf. Friedman 1984: 145-146). Although space has not permitted me to elaborate on all of these here, this outline provides a framework for continued investigation of the relevant phen­ omena in these and other languages.

358

Victor A. Friedman

Table 8. Outline for the comparative investigation of verbal systems with morpho­ logically marked status categories in the Balkan-Anatolian-Caucasian area I. Perfect as pure resultative vs Perfect as nonconfirmative vs Perfect as unmarked past or confirmative A. First person B. Connected narratives '>'1. With definite past-time adverbs f 2. In folk tales ••.... II. Perfect with apparently nonpast meanings A. Resultative 1. Admirative 2. Stative 3. Performative 4. Other emotive r B. Nonconfirmative 1. Dubitative III. Quotative particles A. Clitic i B.Independent ч IV. Competing forms A. Resultative B. Confirmative C. Nonconfirmative ' V. Relation of perfect to neighboring forms ' • A. Simple preterit 1. Marked confirmative .,, > 2. Unmarked , 3. Other B. Pluperfect 1. Pure reported 2. Pure taxic 3. Marked confirmative 4. Modal C. Nonpreterit (present) 1. Unmarked 2. Confirmative 3. Nonconfirmative VI. Influence of other generic categories A. Aspect B. Voice VII. Volition, Uncertainty, Interrogation, Negation VIII. Synthetic vs Analytic construction IX. Modality

Confirmative/nonconfirmative 359

Notes 1. The literature on status categories has proliferated to the extent that a separate monograph could now be devoted just to a bibliography of works on this topic (cf. Friedman 1980: 26-30). Two collections worth citing, however, are Nichols—Chafe (1986) and Guentchéva (1996). Unfortunately, this latter work was not available to me in time for me to take it into account in writing this article. Foulon-Hristova ( 1995: 113-229) is a recent treatment of Macedonian, see Friedman (1997) for a review. 2. The confirmative past is also called the 'definite past' in traditional grammars. The unmarked past is similarly called the 'indefinite past', and the nonconfirmative is called 'reported' or 'dubitative'. 3. References given as a month and year are from my own field notes, usually based on spontaneous conversations. Translations are mine unless the original source provided one. A reference in an example involving more than one foreign language refers to all the languages in question. Unreferenced examples are ordinary, common sentences. 4. Note that if such contradiction is infelicitous, then the use of the confirmative is permissible, hence the square brackets around the asterisk. In the specific case of (4), for example, if the speaker really does believe that the person in question did it and is using the predicate don't believe to mean T am surprised at the fact that', then the use of the confirmative is acceptable and would stress the fact that the speaker really does believe he did it. Cf. English / can't believe I ate the whole thing. 5. This is in direct contradiction to Lunt (1952: 93), whose presentation of the facts is in this case influenced by normative rather than descriptive practices, cf. Friedman (1977a: 60) 6. See Friedman (1986: 173-180,1995: 296) for details. 7. Strictly speaking, the imperfect resultative participle is an innovation rather than an inheritance from Common Slavic, in which the resultative participle was based only on the aorist stem. The innovation, however, is a common Macedo-Bulgarian one and pre-dates later developments that differentiated Macedonian and Bulgarian. In this sense, therefore, it can be treated together with older inherited material. 8. Cf. example (21) and note 10. 9. Cf. also Golab's (1960: 34-38) comparison with Macedonian. The striking similarity between various status categories in the Balkan languages and in Turkish has supplied considerable material for debate over contact versus autochthony (based on typological universals of development) as sources of the phenomena (e.g., Demiraj 1971: 47-48 and Ylli 1989: 47 for Albanian, cf. Friedman 1978: 112 on Balkan Slavic). The actual data suggest that while contact may have provided an impetus, universal principles could also have been at work.

360

Victor A. Friedman

10. See Grickat (1954: 18-78, 114-144, 168-205) for a detailed treatment of the Southern West South Slavic phenomenon. 11. These examples are all in Macedonian, however they would be identical in Bul­ garian, mutatis mutandis, and the basic points being made are the same (see Friedman 1981). 12. The 'double' and 'second' perfects and pluperfects are marginal in the literary language, and the details of their use and meaning need not concern us here. Al­ though the admirative is treated as a mood (mënyrë) in traditional Albanian grammar, I have argued (Friedman 1981), that the category it marks is status, which is not itself modal, although it can interact with mood. Among the data from Albanian grammar that can be adduced to support this argument are the facts that the admirative takes the indicative negator nuk rather than the modal negator mos, and, moreover, that the admirative can occur in both modal as well as indicative constructions, e.g., in analytic subjunctive constructions in të (cf. Fiedler 1966: 563, Lafe 1977:480-81, Sytov 1979: 1120-111). If the admirative were itself a mood, it would require a double layer of modality to account for such usage. Since the admirative marks status, however, it can be both modal and nonmodal. 13. The name admirative, was introduced by Dozon (1879: 226-227) and is trans­ lated by the Albanian habitore from habi 'surprise'. Although the term is some­ what infelicitous, since it only describes one of the nonconfirmative contextual variant meanings, it is sufficiently widespread and well established that I will continue to use it here. 14. The Macedonian (and, mutatis mutandis, the Bulgarian) and Turkish sentences are felicitous as dubitative exclamations at a previous statement or with explicit past reference, but they cannot be used with present meaning in this context, hence the asterisks. 15. If, however, the boss comes out from behind a current, the customer can then ex­ claim in Bulgarian [and Macedonian], using the unmarked past: (i) Ah, tuk[a] si bil! ah here you-are were-M Similarly in Turkish one could exclaim: (ii) Ah, buraday mışsınl ah here-miş-you Although the normal English translation would be 'Oh, here you are! ', in fact the true meaning of the Balkan Slavic and Turkish exclamations is 'Oh, [it turns out] you have been here [all along]!' Cf. especially example (41). 16. The statistics for Macedonian are approximately the same as for Bulgarian and Turkish. 17. The Aromanian admirative was discovered by me together with Marjan Markovik in Ohrid in 1992, and example (46) was the context in which it was first elic­ ited. My travel for this field work was supported by a grant from the Internatio-

Confirmativ e/nonconfirmativ e

18.

19. 20.

21. 22.

361

nal Research & Exchanges Board, with funds provided by the National Endow­ ment for the Humanities. Neither of these organizations is responsible for the views expressed. Marjan Markovik helped me with the collection and transla­ tion, and his uncle, Tomislav Manovski/Toma Mani, as well as Vasilie Balukoski/Silja Baljuk, Andon Labrovski/Ndona Ljabru, and Kosta Panovski/Koči Pani generously shared their knowledge of their native language. I gratefully ac­ knowledge their help. There is considerable debate over how many of these constructions are to be considered part of the presumptive mood, since those constructions with the past participle are homonymous with the future, subjunctive, or conditional perfect and formations using the subjunctive or conditional markers and the present par­ ticiple are sometimes omitted from descriptive accounts. Based on actual usage, however, it seems clear that all six combinatorial possibilities do function as presumptives. Sentence (51), for example, is clearly not a perfect conditional. For further details, see Friedman (1998: 400). For more details, see Friedman (1979, 1984, 1988b, and 1994a). In the case of Georgian, the aorist is also associated with willful action and the perfect with involuntary action: (iii) Is perangi ar miq'idia I miq'ide that shirt not I-bought / I-have-bought 'I didn't buy that shirt' [aorist: because I didn't want it/perfect: because I lacked time or money] (cf. Aronson 1982: 276). Although the native speakers of Georgian that I consulted did not accept the du­ bitative use of the perfect, Boeder (this volume) does have such examples. For detailed arguments on the choice of terminology, see Friedman (1994a: 116-118).

References Aksu-Koç, A. 1988 The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Aronson, Howard I. 1967 "The grammatical categories of the indicative in the contemporary Bulgarian literary language", in: To honor Roman Jakobson. Vol. 1. The Hague: Mouton, 82-98. 1977 "Interrelationships between aspect and mood in Bulgarian", Folia Slavica 1(1): 9-22. 1982 Georgian: A reading grammar. Columbus: Slavica. Aronson, Howard (ed.) 1989 The non-Slavic languages of the USSR: Linguistic studies. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

362

Victor A. Friedman 1994

Non-Slavic languages of the USSR: Papers from the fourth conference. Columbus: Slavica

Atanasov, P. 1990 Le mégléno-roumain de nos jours. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Clyne, Paul —William Hanks—Carol Hofbauer (eds.) 1979 The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Demiraj, Sh. 1971 "Habitorja dhe mosha e saj" [The admirative and its antiquity], Studíme filologjike 8(3): 31-39. Desnickaja, A. V. (ed.) 1979 Problémy sintaksisa balkanskogo areata. Leningrad: Nauka. Dozon, Auguste. 1879 Manuel de la langue chkipe ou albanaise. Paris: Société asiatique de Paris. Farkas, Donka —Wesley Jacobsen—Karol Todrys (eds.) 1978 Papers from the fourteenth regional meeting: Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Fiedler, W. 1966 "Zu einigen Problemen des albanischen Admirativs", Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig: Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 3: 551-566. Fielder, Grace E. 1994 The origin of evidentiality in the Balkans: Linguistic convergence or conceptual convergence? [Paper delivered at the Seventh International Congress of Southeast European Studies, Thessaloniki, August-September 1994.] 1995 "Narrative perspective and the Bulgarian /-participle", Slavic and East European Journal 39: 585-600. 1996 "Distance as a prototypical verbal category in Bulgarian", Balkanistica 9: 211-215. 1997 "The discourse properties of verbal categories and their implications for Balkan linguistics", Balkanistica 10: 162-184. Friedman, Victor A. 1976 "Structural and generative approaches to an analysis of the Macedonian preterite", Slavic and East European Journal 20: 460-64. 1977a The grammatical categories of the Macedonian indicative. Columbus. Slavica. 1977b "Developments of the perfect in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", in: Robert Rodman (ed.), 21-9. 1978 "On the semantic and morphological influence of Turkish on Balkan Slavic", in: Donka Farkas—Wesley Jacobsen—Karol Todrys (eds.). 108-18.

Confirmative/nonconfirmative 1979

363

"Toward a typology of status: Georgian and other non-Slavic languag­ es of the Soviet Union", in: Paul Clyne—William Hanks—Carol Hofbauer (eds.), 339-50. 1980 "The study of Balkan admirativity: Its history and development", Balkanistica 6: 7-30. 1981 "Admirativity and confirmativity", Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 17(1): 12-28. 1982a "Reportedness in Bulgarian: Category or stylistic variant?" Interna­ tional Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 25-26: 149-63. 1982b "Admirativity in Bulgarian compared with Albanian and Turkish", Bulgaria Past and Present. Vol. 2. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 63-67. 1984 "Status and the Lak verbal system", Folia Slavica 7(1-2): 135-49. 1986 "Evidentially in the Balkans: Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Albanian", in: Johanna Nichols—Wallace Chafe (eds.), 168-87. 1988a "Morphological innovation and semantic shift in Macedonian", Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 24(1): 34-41. 1988b "The category of evidentiality in the Balkans and the Caucasus", in: A. M. Schenker (ed.), 121-139. 1989 "On the terminology for Lak synthetic past paradigms", in: Howard Aronson (ed.), 106-120. 1989-90 "Upotrebata na glagolskite vreminja vo makedonskite i vo drugi balkanski poslovični izrazi" [The use of verbal tenses in Macedonian and other Balkan proverbial expressions], Makedonski jazik 40-41: 661670. 1994a "Assertive verb forms in Lak", in: Howard Aronson (ed.), 114-119. 1994b "Surprise! Surprise! Arumanian has had an admirative!" Indiana Slavic Studies 7: 79-89. 1995 "The differentiation of Macedonian and Bulgarian in a Balkan con­ text. Balkan Forum. 3(3): 291-305. 1997 Review of Foulon-Hristova 1995. Language 73: 680-681. 1998 "The grammatical expression of presumption and related concepts in Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance", in: Alan Timberlake—Michael Flier (eds.), 390-405. 1999 "Peirce, Albanians, and Vlahs: Semiotics and status in the Balkan Sprachbund", in: Michael Shapiro (ed.), 515-529. Foulon-Hristova, Jadranka 1995 Les modes de narration en Macédonien. Paris: L'Asiathèque. Gălăbov, Gălăb 1949 Turska gramatika [Turkish grammar]. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo. Golab, Zbigniew 1960 "The influence of Turkish upon the Macedonian Slavonic dialects", Folia Orientalia 1: 26-45.

364

Victor A. Friedman

Graur, Al. et al. 1966 Gramatica limbii române I [Grammar of the Romanian language]. Bucharest: Academia Republicii Socialiste România. Grickat, Irena ] 954 O perfektu bez pomócnog glagola и srpskohrvatskom jeziku i srodnim sintaksičkim pojavama. [On the perfect without auxiliary in the Ser­ bo-Croatian language and similar syntactic phenomena]. Belgrade: Srpska Akademija Nauka. Guentchéva, Zlatka 1996 L'énonciation médiatisée. Louvain: Peeters. Jakobson, Roman 1957 Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. Harvard: Depart[ 1971 ] ment of Slavic Languages and Literatures [Reprinted in Selected Writ­ ings, Vol. 2: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, 130-137.] Johanson, Lars 1971 Aspekt im Türkischen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Koneski, Blaže 1965 Istorija na makedomskiot jazik. Skopje: Kočo Racin. 1968 Istorija na makedonskiot jazik. [History of the Macedonian language]. Skopje: Kočo Racin. Konstantinov, Aleko. 1895 Baj Ganjo. Sofija: Penčo V. Spasov. [Reprinted in Sofija by Bălgarski [1973] pisatel.] 1964 Bai Ganiu, transi. Tudor Căliu—loachim Boscu. Bucharest: Bibliote­ ca pentru toO(t,)i. 1967 Bay Ganjo, transi. Gorği Caca. Skopje: Kultura 1972 Bay Ganii, transi. İsmail Ağlagül. istanbul: Milliyet. 1975 Baj Gano, transi. Dhurata Xoxa. Prishtina: Rilindja. Kostov, Kiril 1973 "Zur Bedeutung des Zigeunerischen für die Erforschung Gramma­ tischer Interferenzerscheinungen", Balkánsko ezikoznanie 16: 99113. Lafe, E. 1977 "De I'admiratif albanais et de quelques-unes des ses formes." Akten des Internationalen albanologischen Kolloquiums. (=Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft Sonderheft 41). Innsbruck: Univer­ sität Innsbruck, 471-483. Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967 Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University. Lunt, Horace 1952 A grammar of the Macedonian literary language. Skopje: Državno Knigoizdatlestvo.

Confirmative/nonconfirmative

365

McClain, Katya 1991 Pragmatic considerations in complementation. [Paper delivered at 24th Annual Meeting, American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages, San Francisco, December 1991.] MarkoviR, Marjan 1995 Glagolskiot sistem vo makedonskiot i vo aromanskiot ohridski govor. [The verbal systems of the Macedonian and Aromanian Ohrid dia­ lects]. [Unpublished M.A. thesis, Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences.] M atras, Yaron 1994 "Structural Balkanisms in Romani", in: Norbert Reiter (ed.), 195-210. Minova-Gurkova 1984 "Řešeno e... beše řešeno...: Dnevna jazična kritika" [Was decided... had been decided: Daily linguistic critique]. Nova Makedonija 19.XII.84:11. Mirčev, Kiril 1958 Istoričeska gramatika na bălgarski ezik. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo. Nichols, Johanna —Wallace Chafe (eds.) 1986 Evidentially: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Nova Makedonija. (Daily newspaper) Skopje: Socijalističkiot Sojuz na Rabotniot Narod na Makedonija. Reiter, Norbert (ed.) 1994 Sprachlicher Standard und Substandard in Südosteuropa und Ost­ europa. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rodman, Robert (ed.) 1978 Explorations in language and linguistics: UNC occasional papers in linguistics, Vol. 1. Chapel Hill: UNCDept. of Linguistics. Roth, Juliana 1979 Die indirekten Erlebnisformen im Bulgarischen: Eine Untersuchung zu ihrem Gebrauch in der Umgangssprache. (Slavistische Beiträge 130). München: Otto Sagner. Schenker, A. M. 1988 American contributions to the tenth international congress ofSlavists: Linguistics. Columbus: Slavica. Shapiro, Michael (ed.) 1999 j n e peirce seminar papers: Essays in semiotic analysis. Vol. 4. New York: Berghahn. Stankov, V. 1967 "Kategorii na indikativa v săvremennija bălgarski ezik" [Categories of the indicative in the contemporary Bulgarian language], Bălgarski ezik 17:330-44.

366

Victor A. Friedman

Sytov,A.P. 1979

"Kategorija admirativa v albanskom jazyke i ee balkanskie sootvetsvija", in: A. V. Desnickaja (ed.), 90-124. Timberlake, Alan—Michael Flier (eds.) 1998 American contributions to the 12th international congress of Slavisms, Krakow. Bloomington: Slavica Vasiliu, Laura 1966 "Verbul" [The verb] in: Al. Graur et al., 202-9. Weigand, G. 1923-1924 "The admirative in Bulgarian", The Slavonic Review 2: 567-568. 1925 "Der Admirative im Bulgarischen", Balkan-Archiv 1: 150-152. Williams, Mariana j 1988 On perfect and "reported" in Bulgarian. [Unpublished MS.] Ylli, Xhelal 1989 "Habitorja e shqipes dhe mënyra ritreguese (preizkazno naklonenie) e bullgarishtes" [The admirative of Albanian and the reported mood of Bulgarian], Studíme Filologjike 43[=26](2): 47-56.

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in the interlinear glosses: A—admirative, co— conditional, E—ergative, F—feminine, IN—intransitive marker, м—masculine, N— neuter, p—plural, PG—progressive marker, PT—particle of concord, o.—interroga­ tive particle, QT—quotative particle. Various presents, auxiliaries, and synthetic pasts that mark person include the appropriate pronoun in the interlinear glosses. Balkan Slavic unmarked pasts (old perfects) use the old /-participle, which only marks gender/number. The Slavic and Albanian aspectual distinctions are irrelevant for our considerations here and are therefore not marked.

Evidentially and typology: grammatical functions of particles in Burmese and the early stages of Indo-European languages Gunilla Gren-Eklund In the most common method used by comparatists in the field of IndoEuropean languages, linguistic features are studied in order to con­ tribute to a genetic description of the individual languages. My con­ cern here will be to use such material for typological purposes. 1. The particles in the early Indo-European languages Many years ago, I published my dissertation on nominal sentences in the Upanishads and devoted one part of the discussion to the particles in these texts (Gren-Eklund 1978: 98-127). There, they are abundant, and I was mainly concerned with the idea that they might act in a spe­ cial way upon the nominal sentences, which in this language are nor­ mally devoid of copula. It seemed to be necessary to determine the syntactic and/or semantic status of the particles in the material, de­ scribed as old Vedic prose. The hypothesis about the particles was that in their origin they are semantic markers but that they are also apt to be taken over by morphosyntactic functions in 1) the lapse of time and 2) the development of the literary language. Circumstantial evidence for this is the general tendency in descriptions of individual languages to regard the genuine particles as a class of outsiders in relation to the established parts of speech. Linguists strive to give the particles their rightful place in the system, but they actually ascribe them as a class to various categories of speech. They are often transferred from the class of adverbial words in general to the separate categories of conjunc­ tions, interjections or negations. Jespersen, for example, made the par­ ticles (excepting those of negation) a supergroup for all small words, including even adverbs. This comes, by the way, very close to the orig­ inal definition of the parts of speech in native Sanskrit grammar (four: năman, ăkhyăta, upasarga, nipăta) and, as far as I understand, also in

368

Gunilla Gren-Eklund

Arabic grammar (three: ism, fi'l, harf). From another formal aspect, they are brought together as "indéclinables" in any inflected language. As regards the Indian grammar, the term used (nipăta) may be in­ terpreted as something that "drops" into the speech, and this may be given the possible interpretation that they are looked upon as indeclin­ able words used ad hoc and not according to a formal system of gram­ mar. Other data have been gathered regarding the language of the Upanishads and also extracted from the language of the older Brahmana texts (prose as well), which have been closely investigated by Indological philologists. These data seem to indicate that the texts, which have been handed down in a language usually called Vedic prose, are far closer to the spoken language than either the language of the preceding Vedic hymns or the following regulated, Sanskrit idiom. One promi­ nent feature is that they actually abound in particles. Another aspect of the Vedic prose is the similarity in application be­ tween the particles and the demonstrative pronouns, as regards their use in the older Indo-European languages. This is not surprising in an early stage of an Indo-European language. Many of the particles in Hittite have an obvious, common genesis with pronominal words in other Indo-European languages, especially when they seem to have an anaphoric value. In the layer of the Sanskrit language mentioned here, the Vedic prose, with its probable adherence to the spoken language, some of the anaphoric pronouns are used in a way quite similar to the particles, and it is a use that may very well be termed "discourse-mark­ ing". One feature common to particles and demonstratives is of special importance, viz. that both categories very often appear as enclitics in these languages, i.e. precisely in the languages in which stress is clear­ ly a phonematic feature. Françoise Bader (1973) has pointed out that both these categories, particles and anaphora, also seem to have con­ tributed at an early stage in Indo-European languages to a development from a paratactic to a hypotactic structure, a feature that may also hint at the difference between the spoken and the written language. For the sake of comparison, it is necessary to have a look at some other, Indo-European language groups, at least those in which the old­ est texts are preserved. In two of them, the same kind of particles is

Evidentiality and typology

369

abundant, just as in the Vedic language. As is well known, the Anatolian languages are extremely rich in particles, which seem to be used as syntactic means as well as semantic expressions. But it is too difficult to judge the situation in the Anatolian languages, especially in Hittite, as there is no proof of its so-called archaic features, nor of the influences from other, geographically contiguous languages. It remains an open question whether the texts display a spoken or a literary language. In view of the difficulty of determining the typological status of these languages, they must be left aside in this connection. The other language which most obviously allows of a comparison with the Vedic material in this respect is Old Greek. In this language, the particles have survived to a great extent and they have also been investigated, though not so much with regard to their role in the language structure as to their individual appearances. The Greek particles have mostly been treated by scholars as useful tools in philological text interpretation, which means that they are seldom observed otherwise than one by one (Denniston 1954). From this, it also follows that the Greek particles have mostly been appreciated as sheer semantic means. It is rather tempting here to test the model according to which the particles are survivals from a spoken language to a literary one; they have been kept in Greek more than in the other Indo-European languages, even though this language has actually developed sophisticated syntactic means, something that craves explanation. Let me at least remind the reader of the fact that much of the early literature in Greek is based on rhetoric; speech—official of course—was an integral part of early Greek society. In all Indo-European languages, it is possible to find traces of original, perhaps inherited, particles. Françoise Bader (1973) has examined an extensive material and points out certain kinds of old "ligateurs de phrases dans l'énoncé paratactique" which have generated various other classes of words, such as conjunctions, adverbs and even pre- or postpositions. The use of the expression "particules de phrases" avoids the difficult decision to classify them either syntactic or semantic. It seems that there is at any rate a change in the character of the particles in the later stages of the Indo-European languages. There is one possible reason why they are of a special and more undecided type in the

370

Gunilla Gren-Eklund

older stages of the Anatolian, Indo-Iranian and Greek languages', in other Indo-European languages even the oldest literature shows a more or less codified and written form of the language and can seldom be judged as a spoken form or close to a spoken form. It seems necessary in the present discussion to leave out the epic forms, even in the abovementioned languages with archaic literature, since it is obvious that the epic performance had quite special, linguistic conditions and that its language might rather be defined as literary. In the linguistic research of today, the study of the spoken language has a prominent position and, as is well known, its linguistic form is far removed from the literary one. In the study of spoken languages, an interest in particles seems to flourish, and they are often disguised as "discourse markers". On the intuitive level, one might ask: is it not true that the everyday, spoken language is filled with different sorts of small words and at the same time is also poor in syntactic subtleties? My general contention is therefore that the particles are, as far as the inflected Indo-European languages are concerned, a matter of semantics in the spoken language and that they have a tendency to be taken over by other syntactic means or even transferred to such functions themselves in other layers of language. They seem to be redundant in their original function, whatever that may be. 2. The Burmese type of particles Would it be possible to substantiate the explicit idea of the functions of particles by means of language typology? Obviously, the languages traditionally defined as isolating particularly abound in particles. In such languages, they actually constitute a major means of expression. It is then necessary to contemplate the definition of the particles in these languages, one essential matter being to find out whether they are used as syntactic or as semantic means or whether both possibilities are available. In fact, the primary question is whether in fact such definitions are prejudiced by the definitions of language items current in the study of Indo-European languages. The idea of giving the particles their essential domain in the spoken language may perhaps not be pertinent to languages based entirely on particles, together with iso-

Evidentiality and typology

371

lated lexemes; in this case, particles are by no means redundant. The presence of particles does not suggest any stylistic value here but is merely a general feature of language structure. The example chosen here will be the Burmese language. There are different kinds of Burmese grammars. The older, Western ones follow the traditional arrangement of ordinary grammars influenced by Latin, in that in every paragraph explaining some morphological or syntactic feature there has to be included quite a long list of various short words—particles—expressing different nuances of the feature in question (Lonsdale 1899, Judson 1951). There are also modern Burmese grammars which start from the various existing "particles" and explain their uses, one by one, at least in appendices (Okell 1969). The result in the latter case is a kind of grammar that does not show much structural coherence but rather resembles an exercise in idiomatic expressions. I am not concerned here with judging the difficult, though important issue of what would be the best arrangement of grammars of such divergent types of languages. The Burmese language which I, as an Indologist, have come to know to a certain extent is what may be called a classical language. The transliteration of classical Burmese was generated by the original script transferred from Indian script, not a modern, transformed transcription adapted to pronunciation. The material has been gathered from a very special kind of Burmese commentaries on Buddhist Pali texts. The Pali words in the source text are translated or transferred one by one in these commentaries or translations (nissaya). Sometimes the lexical part of the translated word is used just as it appears in Pali but without suffixes, as yielding to the claims of Burmese, or sometimes as a slightly "Burmesified" loanword. In the learned society of Burmese Buddhism, Pali words are mostly the current ones and they seldom have any genuine Burmese counterparts. For every sentence, however, the syntactic construction of Pali is marked in the nissayas by indigenous particles. It is thus possible to assign to the different Burmese particles both a syntactic function, such as is expressed mostly by suffixes in Pali (e.g. case suffixes, verbal modalizing, temporal or derivative suffixes, etc.), and in each case also some semantic or lexical function. The material from which the list (see Appendix) is ex-

372

Gunilla Gren-Eklund

~
tracted thus easily and directly indicates parallelism with an inflected language, in this case Pali, which to a certain extent has retained older, Indo-European syntactic categories. To exemplify: a Burmese particle ce, placed after the verb (the ba­ sic, always monosyllabic verb), will on the syntactic side correspond to the causative suffix -aya- of a Pali verbal form, and as a lexeme ce has at the same time the lexical meaning 'to leť. Another example is that plural forms, for which suffixes are used in Pali, are marked in both verbal and nominal forms by a particle kun, which has the lexical meaning 'totally'. The list (see Appendix) contains only some of the most frequently used particles in classical Burmese, those which actually seem to bear the burden of what we may call syntax, at least as indicated by the source text of the translation/commentary. The particles listed here have also been chosen because they may denote a category of evidentiality or closely related notions. But since the available Burmese grammars, both the traditional and the modern ones, must be reorgan­ ized in order to account for potential, straightforward particles with such a function, only some possible candidates are hinted at in the list. It is necessary to point out the state of the classical Burmese lan­ guage. The particles in the older layers, from which the list originates, make up a special corpus that has undergone changes during time, both before and after the stage displayed here. It is possible that there are connections in respect of, for example, evidentiality, with the structure of its relative, Tibetan. On the other hand, a new corpus of other par­ ticles has taken over in modern Burmese. The most important thing in connection with a discussion on typology is to establish that the gen­ eral structure seems to have been maintained. It seems quite possible to claim that particles, together with other sentence-semantic combinations, are the only factor in which eviden­ tiality may be recognized in Burmese. First of all, it is rather striking that every sentence has to be completed by some kind of assertive par­ ticle. This is very clearly shown in the nissaya, where every instance of a finite verb with imperfective aspect in Pali is marked by the par­ ticle eň1 and the function of nominally expressed clauses by saň'; from a semantic point of view, it is possible to say that such a particle always

( Evidentiality and typology

373

expresses an alleged fact. These particles, as well as other variants of them—they may be omitted when a localizing particle is present— show that the message is directly evident. Secondly, by the very fre­ quent use of hu, lexically meaning 'to say' or hü rve! 'by saying', we get a reported message, similar to the well-known use of quotatives in many ancient and recent Asian languages. Such small words as nuih, 'may', ră 'by doing', mü laň3 'even if, so2 'though', taň 'just', etc., are particles with a lexical value, which may also be interpreted as bestow­ ing an inferential meaning on the sentence in which they are applied. Whether it would be possible to connect these particles also to aspec­ tual categories is not evident in the material used here, mainly because such categories are not clearcut in the source language, Pali. However, a certain indication may be found in the fact that, for example, eň' is omitted in negated clauses. With regard to probable expressions of evidentiality, the Burmese language, both classical and modern, has to be further investigated, a task that, as far as I know, has not been undertaken. Perhaps it may be shown that what is true for Tibetan, which has been investigated in this respect, also applies to its relative, Burmese. At the same time, how­ ever, there may be essential differences. A direct, comparative study would be most desirable, even though genetic connections between in­ dividual particles should not be expected. In the development of the Burmese language, it seems that the field in which the particles are found is constantly being renewed, shades of meaning are transitional, synonymity may be expected at certain stages, and losses of old and acquisitions of new particles are obvious. It appears in fact that the Burmese language persistently abstains from the grammaticalization of particles. In order to point out and confirm the probable candidates of words or particles for 'evidence' and 'inference', it may also be useful to fol­ low the track backwards through the material adduced here in order to find out what syntactic forms in Pali the particles are usually evoked as correspondences to, something that should shed some light on both [languages. In this way, for instance, the Pali particle eva, close in func­ tion to the same Vedic particle mentioned in the list (see Appendix), is jglossed in Burmese as Ihyah or pah or să, particles used to restrict, em-

374

Gunilla Gren-Eklund

phasize or modalize. The material in the nissayas anyhow bears direct witness to the fact that particles in Burmese correspond to various linguistic functions in an Indo-European language like Pali. In some cases, the counterparts are used for expressions with purely inflected forms, in other cases adverbs or conjunctions, and in some other cases modal verbs or even lexical units only. If the function of evidentiality and the like could be proved, this would emphasize the fact that in certain languages it may be expressed as a coherent formal category and in others, such as the Indo-European languages, it is a category hidden under various forms. A further remark may be made about the general structure of Burmese. Previously, it was suggested that the existence and lack or disappearance of particles in the Indo-European languages could be connected with the successive states of parataxis and hypotaxis, respectively. In any language in which particles are an essential means of expression, the borderline between parataxis and hypotaxis might then be suspected to be unclear, and this is in fact the case in Burmese. A paratactic structure in Burmese may depend on particles ("subordinative conjunctions" is the designation, modelled on the Western grammar used for certain particles by Lonsdale 1899: 272-291). A particle with the semantic value of, for example, priority, cause, time or localization may be added and postpositioned to a verb or a noun and thus form the condition for the second part of the assertion. This part in its turn may have another particle denoting whether the result of the condition is a fact or only a possibility. Both parts of the twofold assertion actually have the same structure, and their relation is formed exactly and only by the particles used (for example, 'he went then, he died perhaps' = 'if he went, he would die'). This comes, however, very close to being interpreted as a construction of protasis and apodosis. This structure is not far from certain reconstructions of sentence binding in Proto-Indo-European. 3. The type of particles in the older Indo-European languages So much for the traces of evidentiality in Burmese. From here on, it will be possible to return to the older Indo-European languages in or-

Evidentiality and typology

375

der to apply a typological perspective. The Anatolian language group will be left aside, except for mentioning that much has been written on the particles in these languages. One remark made by Adelaide Hahn (1953: 54) may, however, be added. Observing that no modal verb forms are available in Hittite, she says: "Hittite does mark them, but by means of particles rather than verb forms", and she points out the particle man in the apodosis. Her opponent, Gonda, rightly claimed that particles show "the speaker's attitude or disposition with regard to the utterance" (Gonda 1956: 133), and he specified "They show in what particular manner the speaker is interested in the content of the utterance; for instance, he may wish to emphasize it or part of it, or to express doubt or strong suspicion as to its truth, or to admit the truth with some reserve, to express his surprise or other feelings etc." However, Gonda tended to insist mainly on the emotional side and to overlook the grammatical purport when treating the individual particles. In the two other old Indo-European languages, Vedic/Sanskrit and Greek, modal verbal forms are present as sophisticated grammatical devices. The Greek language has, as pointed out above, kept its particles, and it may be claimed to be the only Indo-European language in which they were grammaticalized. At any rate they were probably inherited from an earlier stage and are used in spite of the development of the language, which has in the course of time also acquired distinct, morphosyntactic means of expressing nuances of, for example, evidentiality. This is especially clearly seen in the conditional sentences in classical Greek. In these, some much discussed particles are still and obligatorily used in the classical, literary language, together with different verbal modi; in spite of the fact that these particles in themselves— or alternatively the verbal forms used—would, to our senses and as in other languages, be enough to express conditions or inferences. The special particles are àv and KE(V). Gonda (1956: 135-148) has discussed these particles. He actually even seems to point to an evidential function here when he states that "It would appear to me that they essentially served to express doubt with regard to the absolute validity of the utterance". But he then follows his usual procedure in referring merely to the lexical meaning of the words. These two special Greek

376

Gunilla Gren-Eklund

particles, according to him, only express doubt about the validity of an utterance. One thing to be noted is that in what is called "the objective case" (xv is not used and only a statement of fact occurs, el 8"úvau,oci Tioico, 'if I can, I will do it'. In order to substantiate the idea of eventuality, however, I wish to point out an interesting use of av. It may be used, together with the infinitive form, especially after verbs meaning 'say' or 'think'. In such a context, the nuance of the particle might even be interpreted as inferential. Another interesting discussion about ocv was launched by Gonda (1956: 145) concerning its possible etymological connection with Latin and Gothic an, both of which have a mirative function, though usually interpreted as a marker of interrogation. Gonda concludes: "Anyhow, the particle could serve to detract from the absolute character of an utterance, to diminish its objective certainty, or to throw doubt upon it...". There are also other particles used in classical Greek of a seemingly general kind, such as of), ye, ôé, r\, ]xr\v and oùv, as well as many others. According to the philological interpreters all of them mean 'really, just, of course, indeed, by all means, surely'. In the translations into modern languages, however, these words are all adverbs that actually also seem to cover the need to express eventuality—in the spoken language. In the discussions of the separate particles, they are suggested to express "assertions, conclusions or acceptance". To extend the picture of the particles in classical Greek, it may be noted that etymologists often connect these particles with pronominal forms, just as may be done for the Hittite and the Vedic languages. Also in this case, there may probably be a connection with the issue of an earlier spoken language and paratactic structure. Let us return to the particles in the early Vedic language, which was the point of departure for these observations on the stylistic and semantic values of the particles. It was suggested as probable that, when semantic values are expressed by lexical items, this shows one stage of the language. On the other hand, the presence of morphosyntactic features shows either another stage or another style, as far as the IndoEuropean languages are concerned. The question remains open, at least as regards this material, whether the difference is a matter of style and/or a matter of development in time. From the later stages of the

Evidentiality and typology

377

language, it must be concluded that most particles have not been grammaticalized. Scholars studying the particles of Vedic prose have, just as in Greek philology, mostly selected their semantic values, with a preference for calling them "particles of emphasis and limitation (Speijer 1886: 310-315) or "emphasizing and connecting" (Hartman 1966). On the surface, such features would, of course, cover all kinds of nuances, including evidentiality. In the list given (see Appendix), only a few, very common particles are adduced, but, in fact, there are many of them, and the combinations of individual particles are numer­ ous in the texts. Especially one particle may be picked out, viz. eva, usually just called an emphasizing particle. This can be refined by in­ cluding the analysis of this particle given by Indian grammarians, who tell us that it is avadhărana, i.e. "restricting". Since eva may restrict and emphasize not only a word but also a whole phrase, it is possible to interpret it as being used to describe something which is evident, eva may also be a substitute in a nominal sentence lacking a copula, though not in a grammaticalized way. So far, I have treated only a material of nominal sentences including eva. The next step must be to find out how far eva is combined with other modi than the indicative in verbal clauses. Another particle in the old prose form is vai, which is traditionally said not only to emphasize but also to express an affirmation. My con­ tention is that vai is really present in a sentence in order to argue a fact, evident or inferred, and that in this capacity it also marks the predica­ tion of the sentence. Argumentation is also concerned when the text uses hi, just as yap is used in Greek, meaning 'for'. Such a particle is frequently used in both languages and it provides an alternative to causal sentence complexes and seems to keep the clauses in a paratactic state. Is it thus a device of archaic or of spoken language? 4. Summary My contention is that at least some of the particles found in Hittite, in Greek and in Vedic may be used to express evident or inferred facts. The texts of the later languages exhibit different developments of Indo-European languages. In Hittite, the particles are not competing

378

Gunilla Gren-Eklund

with elaborate syntactic structures, something that might be the point of departure for a general discussion of what sort of languages we are dealing with in Anatolian texts. In Vedic and Sanskrit, the two structures, expressed by particles and by clear syntactic means, coexisted for a certain time, but the particles were suppressed in the long run. In Greek, the two structures go on and live a long life together. In the next stage of Indo-European languages for which the texts are mostly defined as purely literary texts, the particles seem in general to be overridden and morphosyntactic means prevail. But, in any case, the means of expressing evidentiality and its counterparts are present, marked in quite different ways. By looking closer for means of denoting evidentiality in the old languages without deciding on the question of style, it seems better to judge the particles as another kind of "adverbs" than those of later languages, and there are even reasons for not including them at all in the category of adverbs. They are probably closer to the kind of particles met with in certain languages in which particles are an essential means of expression, as exemplified in Burmese. The subject of evidentiality seems, in any case, to evoke discussion about language style, as well as about typology. Finally, a short note on questions of language contacts, influences, areal features, etc. The meager or at least the very special material put forward here seems to indicate that there may be different structures in different layers of a language, and also that such structures differ in their suitability for being taken over from one language by another. If so, it may be suggested that the forms of expressing evidentiality are not easily transferred from one language to another. The expressions for it seem to be embedded deeply in the type of language, consistently for the actual type, as is probable in the case of Burmese. If not found on the surface of grammar, evidentiality may perhaps be discoverable on another level, since there is a universal need to express it. On the other hand, if it is right to presume a change in the case of the IndoEuropean languages and their developments, this may perhaps indicate that the type really changes over time, at least in certain circumstances, although perhaps only in connection with other changes of language structure. If such a change may really take place in a certain language,

Evidentiality and typology

379

would it be possible to prove that it happens by way of influences or through internal causes? Appendix A few examples of particles and combinations of particles which might be examined in the discussion about possible markers of eviden­ tiality etc. Particle

Function

Semantics

Vedic prose api eva ha khalu vai văva

concession restriction combining affirmation condition, assertion fact of reality

also', 'even', 'though' 'just', 'only' indeed' now then', 'surely' in fact' believe me!'

condition modification restriction evidence assertion condition assertion assertion inference

'provided that' 'in fact', 'at least' 'as far as' 'as you know' 'truly' 'provided that' 'surely' 'of course' 'therefore'

conditional future, "eventuality" predicating quotation, report presupposition, "doubt" comparison motivation, "eventuality' restriction, "uncertainty" future, "certainty" supposition

'certainly' 'perhaps to be!' 'actually' 'when saying', 'said' 'if just' 'as if 'probably' 'just', 'in the case' 'surely to be' 'doing', 'if

Greek áv ye Sé STÍ T

Tl KE(V)

uév [ir\v

ow Classical Burmese akay am1, learn1 eň1 hu, hü rve1 ka kai1 sui1 koň3 Ihyaii maň mû

kă3

380

í

Gunilla Gren-Eklund

mü laň3 mha mui naň3 nuiň pari phrari1 prï prï3 ră rhi rve1 să saň, sa, so, saň1 so2 so 2 laň 3 taň yari3

concession supposition causative modal potentiality emphasis causality perfectivity, intraterminal perfecţi vity, postterminal modalizing existence subordinate condition modalizing assertive combining concessive nominally predicating demonstrative

'doing also', 'even if 'even if 'because' 'by the method of 'be able' 'indeed', 'even' 'by something' 'to be full' 'to be completed' 'to get', 'to have to' 'to be somewhere/something' 'by doing', by having done' 'freely', 'only', 'occasionally' 'just', 'suitable' 'though' 'though also' 'just', 'merely' 'provided that'

Note: the index figures 1, 2 and 3 denote tones in Burmese.

References Bader, Françoise 1973 "Lat. nempe, porceo et les fonctions des particules pronominales", Bulletin de la Société Linguistique 68: 27-75. Brugmann, Karl 1925 Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen. (Indogerma­ nische Forschungen 43, Beiheft.) Berlin & Leipzig. Delbrück, Berthold 1888 Altindische Syntax. (= Delbrück, B., Syntaktische Forschungen 5) Halle/Saale. Denniston, John Dewer 1954 The Greek particles. (2nd ed.) London. Gonda, Jan 1956 The character of the Indo-European moods with special regard to Greek and Sanskrit. Wiesbaden. Gren-Eklund, Gunilla 1978 A study of nominal sentences in the oldest Upanişads. (Acta Universi­ t ä r Upsaliensis, Studia Indoeuropaea Upsaliensia 3). Uppsala.

Evidentiality and typology

381

Hahn, E. Adelaide 1953 Subjunctive and optative. Their origin as futures. New York. Hartman, Carl Gustav 1966 Emphasizing and connecting particles in the thirteen principal Upanishads. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser. B 142: 2.) Helsinki. Judson, Adoniram 1951 A grammar of the Burmese language. (Rev. ed.) Rangoon. Lonsdale, A.W. 1899 Burmese grammar and grammatical analysis. Rangoon. Okell, John 1969 A reference grammar of colloquial Burmese. I—II. London. Renou, Louis 1961 Grammaire sanscrite. (2nd ed.) Paris. Speijer, Jakob Samuel 1886 Sanskrit syntax. Ley den.

Expressions of evidentiality in two Semitic languages - Hebrew and Arabic Bo Isaksson 1. General remarks The topic I am about to discuss is a new one in Semitology. As far as I know there are no special studies on evidentiality in Semitic languages. I proceed on virgin soil, and what I suggest here are the first steps in a basic research. As my linguistic tool I have adopted the scalar concept of focality,1 which represents a refinement and elaboration of previous aspectual terminology. This concept enhances our understanding of the mechanisms behind the general linguistic phenomenon of renewal of the verbal aspect, not the least in the Semitic languages, and constitutes a pertinent example of the importance of introducing new definitions in scientific analysis. Unlike some other language families presented in this volume I have found few traces of a grammaticalization of the category or categories of evidentiality in Semitic languages. When such are found, they occur in border areas in the periphery of the main linguistic area where contact phenomena are prominent. For the present paper I have confined myself to showing how readings of inferential, reportive or direct evidentiality are expressed in Arabic and Classical Hebrew,2 leaving out for the moment the other branches of the Semitic language family. The Semitic languages basically possess two main verbal conjugations, with the exception of Akkadian, which exhibits a third tense/aspect form. The functions of the two conjugations in Hebrew and Arabic are much disputed, of course, and even more in Classical Hebrew than in Arabic. A reasonable account of the Arabic system is found in Comrie 1976. In both the mentioned languages the two conjugations are traditionally called "perfect" and "imperfect". For good reasons it is commonly held that the Semitic perfect qatal(a) has, or at least had in Proto-Semitic, a more nominal character, sometimes being equiva-

384

Bo Isaksson

lent to an adjective in a nominal clause. For most semanthemes, how­ ever, this nominal perfect in Classical Hebrew developed into a perfect in the European sense, a post-terminal in the present with at least some focality. In later Hebrew and already in Classical Arabic the perfect went further in the process to a straightforward non-focal non-post-ter­ minal historical verb form in narrative texts, just as the perfect in southern German. The imperfect in Hebrew and Arabic is the verbal conjugation used for the focal intra-terminal so-called "progressive" reading. However, the focality of the imperfect is often neutralized to express future or modal shades of meaning. The big problem in Classical Hebrew is the functional analysis of the so-called "consecutive tenses" or "converted tenses", in which the two basic conjugations mentioned above miraculously seem to take on the opposite functions just by the prefixation of the conjunction wa-l we- (< Proto-Semitic *wa-) 'and'. Prefixation of wa- to the imperfect yiqţol results in the "imperfect consecutive" wayyiqţol, which consti­ tutes the historical narrative verb form par préférence. In numerous textbooks3 the imperfect consecutive is said to "continue" a perfect, adopting its temporal or aspectual value. Prefixation of we- to the perf. qăţal results in the "perfect consecu­ tive" weqăţal, capable of continuing an imperfect with apparently no change of meaning. I shall not further elaborate on the Semitic verbal aspects. What has been stated above is intended only to serve as a background for the fol­ lowing examples from Classical Hebrew. 2. Classical Hebrew In the narrative from the opening of the Book of Job, a dubitative indi­ rective is expressed by two post-terminal Hebrew perfects, Job 1:5: (1)

kl 'amar lyyöb 'ülay häf'-ü băn-ay for PRF-said-he Job: perhaps PRF-have-sinned-they sons-my, 'For Job said: Maybe my sons have sinned

Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic

385

ü-befk-ü 'Höhlm bi-lbăb-ăm and-PRF-have-offended-they God in-heart-their and offended God in their hearts.'

The perfects häf-ü and beťku are connected by the conjunction ü 'and' (being a complementary allomorph of we- 'and', used before la­ bials). In this function of the perfect there is no trace of the much spo­ ken of so-called "perfect consecutive". The two verbal items häfü and beťku carry the same non-focal indirect meaning of doubt. The transition from basic post-terminal focality of the Hebrew "perfect" to a value of non-focality in both cases is determined by the dubitative particle ülay 'perhaps'. A further example is found in Genesis 43:12 (2)

'ülay mišgé hü' perhaps mistake it 'Maybe it was a mistake.'

A doubt about a historical event is expressed by a stative simple nom­ inal clause introduced by the dubitative particle ülay. hü' is the 3 pers. mase. sing, personal pronoun. In Joshua 9:7 (3) and Lamentations 3:29 (4) a nominal clause receives a nuance of doubt by being prefixed by ülay: (3)

'ülay be-qirb-ï 'attă yôsêb perhaps in-vicinity-my MS-you PART-live 'Perhaps you live near me [and not, as you allege, far away].'

A state expressed by a pronoun and the active participle yosèb gets a dubitative nuance of suspicion by means of the particle ülay. (4)

'ülay yës tiqwă perhaps EXT hope 'Perhaps there is still hope.'

In (4) doubt about the present state is expressed by a verbless nominal clause consisting of the dubitative particle, an existential particle yës 'there is', and a noun tiqwă 'hope'. To sum up so far, in Classical Hebrew a dubitative reading can be achieved by means of the particle 'ülay followed by 1) the perfect of

386

Bo lsaksson

the verb, or 2) a simple nominal clause. And the two constructions are not exhaustive, of course. The dubitative particle "ülay is capable of attaching a nuance of doubt to every Hebrew proposition. However, an evidential reading may be expressed without special particles, as the inferential meaning in Genesis 28:6 shows: (5)

wa-y-yaf 'Ësâw kl bërak and-iPFC-he-saw Esau that PRF-has-blessed-he 'Then Esau realized that: Isaac has blessed 'et YcCqôb we-šillah 'ötö Paden-ď ACC Jacob and-PRF-has-sent-he him Padan-LOC Jacob and sent him to Padan Aram

Yişhăq Isaac

Arăm Aram

lă-qahat l-ö miš-šam 'išša for-iNF-taking to-him from-there wife to take a wife from there'.

This example could easily be taken as a simple statement of fact, "Isaac has blessed Jacob", but such is not the case. Esau's conclusion that Jacob has received the blessing results from the fact that Jacob is suddenly absent. And his inference is introduced by ki, which like its English counterpart "that" is a demonstrative in origin: "Then Esau realized this: Isaac has thus blessed Jacob and sent him ...". The infer­ ential is expressed by the post-terminal in the present bërak (perfect) which is then continued by the proclitic conjunction we- and the post-terminal in the present (+POST (-PAST)) šillah (perfect). Also in this example we may observe that there is no trace of a perfect con­ secutive equalling an imperfect. The two perfects bërak and šillah bear the same post-terminal low-focal if not high-focal reading. In Hebrew the presentative particle hinnë has the nuance of vivid immediacy, the here-and-now-ness, of the situation, as Lambdin (1971: 168) says. It functions as a bridge in narrative contexts for the introduction of a perception, prima facie evidence with nuances of as­ tonishment, indignation or shock (Waltke—O'Connor 1990: 676). Such a function naturally is capable of expressing an immediate infer­ ence from the perception of a situation, as in 1 Kings 10:7:

Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic (6)

387

we-lö' he'emantï la-d-d'bărim 'ad '"šer bâ'tï but-not pRF-believed-I for-DET-words until that PRF-had-come-I 'But I did not believe the reports until I had come wa-t-tiťéna 'ën-ay w'-hinnë lö' huggad l-i and-iPFC-saw-they eyes-my and-behold not PRF-had-been-told to-me and my own eyes saw: Behold, not even half had been told to me!' ha-hësï DET-half

The queen of Sheba visited king Solomon, and when she saw his splendour with her own eyes she realized with astonishment that she had been misinformed. The particle hinnë is followed by the Hebrew perfect in the passive, huggad 'has/had been reported'. We may infer that after hinnë a post-terminal easily takes on an inferential meaning as in many other languages. This is illustrated by a few more examples below. 1 Samuel 30:3: (7)

wa-y-yăbo' Dăwidwa-"năs-ăw 'el-hă-îr and-iPFC-came-he David and-men-his to-DET-city 'David and his men came to the city, and behold,

w1-hinnë and-behold

s'mfă bă-es u-n'iê-hem u-b'në-hem FS-PASS-PART-burned in-fire and-wives-their and-sons-their it (is/was) burned down, and their wives and sons ü-b'nôtë-hem nišbu wa-y-yiššď Dăwîd and-daughters-their PRF-has-been-taken-captive and-iPFC-lifted-he David and daughters were taken captive! Then David w'-hă-'ăm '"šer 'itt-ö 'et-qöl-äm and-DET-people which with-him Acc-voice-their and his men lifted up their voice and wept.'

wa-y-yibkü and-iPFC-wept-they

In this example hinnë introduces a moment of shock and indignation. David and his men arrive at Ziklag and realize with consternation that it has been burned down by the Amalekites. The sight of the burned city makes them realize that their wives, sons and daughters, including David's two wives, have been taken captive. The Amalekites are not

388

Bo Isaksson

there. The fire is probably not even burning anymore. Yet, what has happened is immediately clear to the men of David. The wives and the children are not present before their eyes, yet their state of being cap­ tive is inferred from the sight of the burned city. In this example the inferential marker hinnë is followed first by a nominal clause consist­ ing of the adjective serüfä 'burned' (passive participle) + the adverbial phrase bă-es 'in fire', then secondly by a further inference expressed by the Hebrew perfect nisbü '(they) have been taken captive'. The particle hinnë together with its short form hen occurs 1,157 times in the Old Testament, and I would propose that it must be re­ garded as the foremost inferential marker in the Hebrew language, al­ though it does not introduce inferential readings in every occurrence. It should be pointed out that hinnë is not a marker of the primary orientation point (Os), that is, of the orientation point of the speech act. Instead, it is a macro-syntactic4 sign used in a narrative to emphat­ ically create a deictic centre of its own, somewhere in the text world, that is, in the localization point (0 L or O2). The effect of the particle hinnë is that the chain of events in the main narrative thread is inter­ rupted, a dissociation is introduced, and the following text is marked as an impression of some kind, not necessarily visual.5 In this example the narrative chain is represented by the non-focal or, at most, lowfocal so-called "imperfect consécutives", wa-y-yăbo\ wa-y-yissă\ wa-y-yibkü, being non-post-terminal past verbal items. The narrative chain is interrupted by the macro-syntactic marker hinnë that in fact has two functions: firstly, it marks the following post-terminal clauses as a description of an impression; secondly, by emphatically pointing to the localization point in the text world, it marks the same clauses as a whole to be part of the larger narrative web, which is continued by the non-post-terminal items wa-y-yiššď 'and lifted up' and wa-yyibkü 'and wept'. We could say that hinnë as a macro-syntactic marker tells the reader or listener, "Be watchful now, the narrative chain is being interrupted by an impression, but only temporarily, it will soon be continued!". In this function hinnë is similar to another frequent macro-syntactic marker in Classical Hebrew, namely wayhi with a temporal clause, which is used to mark a circumstantial temporal clause as part of a larger narrative unit. However, wayhi does not seem

Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic

389

capable of determining evidential nuances and so has no bearing for the topic of the present volume. Naturally, the deictic character of hinnë, drawing the attention to the orientation point 0 L of the text, makes it suitable to readings of direct evidentiality. The first example is taken from the well-known story about the two women quarrelling about a child before King Solomon. One of the mothers—in fact the real mother—says (1 Kings 3:21): (8)

wă-'ăqum ba-b-boqer lr-hënîq and-iPFC-I-went-up in-DET-morning for-iNF-nursing 'I got up in the morning to nurse my son,

'et-benï ACC-son-my

w'-hinne met and-behold dead and behold: he was dead.'

In this example, and the one to follow, hinnë functions as a marker of direct evidentiality. It directs the attention to what is directly perceived, namely, her son lying dead (Heb. met) before her eyes. The verb following hinnë in the example is a Hebrew perfect that is a focal post-terminal nearly equivalent to a stative or an adjective: "dead" or "is having died" or "is being dead". We may note that the presentative particle hinnë is never followed by the historical verb form "imperfect consecutive". Whether the clause to follow expresses inferentiality or direct evidentiality, hinnë always introduces a nominal clause or one with a post-terminal perfect. A case with hinnë and a nominal clause expressing direct evidentiality is found in 1 Samuel 10:10: (9)

wa-y-yäbö'ü Mm ha-g-Gib'ăt-ă, we-hinnë and-iPFC-arrived-they there DET-Gibeah-LOC, and-behold 'They arrived there at Gibeah, and behold: hebel n"bT-Im liqrä't-ö procession-csTR(of) prophets against-him a procession of prophets (was coming) against him.'

The example exhibits a rather common construction, hinnë directs the attention of the reader to the sight of Saul and his companion, which is expressed simply by a nominal clause with a noun phrase hebel rfbîïm

390

Bo Isaksson

^ ^ *'<

'a procession of prophets' and a prepositional phrase liqrä't-ö 'against him'. In the next verse a case of inferential reading follows in a famous biblical passage. It takes the form of a question, which is not so much a question to someone as an inference in astonishment, 1 Samuel 10:11: (10) wa-y-yiťu we-hinně' im n'bf-ïm nibbă'. and-iPFC-saw-they and-behold with prophets PARTf'-prophesied-he. 'They saw: he prophesied with the prophets. wa-y-yö'mer hă-'ăm 'îs 'el rtë-hu: Ma-z-zé and-iPFC-said-it DET-people (each)man to friend-his: What-this And they asked each other: "What is this hăyă l'-ben Qïsl H"-gam Sä'ül PRF-has-happened to-son-csTR(of) Qish? QUE-also Saul that has happened to the son of Qish? Is Saul also ba-n-n'bl'-Tm? among-DET-prophets? among the prophets?'

..;;.

The proclitic interrogative particle ha- and the adverb gam 'also' express astonishment and a portion of doubt in spite of the direct evidence of seeing Saul prophesy together with the other already known prophets. With hesitation, the people around have to infer from what they see that Saul is also a prophet. The particle hinnë followed by a nominal clause is also capable of expressing an inferential reading if the context signalizes that possibility, Genesis 41:7: (11) way-y-îqas Para w'-hinnë fflôm and-iPFC-he-woke up Pharao and-behold dream 'Then Pharaoh woke up (and realized): (It was) a dream.'

Pharaoh wakes up and opens his eyes and from what he sees he draws the reasonable conclusion that what he had experienced was only a dream, and this is expressed by only one word, the noun Iflôm 'dream', after the presentative particle. The ability of this powerful particle to mark a situation as being

Expressions ofevidentiality

in Hebrew and Arabic

391

present before the eyes of the observer, also makes it capable of expressing an imagined situation, be it a condition or supposition, as in Genesis 50:5 (Brockelmann 1956: §4): (12) hinnë 'änökl met... tiqb'rê-nï Behold I dead... iPF-you-shall-bury-me 'When I am dead, bury me ... '

;

The condition is vividly displayed to the listener, as if already a fact to be observed. And yet the speaker is obviously not yet dead. In this case there is a conflict between the vividness of the expression and the fact that the verbal content is unreal. I would nevertheless propose that the expression 'änökl met T (am) dead' possesses a certain degree of focality because of the preceding particle.7 To sum up, there is no clear-cut and stable indirective in Classical Hebrew, and to express such readings, usually a particle such as hinnë is required together with a post-terminal perfect or a nominal clause. 3. Arabic Traditional Arabic grammars have little to say about indirective readings. In this first survey I shall begin with some examples of indirective expressions from modern Arabic dialects, then proceed with two examples from modern literary Arabic (Taha Husain), and conclude with some instances from Classical Arabic. 3.1. Colloquial Arabic Al-Ç)afîr, Bedouin in northern Arabia (Ingham 1986: text 7). (13) ibn'rë'ir yarn rna'at hël-u 'alë-h Ibn 'Urai'ir day PRF-returned force-his to-him 'When Ibn 'Urai'ir's horsemen came back măgdubaw al-Freid not PRF-have-caught-they al-Furaid he saw that they had not caught al-Furaid.'

392

Bo Isaksson

The translation of this piece of text is by the field worker and editor Bruce Ingham. Taken literally, the sentence says "Ibn 'Uraťir, the day his force came back to him, they had not caught al-Furaid". However, the editor adds "he saw", because to achieve a topicalization the main perceptive subject "Ibn TJrai'ir" has been put at the beginning of the sentence (so-called absolute nominative). By this construction, the fact that they had not caught al-Furaid becomes a matter of inference, see­ ing that his men are returning alone. For the inferential reading the Ar­ abic perfect gdubaw 'they had caught' is used, in this case with postterminal meaning. A case of reportive evidentiality is found in another text from the same tribe (Ingham 1986: text 13). (14) u bďad ga hal-habar bašširo-h gălaw inn and then PRF-came DET-news good-news-his PRF-told-they that 'And then the news came to him and they brought him good news that

••'.:

Ăl Dufir căsb-în u lă 'alě-ham ÄI-DafTr PART-winners and not by-them the Al-Çafïr had won the battle and that there was nothing wrong with them.'

The reportive is expressed by an active participle căsb-în, literally 'winners', in a nominal clause, giving the news a stative nuance: Ăl Dufir căsb-în '(that) Äl-Dafir (are) winners'. To make the evidential reading clear, Arabic, like Hebrew, makes use of particles, as kdanna 'as, like' in Classical Arabic, here with a nuance of both inferentiality and uncertainty (Wright [1975], II: 80A): (15) ka-'annafi 'udnay-hi waqran like-that in ears-his hardness 'It seems that in his ears (was) hardness (of hearing).'

In the modern Najdi Arabic dialect (Saudi Arabia), Classical Arabic kďanna corresponds to cinn. The following example is taken from an­ other field report by Bruce Ingham (Ingham 1994: 128): (16) cinn-ih maytfham wăgid like-he not iPF-he-understands much 'He does not seem to understand much.'

Expressions ofevidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic

393

Najdi Arabic exhibits another particle to express nuances of doubt and inference, tigil, corresponding to Classical Arabic imperfect taqülu 'you say': (17) tigil gayy-hum iPF-you-say PART-having-come-them 'It seems they received a warning

(

ilm nidir tigil knowledge warning you-say

gayy-hum šayy having-come-them something or something.'

A speculative nuance is achieved here by repeating tigil 'you say' (Ing­ ham 1994: 129). The construction with an active participle (gayyhum < active, part, găyy + object suff. -hum) expressing inference is in some respects similar to the examples of grammaticalized evidential categories found in border area Arabic dialects in close contact with Turkic languages. In Najdi Arabic an active participle of a verb with a telic-action type of Aktionsart conveys the meaning of a state follow­ ing the completion of an action (Ingham 1994: 90, 95). In the Adana district of Turkey this internal capability of the Arabic participle has developed to a full-fledged expression for reportive/inferential nuan­ ces due to the influence of surrounding Turkic vernaculars:8 (18) ěhid-ha (= Turkish Onu almiş) PART-he-took-it(FS)

'(As I heard,) he took it.' (19) tlatt marrât dëqir qalb-o, 4ërb-ïn-o ba-š-šok three times PART-stood-still heart-his, PART-they-hit-him by-shocks '(I have heard that) Three times his heart stood still. Then they hit him with 3Šwayye, găy la-hăl-o, heţţ-în-o a-little, PART-he-came to-situation-his PART-they-put-him (electric) shocks and he recovered his senses. Then they put him bi-öqslgän čadars iri-oxygen tent in an oxygen tent.'

-, 394

Bo Isaksson

The Arabic counterpart of the Turkish -miş construction in these two examples is an active participle that has developed into a reportive/inferential about something that has recently occurred. This develop­ ment may be observed also in the Arabic dialects of Uzbekistan—an­ other peripheral language area. In the Arabic Qašqa-Darja dialect of Uzbekistan the old active participle is rarely used as adjective-attribute or nomen agentis. Instead, it has been re-utilized to create a new finite verbal conjugation expressing—according to I. N. Vinnikov—the "un­ längst vergangene Zeit" (Vinnikov 1965: 262; Fischer 1961: 253). This is in fact an evidential category, which has been confirmed by one of the recent field workers in the area, Guram Chikovani (forthcom­ ing). It is not used as a narrative tense form, for which the old perfect is still used. Like in the old perfect (Qašqa-Darja 3ms zarab 'he struck', 3fs zarab-it, 3mp zarab-ü, 3fp zarab-in) the third person forms of the new conjugation are unmarked as to person: 3ms qăid 'he (re­ portedly or seemingly) sat down', 3fs qďda < qďid-a, 3mp qďdln < qďid-in, 3fp qďdat < qďid-at. The first and second person forms of the new conjugation are rarely used. 3.2. Modern literary Arabic: Taha IJusain From Modern Standard Arabic I have chosen an example of an eviden­ tial reading in the famous autobiography of the father of the Arabic novel, Taha Husain. In his Al-Ayyăm 'The days' it is told of a teacher (Husain 1942: 18): (20) 'akala data yawmin dibsan, fa-saqata bddu-hu PRF-ate-he certain day ACC-treacle and-PRF-fell-it some-of-it 'One day he was eating treacle, some of which, unbeknown to him, fell 'ală şadri-hi wa-huwa la yadrï, fa-lammă haraga on chest-his and-he not iPF-he-knew and-when PRF-went-out-he down on his chest. When he went out 'ilăd-darsi qăla la-hu ba'du talămldi-hi: to DET-lesson pRF-said-he to-him someone(of) students-his to lecture, one of his students said to him:

Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic

395

yă sayyid-ï 'akalta dibsan oh Sir-my PRF-have-eaten-you treacle "Sir, you have been eating treacle!" 9

One of the students (bďdu talămîdi) notices traces of treacle (ace: dib­ san) on the breast of his teacher (on his breast: 'aid sadri-hi) and from that infers that he has previously eaten treacle. This past eating is not presented per se, but is inferred from the result of the action, namely the prima facie evidence of treacle on the chest. In this case the infer­ ential is expressed by the Arabic perfect (you have been eating: 'akalta) without additional particle, which illustrates the semantic sim­ ilarity between the perfect and the inferential, both categories present­ ing an event not in itself but via its results (Comrie 1976: 110). 3.3. Classical Arabic Inference of indirect evidence can be expressed without any particle in Arabic as well as Hebrew. Such an instance is found in a classical text rendered by Šakir al-Batlunï in Kităb Tasliya al-Hawătir.10 (21) 'Id-i 'ntabaha s-$ăhibu Badru d-dini. Fa-lam yagid suddenly PRF-woke-he Sahib Badr al-Dïn. And-not lPF-he-found 'Suddenly Sahib Badr al-Dïn woke up and could not find 'ahä-hü, fa-qäma faztan wa-wagada Acc-brother-his and-got-up-he fearful and-PRF-found-he his brother, so he got up fearful and found 'l-băba 'l-ladï 'statraqa min-hu maftühan DET-ACC-door which PRF-escaped-he from-it Acc-open. the door—through which he had escaped—open. fa-qăla: min hună gă'a š-šarrul and-PRF-said-he: From here PRF-has-come-it DET-evil. And he said: From here came the evil!'

By the sight of the open door, Sahib Badr al-Dïn draws the conclusion that something evil has happened to his brother. And this inference is

396

Bo Isaksson

expressed by the Arabic perfect gďa 'it has come', without additional evidential particle. The next example from Classical Arabic is taken from Abu 1-Farag al-Isfahänfs Kităb al-agăni, from the section about the pre-Islamic poet Ta'abbaţa Šarran:11 (22) Qăla la-hu qawmu-hu: Mă kun-ta PRF-said-it to-him NOM-tribespeople-his: What PRF-were-you 'His fellow tribesmen said to him: What did you mutďabbitan, yă Ţăbitu? Qăla: PART-wearing-under-arm oh Ţăbit? PRF-Said-he: wear under your arm, Ţăbit? He said: Al-Güla. Qalü: La-qad ta'abbaţta DET-desert-demon. PRF-Said-they: EMF PRF-have-worn-under-arm-you The desert demon. They said: You have really worn something evil under šarran! ACC-evil.

the arm!'

In this instance the astonished inference is emphasized by two em­ phatic particles, la- and qad, forming laqad, which particle is required for the perfect to express an affirmative proposition. The emphatic pro­ clitic particle la- alone is not permitted in this case (Wright [1975], II: 176 A). Another example exhibiting a reportive reading is from the sec­ tion about the Umayyad poet Qays ibn Darîh (died 690) in Kităb al-'agănî:12 (23) Dakara 'Brut 'A'isata 'anna-hu 'aqăma 'ală PRF-has-reported-he Ibn 'Ä'isa that-he PRF-remained-he on 'Ibn 'Ă'isa has reported that he (Qays ibn Darlh) continued with dălika 'arba'Jna yawman. Ţumma ţallaqa-hă. Wa-hădă that forty day. Then PRF-has-he-divorced-her. But-this this in 40 days. Then he (reportedly) divorced her. But this

Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew cmé'Arabic

397

laysa bi-şahîhin. is-not in-(what is)true is not true.'

In this example a tradition about the poet is referred to and evaluated. The obvious reportive nuance is expressed by a perfect ţallaqa-hă 'he (reportedly) divorced her' with the pronominal feminine suffix -hă 'her'. No auxiliary particles are needed in this case. 4. Conclusions In this tentative survey, which has included only classical Hebrew and a few varieties of Arabic, I have concluded that there are no internal tendencies towards a grammaticalization of the evidential categories. Such readings are instead frequently determined by auxiliary particles. If a finite verbal form is used to express inferential or reportive nuan­ ces, it is exclusively a perfect, never an imperfect. Only due to external linguistic influence, in locations at the periphery of a language region, is an Arabic dialect likely to develop grammaticalized evidential cate­ gories. Notes 1. For the concept of focality and some symbols used in that connection, see Johanson 2000. 2. I exclude from this concept the latest varieties of the Biblical Hebrew canon, such as Chronicles and Ezra/Nehemiah. 3. For example the widespread Lambdin (1971), 107 and 163. 4. For this text-linguistic concept, see Isaksson (1998). 5. Pointed out by Waltke—O'Connor (1990: 675). 6. Or perfect. 7. It should be observed that hinnë like its Arabic conterpart 'inna (Wright II, 78D) take a following substantive or pronoun in the accusative, as the example hinnë ní 'here I am' (Genesis 22:1) shows. 8. The two examples that follow are quoted with kind permission from Stephan Procházka, "The Influence of Turkish on the Lexicon, Phraseology and Syntax of Arabic Dialects Spoken in Turkey", paper read at the Workshop on Investi­ gating Languages in Contact: Semitic, Turkic and Iranian Vernaculars in East­ ern Anatolia and Iran, held in Uppsala, 24-26 August, 1998.

398

Bo Isaksson

9. This is told about 'Abu l-'Alà' al-Ma'arrï, a famous Arabic poet and philosopher who lived 973-1057. 10. Šákir al-Batlùnï (1882: 138). The author-editor lived in Egypt and died 1477. 11. Abu 1-Farag al-Isfahănî (1957-62, vol. 21: 144). The author died 967. 12. Abu 1-Farag al-Isfahănî (1957-62, vol. 9: 178).

References Abu 1-Farag al-Isfahănî 1957-62 Kităb al-agânï. 25 vols. Beirut: Dăr al-Ţaqăfa. Brockelmann, Carl ) ţ 1956 Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen: Neukirchen Verlag. Chikovani, Guram forthcoming "The morphological system of the Qashqadaryan Arabic Dialect of Central Asia", in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of L'Association Internationale pour la Dialectologie Arabe, held on Malta, 28 March - 2 April 1998. Malta. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related prob­ lems. 1976. Reprinted with corrections. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 1978. Fischer, Wolfdietrich 1961 "Die Sprache der arabischen Sprachinsel in Uzbekistan", Der Islam 36: 233-263. Husain, Taha 1942 Al-Ayyäm. Cairo: Al-Maaref. Ingham, Bruce 1986 Bedouin of Northern Arabia. Traditions of the Al-Dhaßr. London: KPI. 1994 Najdi Arabic: Central Arabian. London Oriental and African Lan­ guage Library, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Isaksson, Bo 1998 " 'Aberrant' usages of introductory w'hăyă in the light of text linguis­ tics", in: K.-D. Schunck—M. Augustin (eds.), "Lasset uns Brücken bauen...". Collected Communications to the XVth Congress of the In­ ternational Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Cam­ bridge 1995. (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums, 42.) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Johanson, Lars 1992 Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten. Sitzungsberich­ te der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, 29:5. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic

399

1996a

"Kopierte Satzjunktoren im Türkischen", Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49: 1-11. 1996b "On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives", in: N. Boretzky—W. Enninger—Th. Stolz (eds.), Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen. (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 24.) Bochum: Brockmeyer, 84-94. 2000 "Viewpoint operators in European languages," in: Osten Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lambdin, Thomas O. 1971 Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. Reprint (as paperback). London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1976. Niccacci, Alviero 1990 The syntax of the verb in Classical Hebrew prose. Translated from the Italian by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, 86. Sheffield. Šakir al-Batlûnï 1882 Kităbu tasliyati l-hawăţiri fi muntahabăti l-mulahi wa-n-nawădiri. Beirut: Al-Maţba'a al-Adabiyya. Vinnikov, Isaak Natanovich 1965 "Materialien zur Grammatik des Dialektes der Kaška-Darjiner Araber. Paradigmen der Verbalformen," in: S. Segert (ed.), Studia Semitica Philologica Necnon Philosophica loanni Bakos Dicata. Bratislava, 261-276. Waltke, Bruce K.—Michael Patrick O'Connor 1990 An introduction to Biblical Hebrew syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Ei­ senbrauns. Wright, William [1975] A grammar of the Arabic language. Translated from the German of Caspari and edited with numerous additions and corrections. Revised by W. R. Smith and M. J. d. Goeje, 2 vols, in 1. 3d ed. 1896-98. Re­ print. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Abbreviations M—masculine, F—feminine, s—singular, p—plural, 3MS—third person masculine singular, etc., ACC—accusative, CSTR—construct state, DET—determinative (defi­ nite) particle, EMF—emphatic particle, EXT—existential particle, INF—infinitive, IPF —imperfect, IPFC—imperfect consecutive, LOC—locative particle, PART—partici­ ple, PRF—perfect, QUE—question particle.

,V\o •

•jV.».':"

Perfect forms as a means of expressing evidentiality in Modern Eastern Armenian Natalia A. Kozintseva 1. Introductory remarks The first survey of the typology of nonevidential forms in languages of the Pontic area was presented by Friedman (1979). The two volumes on evidentiality (Chafe—Nichols 1986; Guentchéva 1996) were next to appear. Important information on evidentiality in Modern Western Armenian can be found in Donabedian (1996a, b). Armenian data are of particular significance because they make it possible to trace the evolution of Perfect forms over a considerable period. These data may be helpful for testing the hypothesis of inner structural sources in the development of nonevidential use of the Armenian Perfect. The objective of the present paper is to reveal the syntactic and lex­ ical contexts in which Modern Eastern Armenian (MEA) Perfect forms are used with various subtypes of evidential meaning, and to de­ scribe typologically relevant features of MEA Perfect forms as a means of expressing evidentiality. Firstly, the Classical Armenian Present Perfect will be addressed, and then the Modern Eastern Armenian tense forms. 2. Perfect in Classical Armenian (Grabar) In Classical Armenian, the Perfect was opposed to the Aorist and Im­ perfect. The Aorist and Imperfect were synthetic and were the main forms of narrative texts. The perfective function of the Classical Ar­ menian Aorist is almost the same as in MEA. This is the main form ad­ vancing the narration, see, for example (1): (1)

Ew ibrew tesin, ťe aysu, amenayniw2 č-karacan And when saw:AOR:3PL that despite.all.this,,2 un-able.be:AOR:3PL

402

Natalia A. Kozintseva janjracucanel, yaynžam hraman etun mogacew cow then order give:AOR:3PL magi and namak mi grel 3st jaxoyaki denin iwreanc letter a write in.keeping, with perverse religion their 'When they saw that despite all this they were unable to cow then they openly ordered the magi and chief-magi to write a with their perverse religion.' (Th., 77)

mogpetac chief-magi (E. 24)

i *

[the Armenians] letter in keeping

The functions of the Imperfect may be briefly described as follows: a) unlimited duration, as in (2), b) iterativity, as in (3), c) narration about successive events, as in (4): ii •

(2)

T'ëpët ew amenayn azgs amer zankarguťiwns zays, atawel ' Although and all nations, work:iMPF:3SG confusion this especially,: and Hayoc ašxarhin martnčer (E. 16) against Armenian land strive:iMPF:3sG 'Although he worked this confusion among all nations, he especially strove against the land of Armenia.' (Th. 70-71)

(3)

Men' sant'ër, galarër ibrew zoj ťiwnawor, merť j; Now fIash:iMPF:3sG writhe:iMPF:3sG like snake poisonous, now parier gocër ibrew zariwç zayrăceai... (E. 16) stretch.himself:iMPF:3sG roar:iMPF:3sG like lion furious 'Now he flashed and writhed like a poisonous snake, now he stretched himself and roared like a furious lion.' (Th. 70)

(4)

Ard i skzban erkotasanerord ami t'agaworut'ean iwroj gund Then at beginning twelfth year reigniGEN his force i! kazmër anhamar bazmut'eamb, jarjakeal hasanir gather:iMPF:3sG infinite multitudeilNST attacked:PRF.PART come:iMPF:3sG jerkirn Itayakan (E. 18) land T'étais 'Then at the beginning of the twelfth year of his reign, he gathered a force in­ finite in multitude and attacked the land of T'etals.' (Th. 72)

The last use is mentioned for Grabar by (Abeghyan 1974: 747); it has not survived in MEA. The Past Participle of transitive verbs has no active/passive differ­ entiation. The Past Participle may be combined with the auxiliary verbs em 'be', Unim 'be', kam 'be', unim 'have'.

Perfect forms expressing evidentiality

403

2.1. Past participle with em 'be' Together with the auxiliary verb em 'be', the Past Participle constitutes periphrastic Perfect forms of Indicative and Conditional moods: Present Perfect Past Perfect

Indicative heřaceal em heřaceal ëi

Future I

Conditional heřaceal kern

'(I) have gone away' '(I) had gone away'

'(I) will have gone away' '(I) would like to have gone away' '(I) should have gone away'.

This paper deals only with the Present Perfect. The intransitive Present Perfect refers to the subject's state, see for example (5): (5)

...ayI vasn K'ristonëic, or en anddëm orinac meroc, but because Christians:ABL who. are opposed religion our barkacealj en2 mez astuaçk'n, zi minčev aysor kendani become.angry.PRF:3PL,j2 us gods because until today alive pahecer znosa (E. 143) keep:iMPF:3sG them 'But the gods have become angry with us, because you have kept the Chris­ tians, who are opposed to our religion, alive until today.' (Th. 193-194)

The Present Perfect of transitive verbs denotes the result of the past ac­ tion, see for example (6): (6)

Im zi ay ew hac kerealj ě2 y-ašxarhin jerům, gut' I because salt and bread eat:PRF:3sG!,2 country your compassion ew sër unim and ašxarhin jer (E. 170) and love have:PRS:lsG to 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 ex­ ample (7):

404

Natalia A. Kozintseva

(7)

Mi ok' amenevin luw-ice z-ayd i k'ën, manawand No one at.all hear:FUT.C0ND:3sG ACC-this from you:ABL especially vasn tesleannmeçi, or erevealj ë2 nma... (E. 158) concerning vision great, which appear:PRF:3sG|>2 him '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)

/ bazum paterazmuns mteali ë2 im, ew jer In many battles participate:PRF:3sGi2 I.GEN and you-GEN and is; ë3urek\, zi k'ajapës yayt'ecak' ťšnameacn, ew ës with me sometimes3,4 that valiantly beat:AOR:2PL enemy:PL and urek'6, zi nok'a mez yayt'ecin; ew bazum ayn ë, or yayt'oy sometimes5f, that they us defeat-AOR:3PL and often that is that victors gteal7emk's ew oč yayt'-eal-k' (E. 100) occur:PRF:lPL78 and not defeated-PAST.PART-PL '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 in­ extinguishable lamp. Greatly terrifyed he said to himself): Z-inč ë ays meç sk'ancelik's? Astuaç-k' mer uremn ekealt ACC-what be:3so this great miracle? God-PL our then come:PRF:3PLw ij-eal2en3 i bants, ew nocap'aravorut'iwnn luc-eal descend:PRF:3pL2>, 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 Unim ťbe' The auxiliary verb Unim may be in the Present or Past Indicative, Fu­ ture 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 Past Perfect

zarmaceal linem '(I) am astonished', paheal linem '(I) am preserved.' zarmaceal Una. '(I) was astonished', paheal linëi '(I) was preserved.'

The Past Participle of an intransitive verb denotes the subject's state, see for example (10): (10) Manavandzi nšank' ews bžškuťean yAstuçoy yajoyeal, linër2 especially because miracles and healing by.God succeed:PAST.PRF:3sGit2 i jeis 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 xoršakě meřaněr surb Xorën, ew ...great heat-iNST afflicted ABL heat die:iMPF:3sG Saint Khorën and awand-eal, liner2 i bnakčac ašxarhin and surb vkaysn (E. 188) bury-PA.ST.PRF:3sG!j2 by inhabitants land'.GEN with holy martyrs '...afflicted by the great heat, Saint Khoren died and was buried by the inhab­ itants 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 (Abra­ hamyan 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 succes­ sive events. This phenomenon was described by Lionnet (1933); Ab­ rahamyan (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 epis­ temic evaluation of the narrated events by the speaker is not high (as in the following sentence where the speaker is skeptical about Christi­ anity), e.g.: (12) ...z-Astowac i xač el-eal i mardkanë k'aroz-en, ew ...ACC-God on cross lift-PAST.PART by people:PL:ABL preach-PRS:3PL and z-noyn met-eal ew t'ay-eal, ew apa yaruc-eal Acc-he die-PAST.PART and bury-PAST.PART and then rise-PAST.PART • ew verac-eal yerkin-s (E. 27) ( and ascend-PAST.PART heaven-this [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 zor asacer et' Astuaçii knojë2 çnaw, But that thatiACC say:iMPF:2sG that God woman:ABLu be.born:AOR:3sG yaydm čer aržan k'ez xorshel u p'axcel (E. 27) from.that was.not right VOUIDAT turn.away 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 k'ristonëut'ean ew awer-eal Abandon-PAST.PARTij2 covenant:ABL Christian and ruin-PAST.PART z-bazum teyis Hayoc3 asxarhin4... ew z-amenayn gews ew Acc-many places Armeniaxoc land and Acc-all village and z-awans...ai-eal awer-eal ew hrjig arar-eal Acc-town seize-PAST.PART destroy-PAST.PART and afire set-PAST.PART

Perfect forms expressing evidentiality

4Kfl

ew z-amenecunjer z-sntanis p 'axuc-eal merž-eal andACC-all your Acc-family put.to.flight-PAST.PART expell-PAST.PART yiwrak'anciwr bnakut'enë Jem ark-eal ew i surb ekeyecisn their homeiABL Hand Jay-PAST.PART also on holy churches tar-eal ew z-surb spas ekeyecwoyn seyanoy geri seize-PAST.PART and ACC-holy vessel church altanGEN captive var-eal z-ontanis k'ahanayic, ew z-nos in lead.away-PAST.PART Acc-family priest-ABL and Acc-they kap-eal ew ed-eal i bandi (E. 79) bind-PAST.PART and 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

'(I) go', '(I) went', '(I) have gone', '(I) had gone', '(I) went', '(I) am gone', '(I) was gone', '(I) shall go', '(I) 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 -alisZ-elis), and Future (ending in -aluZ-elu) participles, and the auxiliary verb linel '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 Aorist gnac 'went' Imperfect gnum ër 'was going' Present Perfect gnacel ë 'has gone)' Imperfect Resultative gnacaç ër 'was gone'

Non-witnessed past events Present Perfect gnacel ë 'has gone' Present Perfect Processive gnalis ë eyel 'had been going' Present Perfect Resultative gnacaç ë eyel '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 žamanak 'then', zama 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 žamanak 'sometime', and others that usually co-occur with the Present Perfect. The Aorist is used as the main form of narra­ tion. In direct speech, the Aorist refers to the action that occurred just be­ fore the moment of speech, and its participants are still present. Com­ pare the following MEA and Bulgarian translations of the same Rus­ sian text. In this context, the MEA Aorist corresponds to the Bulgarian Present Perfect, see for example (15a) and (15b): (15) a. Bulgarian ...njanja ne viždaš li, če detetoeiOtišlo2 na slœnce (132) nurse not see:PRS:2so QUEST that child run:PRF:3sG,3 under sun b. MEA ...dayak ces, tesnum2, or erexanvazec arev-i tak. (G. 138) nurse NEG:see:PRS:2sG that child run-AOR:3sc 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) Petrosa gnac-el, ë2 Peter go:PRF:3sGi,2 '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) kančec-i... ayd inču em, kanč-el2, čem3hišum4{G.) call-AOR:lSG this why call:PRF:lsG,i2, NEG: remember:PRS:lsG3i4 '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) tana mora xndrel, ë2 darmanel ir stacaç verk'eraew ţ at.home mothenDAT ask:PRF:3sGi,2 treat his get:RES.PART wounds and erb verk'eralavacel3en4, noric ë5bax-el6 Maianc dmera(Kh.) when wounds heal:PRF:3PL,,4 again knock:PRF:3sG5,6 Maranc 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 ťe 'as though', 'as if, e.g. (23), (d) re-interrogation, e.g. (24). (19) Hayoc Babken kaťoyikosa, mez hasaç bohr aybyurneri tvaç Armenians Babken Catholicos us available all sources given teyekut'yunneri hamajayn, gumarel, ë2 miayn mi žoyov 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 avail­ able to us, had convoked only one council at Dvin.' (20) 3st Astvacašnči, erknayin draxta teyadrvaç ër Hayastan-um ev According Bible earthly paradise situated was Armenia-LOC and ibr erku depk'um ël, aiajin angam Adam-ic erkrord angam s allegedly both cases too first time Adam-ABL second time Noyic mardkuťyuna amjáceli % Hayastan-um... (Khl.) ' Noah-ABL mankind originate:PRF:3sGj,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 nšec nayev or ancaç tarin Italiay-um Novella note:AOR:3sG also that last year Italia-LOC nšanavorvel, ê2 gorçadulayin šaržman mec verelk'-ov, mark:PASs:PRF:3sG strike movement:DAT large rise-iNST orin masnakc-el, en 4 milionavor ašxatavorner (Media) in.which involve:PRF:3PL3,4 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 patmumj er2, or im bolor papern ays kulay-ic en3 Father-possl tell:iMPF:3sGi2 that myall ancestors this bowl-ABL gini xmel4 (Kh.) wine drink:PRF:3PL3,4 '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 in­ stance, the speaker relates his dream: (23) Ibrt'e grakan gorçers t'oyel, u varjvel2 em3 hotay As if literary work abandon:PRF:lSGu andhire:PASS:PRF:lSG shephard ev eraz-um ink's inj as-um4 ems es inču em6 ayspisi himarut'yun and dream-LOC I myself tell:PRS: ISG: I why such stupidity katarelj" (Zaryan) make:PRF:lsGf,,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 Gareginaxrč-harcr-i ël t'e once Excusing be:iMPER Garegin but NEG-ask-AOR: 1 SG even that how be:3sG:PRS awyjut'yun-d, asum/en2 çanr viravor es3eyel4... Çistë?(Kh.) health-P0Ss2 tell:PRS:3PL|2 seriously injured be:PRr:2sG... true is? 'Excuse me, Garegin, I didn't even ask how you are. I 've 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 some­ thing unexpected, e.g.: (25) Ay inč tyamard esj 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 in­ fers 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 ëj eyel2 Rain 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 informa­ tion presented by the subject of the verb of speech. The information re­ ported in the subordinate clause is currently relevant, e.g.: (27) Asum, en2 mez mot hank' en3gt-el4... (Kh.) Tell: PRS:3PLI,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', čšmartuťyun 'truth', pastarkut'yun '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 mec aymuk Marat-DAT father too learn-AOR:3so that at.home more great noise eyav (Khl.) be:AOR: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 subordi­ nate clause, e.g.: (29) Mehrabyan zg-ac or sxal t'uyl] tvec2... (Haruthunyan) Mehrabyan feel-AOR:3sc that mistake makei,2: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 informa­ tion, see for example (5, 19-22, 24, 27), inference, e.g. (26), and sur­ prise, e.g. (25).

Perfect forms expressing evidentiality

413

Compared with Bulgarian, the MEA Perfect is not used in the con­ text 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 žamanak kařuc-v-ac parispn aveli Town-DAT foundationiDAT time build-PASS-RES.PART wall more barjr ëi drvaç2 eyel3 (H.) high build: RES.PRF:3SG W 'When the town was founded, the wall was made higher.'

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 Gevorga ark'unik' ëihasnum2 nran uyarkumien4 When Gevorg court reach:PRS:3sG|,2 he:DAT send:PRs:3sG3.4 palat... (aiaj na çamyaç5 ë6eyel7 palat-um) imanalu ireri palace... (formerlyhe serve:RES.PRF:3sG5>6>7 palace-LOC cleanup things drut'unaÇT-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 mean­ ing, 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 second­ ary sources, e.g.:

414

Natalia A. Kozintseva

(32) Bay cor Xosrovat'uyl, ë2talis3 antrel arden cuyc4 ë5 talis6, or But that Khosrov allow:PRs:3sG|,2:) elect already show:PRS:3sG456 that na argelaçy ës eyel9 ařaj(T-M.) he forbid: RES.PRF:3SG before ''' 'But the fact that Khosrov allowed the elections itself shows that he had for­ bidden them before.'

x. 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 Re­ sultative with the same meaning. 3. 4. Present perfect processive This form is used in narrative discourse referring to indirect informa­ tion. 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'aranjem3patrastvelis,ë2eyel3 mianjnuhu4 kyank'in5 nvirvel bayc Paranjem prepare:PROC.PRF:3sGi2>3 monasticism:DAT45 devote but břnakal hor harkadrank'-ov stipvelfië7 amusnanal iren dictator fathenDAT order-iNST have.to:PASS:pRF:3sG67 marry her anhamakreli Vasak-i het(D.) unpleasant Vasak-DAT to 'Parandzem prepared herself to become a nun, but had to obey her authorita­ tive 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 (Fried­ man 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 Founda­ tion (No 96-04-06071). References Abrahamyan, Ashot A. 1957 Hayereni derbayners ew mane jevabanakan nšanakuťyuna. [Armeni­ an participles and their morphological meaning] Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakchuthyun. Abeghyan, Manuk 1974 Erker. H. Z. [Selected writings. Vol. 6] Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitu­ tyunneri 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, Anai'd. 1996a "Perfect and mediative in Modern Western Armenian", in: D. Sakayan (ed.), 149-166. 1996b "Pour une interprétation des différentes valeurs du médiatif en armén­ ien occidental", in: Z. Guenthcéva (éd.), 87-108. Friedman, Victor A. 1979 "Towards a typology of status: Georgian and other non-Slavic lan­ guages 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 Universitätsver­ lag.

Perfect forms expressing evidentiality

417

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

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 ofVardan 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 Dimankarg [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-Second 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, PASSPassive, PART-Participle, PAST-Past, PL-Plural, POSSl-Possessive article referring to ISG, POSs2-Possessive article referring to 2SG, PRF-Perfect, PROC-Processive, PRSPresent, RES-Resultative, SG-Singular.

'&

>-ii'ï«?,i?i f'M".

Evidentiality 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 (Künnap 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

Marja 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 Komipö, 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! Diskotéka 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 Družitny pö kutám. 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 Světlana 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 gener­ ally characterized in the grammatical descriptions as marking an op­ position between witnessed—the 1st past—and unwitnessed, the 2nd past. The latter is based on a past participial form with the suffix -om, which is neutral as to active and passive: kulöm mort 'dead person' (< kuvny 'to die'), velödöm z 'ver "trained animal' (< velödny 'to teach').

422

Marja Leinonen

The form serves also as a verbal noun: kulöm 'death', velödöm 'teach­ ing'. The forms of the 2nd past have an analogy with the possessive suf­ fixes 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 pred­ icative function. The first person presents a problem to which I shall return. There is no present tense copula in the Permic languages. Para­ digms of the 1st and 2nd pasts of vetlyny 'to go' as are follows (from Rédei 1978: 105-6): Sg 1 vetli 2 vetlin 3 vetli(s)

1st past PI vetlim vetlinnyd vetlisny

2nd past Sg PI (vetlöma?) (vetlömaös'?) vetlömyd vetlömnyd vetlöm(a) vetlömaös Vvetlömny

2.1. Perfect vs. evidentiality The first to call the 2nd past a perfect was Uotila (1938), and the cate­ gorization 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 neočevidnoe 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 per­ fect, 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 strik­ ing (Serebrennikov 1960). The same applies to the use of the analytical past tenses, which has obvious parallels in Turkic languages (Sere­ brennikov 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/tempo­ ral terms the speaker was not present when the action occurred; in sen­ sory 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 per­ fect", with submeanings "resultative", "resultative of comparison" (with the conjunction bytt'ö 'as if), "narrative" and "inferential" (Fed­ juneva 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 interpreta­ tions. 2nd past forms of telic (terminaţive) verbs with resultative meaning do not always receive evidential interpretations, in which case they could be called simple resultatives. According to the defini­ tions in Nedjalka (1983: 8-13), such forms are formed: a) from transitive verbs, the resulting state of which resides in the un­ derlying object appearing as the surface subject, as in (4)

N'inöm šuny, buď zdorov, Nothing say-Inf (R. be healthy; lo and behold) nalön stavy s das 'torna. 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):

x

424

Marja Leinonen

(5)

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

1

,

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.) Kulömyd al'i lovja? Ardal'on! die-2Pst-2Sg or alive Ardalion 'Are you dead or alive? Ardalion!' (Juškov 1981: 9)

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

(Vera brings to Vas'ka pies and leaves.) Vas'ka: Hm! Vera koť abu na vunödöma V. Hm Vera at-least not yet forget-2Pst-3Sg mena. I-Acc 'At least Vera has not forgotten me yet.' (Juškov 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 mirative (for the term, see below). Exam­ ple: (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

'I thought that maybe you had gone already. But here you still are.' (Juškov 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 nar­ ratives 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-wit­ nessed 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 vol­ ume. 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 descrip­ tions 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 informa­ tion as non-first-hand: (10) (Valya comes to watch Vas'ka digging.) Val'a: Arheologön pö n'in loömyd? V. archeologist-Instr Quot already become-2Pst-2Sg Vas'ka: A myj nö es'kö? Tani korkö čudjas

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.' (Juškov 1970:42)

(11) Učit'el'y s tani mat'emat'ikas'ys bur völi. teacher-NomDef here mathematics-Elat good be-lPst-3Sg Puks 'ödlömaös ' zö komyn s 'iz 'imöd voad. ... A imprison-2Pst-3PI 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.' (Juškov 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'ylis'ys ydžyd 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.' (Juškov 1981:21)

Evidentiality in Komi Zyryak

All

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, myjkö abu na sidz'i So, something not yet so vöc'ömyd, kydz me tsöktyli. do-2Pst-2Sg as I order- IPst-lSg 'So, something you have not done as I told you to.' (Juškov 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 kytšoltim, lys-vatö völi kysköma. morning-in when run-1 Pst-1 PI dew-Ace Cop shake-2Pst-3Sg Sijö völöma oš. Seni i kujlö völöm it Cop-2Pst-3Sg bear there Prtc lie-Pres-3Sg Cop-2Pst-3Sg potšos doras tsökyd inas. fence by dense place-in 'In the morning, as we 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, sijö teryb, vizuv, varov, a sijö Julya-NomDef she quick fast talkative, but he kuüömkö... bytt'ö cemodansö vos'töma. like as-if suitcase-Acc lose-2Pst-3Sg ' Yulya is quick, fast, talkative, but he is, sort of, as if he had lost his suitcase.' (Juškov 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) Mis'a, abu n'in, burakö, lovja. I-think not any-more maybe alive Jenmys taj vidzöma na. God-NomDef Prtc protect-2Pst-3Sg still 'I thought maybe he is not alive any more. It turns out that God has protected/ must have protected him still.' (Ju.škov 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'aJögör völöma! who-Datyet again need-lPr-lSg K.J. be-2Pst-3Sg Kutö na tenö muys? carry-Pres-3Sg still you-Acc earth-NomDef 'Who needs me again? It is Kenya Yogor! Does the earth still carry you?' (Juškov 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) (Griša: (dies) Pekla: My Grišuk! Ivan: My brother! ...) Pekla: Grišukoj!.... Myj-nö te? Grisuköj!... Kulöma G-lPoss what Prtc you G-lPoss die-2Pst-3Sg

Evidentiality in Komi Zyryan 439 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, Ižma 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 'I do not know where I have lost the key' (the result is there, hence inference "I must have lost it"). (20) Meťčen 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 ear­ ly childhood the 2nd past is often used, possibly indicating "uncon­ scious mind" or an event in the remote past: (21) Mi čužomnym dvojník. we be-born-2Pst-lPl twin 'We were born twins.' (Sorvačeva 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 ac­ tion ("Ungewolltheit, Unkontrolliertheit der Handlung") is evident in, e.g., the following example from the Ižma dialect: (22) Me marajtema pal'tote. I smudge-2Pst-lSg coat-2PossAcc 'I have smudged your coat.' (Bartens 1982: 161)

However, there are several examples from Ižma for which the inad­ vertent 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 ac­ tion as a present result" (Saxarova—Sel'kov 1976: 83): (23) Top me sije addzema. exact I-Nom it-Ace see-2Pst-lSg 'It was exactly him I saw.' Y

Evidentiality in Komi Zytycm, 431 (24) Me olema Mohtšayn. I-Nom live-2Pst-lSg Mohtša-in 'I lived/have lived in Mohtša.'

••'- |J_

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 'I am dressed', me s'ojöma-juöma T have eatenand-drunk' (i.e. I am full), me prostuďitčoma "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 ad­ ditionally by a reflexive suffix. The relevant context shows that the in­ terpretation is evidential: (25) (when walking in the woods and returning to a place where one had been al­ ready) Me tani vövlöma / vövlys'öma. I here be-Temp-2Pst-lSg/ be-Temp-Refl-2Pst-lSg 'I have been here (already).'

The mirative usage is clear in the following example elicited from a speaker of the Lower Vyčegda dialect: (at dinner) (26) Me tšyg 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 unac­ ceptable 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

x

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. menant unmovss'öma T 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 accordéon.) Mejam Jona jus'öma da gudöktö I-Gen much drink-Refl-2Pst-3Sg and accordeon-Acc pazödlyss 'öma. break-Refl-2Pst-3Sg 'I had drunk a lot and had broken the accordéon.' (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 vetla völi/völöm 2 vetlan " " 3 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 vetlöma völi 2 vetlömyd völi(n) 3 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. munas völi, translated into Russian as pojdet bývalo '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 follow­ ing elicited example as a resultative in the 1st person: (30) Kor sijö loktis, me völi sad 'mama. when s/he came, I Cop wake-up-2Pst-lSg 'When s/he came, I had already waken up / was awake.'

The pluperfect may also express a remote past without relating it to an­ other 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 přibyl, okazyvaetsja /kak stalo izvestno, on přibyl, KRS 1961: 888). In recent linguistic research, the constructions are called analytic past tenses (Sorvačeva and Beznosikova 1990: 72). The latest gram­ matical description does the same, simply using numbers: Illrd past = durative past (V-Pres + völi), IVth past = pluperfect, which has no ev­ idential 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 fu­ ture 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.) Setc'ö i dzebs'öma völöm šyškyd. 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) Udžalysjasyd, 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 vo n'in vetlödli, a te every year already wander- IPst-lSg but you on vis ' völömyd. Neg-Pres-2Sg be-ill Cop-2Pst-2Sg 'I 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) Tšóktis 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!' (Juškov 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 pa 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 resultative 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 un­ witnessed. 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 Turk­ ish", 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, Jorma Luutonen ja Eeva Herrala (eds.), Systeemi ja 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 vostočnym fmno-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 gram­ matical category", Linguistic Typology 1: 33-52. Fedjuneva, G. V.—Je. A. Cypanov 1992 Asšor 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 "Bezličnye glagoly i ix valentnosť v komi jazyke", Trudy Instituia jazyka, literatury i istorii. Akademia Nauk SSSR, Komi filial, 31:6786. Johanson, Lars 1996 "On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives", in: Boretzky, N., 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. Timušev. Moskva. Kuratov, I. A. 1939 Lingvističeskie raboty. 2-oj torn. Syktyvkar. Kiinnap, Ago: 1992 "On the analytical past tense forms in the Uralic languages", Linguistica Uralica XXVIII 3: 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 Služebnye slova vfinno-ugorskixjazykax. Moskva. Nedjalkov, V. P. (ed.) 1983 Tipologija rezul'tativnyx konstrukcij (rezul'tativ, stativ, passiv, per­ fekt). Leningrad. Nikolaeva, Irina A. 1995 Obdorskij dialekt xantyjskogo jazyka. (Einheitliche Beschreibung der Dialekte uralischer Sprachen, herausgegeben von Klara E. Majtinska­ ja und Wolfgang Veenker, V. Mitteilungen der Societas Uralo-Altai­ ca, 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 4J9 Rédei, Károly 1978 Syrjänische Chrestomathie mit Grammatik und Glossar. (Studia Uralica. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Finno-Ugristik der Univer­ sität 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 Ižemskij dialekt komi jazyka. Syktyvkar: AN SSSR, Komi filial, Insti­ tut jazyka, literatury i istorii. Sbornik 1931 1931 Sbornik komissii po sobiraniju slovarja i izučeniju dialektov komi jazyka II, ed. V. I. Lytkin. Moskva. Serebrennikov, B. A. 1960 Kategorii vremeni i vida v flnno-ugorskix jazykax permskoj i volžskoj grupp. Moskva. Serebrennikov, B. A. 1963 Istoričeskaja morfologija permskix jazykov. Moskva. SKJa 1955 Sovremennyj komi jazyk, I, ed. V. I. Lytkin. Syktyvkar. Sorvačeva, V.A.—L. M. Beznosikova 1990 Udorskij dialekt komi jazyka. Moskva: AN SSSR, Ural'skoe otdelenie, Komi naučnyj centr, Institut jazyka, literatury i istorii. Moskva. Uotila, T. E. 1938 Syrjänische Chrestomathie mit grammatikalischem Abriss und ety­ mologischem 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 Cužan mus'an'ylyn. Syktyvkar. Gabova, Je. 1997 Vospitatel'n'icalön kaz'tylömjas. Vojvyv kodzuv 1: 7-46. Juškov, G. 1970 Kuim teš. Syktyvkar.

440

Marja Leinonen

Juškov, G. 1981 Popov, A. 1994 Savin, V. [1936]

ST III 1989

Cugra. Syktyvkar. Myjs'amajöz. Syktyvkar. "Šondi petigön dzoridz kos'mis", in: P.Doronin: Literatura hrestomat 'ija n 'epolnöj sredn 'öj da sredn 'oj školasa 6-7 klassjasly, mod cast'. Syktyvkar. Syrjänische Texte, Band III. Komi-syrjänisch: Luza-Letka, Ober-Sysola, Mittel-Sysola-, Prisyktyvkar-, Unter-Vytegda- 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 SOW 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 poly functional) and to a certain degree formally: the former mostly take specialized predicative agreement markers, the latter exclusively take nominal possessive-like markers. in

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)

Egďen moden evgide-du-n nulge-sen-ce-l bi-se-p. big flood this.side-DAT-3sG 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 resultative function (as in (1)). Realistic narration is based on the imper­ fect 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), re­ spectively. Table 1. Distribution of narrative forms in Even dialects Eastern dialect Central dialect Western dialect

-RA- (aorist) 63 39,3 30,5

-Ri- (imperfect) 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 nor­ mally 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

lstp. 2nd p. 3rd p.

Distant past PL SG bar-byt-pyt bar-byt-ym bar-byt-yng bar-byk-kyt bar-byt-a bar-byt-tar.a 'I (you, etc.) have gone long ago.'

Resultative PL SG bar-byt-pyn bar-byp-pyt bar-byk-kyn bar-byk-kyt bar-byt bar-byt-tar 'I (you, etc.) have 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 resultative function is untypical for Evenki forms: only passive perfect forms regularly exhibit resultative 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 grammaticalized 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 > RES >

PERF PERF

> PAST (Evenki) > EviD > 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 hoki-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* 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 Šneider (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 nominals) 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

'I s a y . ' b . Mi un-dem.bi. l.NOM Say-PRES-lSG 'I (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 ' W h a t an interesting thing h e 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 un-kim.bi. I.NOM say-PERF.PART-1SG 'I said.' b. Mi un-ke-i. i.NOM say-PAST-lsG 'I did s a y . ' (10) a. N'oani un-ki-ni. you.NOM Say-PERF.PART-3SG ' ( S ) h e said.' b. Esi-le do-si ele-ke=teni?! now=PTCL inner-2sG fill-PAST=PTCL ' I s n ' t y o u r soul (lit. inner) satisfied n o w ? ! '

F

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 Šneider (1936), the participial past is used as a hearsay form, whereas the verbal past functions as a direct evidential form; cf. (lia) 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 Šneider (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. Bi I.NOM

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

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

give-PAST-lSG

'I 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

'vù'x-Mfn •y?^yc\

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

Nanai Ulcha Udihe

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

participial + (indicative) +(indicative) (+)(3rdp)

Oroch Orok

? -

+ +

Past verbal + (affirmative) + (direct evidential) ? -

participial + (indicative) + + (hearsayindicative) + +

The proposed path of evolution of the perfect in East-Tungusic languages is represented in (13): (13) 1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage 4th stage (Resultative) > Perfect/Indir.-evid. > Preterite > General Past General Past > Imperfect/Dir.-evid. > Validational > 0 Udihe Nanai 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 PagJiuca (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 T 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.

not.do-NF-1SG

Í

knOW-NEG.CONV

'(I) don't know.' b. Haa-ra-m=kka kn0W-NF-lSG=PTCL

e-he-m.

-j,

;

not.do-NF-lSG

'(I) do know.'

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

ShOW-PAST-lSG

nOt.do-PAST-lSG

'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 Myreeva (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 lOSe-AOR. 1SG

k.e.hi.n. PTCL+not.do-AOR-3SG

'I 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

'(I) didn't work.' b. Debo-a-ca-i=ka. WOrk-NEG-PP. lSG=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. —Min-upioner-le i.v-d'i-s=ku? i-ACC pineer-LOC 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 V asile vie (1948: 242):

460

Andrej L. Malchukov

(19) a. —Huru-ďe-s? gO-PROG-AOR.2SG

'Are you going?' b. — Huru-kuun!

;

'"'" i

, •)

gO-CONF

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

This form has presumably developed from a verb plus particle combi­ nation: the enclitic particle -nukAn is still attested in some Even dia­ lects. 5.2. Evidentiality and hypothetical forms In North-Tungusic languages epistemic modality is expressed primar­ ily 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 'I must look for'). It can further have an evidential or perhaps an attenuative interpretation, as in (20) from Lebedev (1978): (20) Hurken honga-mna-ca. youth.NOM 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 lan­ guages, such as bid'inlbimnen 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 imiş, historically the perfect form of the auxiliary, which has specialized in the modal func­ tion).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 identifi­ cation (of properties) of the object. It is closer to the evidential since its meaning, apart from hypothetical semantics, presupposes appre­ hension. 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 ap­ plied to verbs, provided they take a participial form, as in (21b): (21) a. Asi-mdas nulge-n. woman-siMiL nomadize-NF-3sG 'Somebody who looks like a woman nomadizes.' b. Asi nulge-ri-mdes. woman nomadize-PRES.PART-siMiL-3sG 'A 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 con­ trast to -mdAs forms, is used to indicate inference based on indirect evidence. Thus, whereas (21b) is only appropriate in a situation of di­ rect apprehension, (22) may be uttered upon seeing, for example, the tracks of a nomadizing woman.

462

Andrej L. Malchukov

•.•ň

(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 lan­ guages. 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 if) 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 invari­ able 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 CM-FUT-3SG QUOT 'The Gaaran'd'a -bird said: "Ongalgan-b'nd, 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 suggest­ ed by Petrova (cf. Avrorin 1961: 275-276),10 this enclitic has devel­ oped 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 and related categories (24) Mi

haj-va

un-ke-i?!

i.NOM what-ACC say-PAST-lsG

pondad'o-i

edi

sister-REF.SG

nOt(lMPER)

Gamasom-ba

baogo-o-ri=am

son-in-law-ACC

find-PASs-PRES PART=QUOT

463

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

'Haven't I said?! We 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 Kidani NOM

göön-ni say-N0NFUT.3sG

Kiido-kiido-gu

Helnike-ken

kutet-ken

Kiido-kiido-PTCL

Helniken-DEM

brother-in-law-DEM

Kiido-kiido-gu

hooni-ka-mar

hee-mke-t'-kere...

Kiido-kiido-PTCL

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 Narguida. 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 resultatives". According to Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1983), "concrete" (observable) resultatives (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. T 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 -mis) 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 obj ect-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), inline with Benzing, regards East-Tungusic forms as heteroclitic, regard­ ing 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 explana­ tion 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 predi­ cative form in -ď is of the nominal origin), Jukagir (cf. the intransitive past tense in -j(e)lť{e)lď(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 in­ dicate 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. Vasilevič, 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 -miş 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 dif­ ference 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 cate­ gorical 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/Lenin­ grad: Nauka. Benzing, Johannes 1955 Die tungusischen Sprachen. Versuch einer vergleichenden Gramma­ tik. (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, No. IL). Wies­ baden: Steiner. Boldyrev, B. V. 1987 Slovoobrazovanie imen suscestvitel'nyx v tunguso-man'cîurskix jazykax [Nominal derivation in Tungus-Manchu languages]. Novosi­ birsk: 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'ciurskix jazykov [Comparative phonetics of Tungus-Manchu languages]. Leningrad: Nauka. 1982 NegidaVskij jazyk [Negidal]. Leningrad: Nauka. Comrie, Bernhard 1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeLancey, Scott 1997 "Miraţivity: 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], m:Voprosy jazyka i fol'klora , narodnostej severa [Issues in language and folklore of northern na­ tionalities]. 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, A. X. 1988 Indikativnye formy glagola v udegejskom jazyke [Indicative forms in Udihe]. Unpublished doct. diss. Leningrad. Gorelova, L. M. 1979 Kategorija vida v ěvenkijskom jazyke [Aspect in Evenki]. Novosi­ birsk: Nauka.

468 Andrej L. Malchukov Johanson, Lars 1994 "Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora", in: R. Thieroff—J. Ballweg (eds.) Tense systems in European languages, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 247266. 2000 "Viewpoint operators in European languages", in: Ö. Dahl (ed.) Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Konstantinova, O. A. 1964 Èvenkijskij jazyk [Evenki]. Moskva/Leningrad: Nauka. Lebedev, V. D. 1978 Jazyk évenov 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 v 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 v évenkijskom 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 ^ 1 . 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. Ol'skij 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, A. V.—Myreeva, A. N. 1962 Očerki tokkinskogo i tommotskogo dialektov [Sketches of Tokkin and Tommot dialects of Evenki]. Moskva/Leningrad: Nauka. 1964 Očerki učurskogo, majskogo i tottinskogo dialektov [Sketches of Uchura, Maja and Tottin dialects of Evenki]. Moskva/Leningrad: Nauka. Šneider, E. R. 1936 Kratkij udegejsko-russkij slovar'. S priloženiem grammatičeskogo spravočnika [A short Udihe-Russian dictionary]. Moskva/Leningrad: Nauka. Sunik, Orest P. 1962 Glagol v tunguso-mari čžurskixjazykax /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 grammati­ calization, Vol. 1. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 189219. Vasilevič, G. M. 1948 Očerki dialektov évenkijskogo jazyka [Sketches of Evenki dialects]. Leningrad: Nauka. Wille«, 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 contem­ porary Yakut]. Moskva: Nauka.

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in glosses: ACC—accusative; AOR—aorist; CAUS—causative; DEMIN—deminutive; EVID—evidential; FUT—future; IMPER—im­ perative; INSTR—instrumental; ITER—iterative; LOC—locative; MOM—momentative (aspect); NEG—negative; NEG.CONV—negative converb; NF—nonfuture; NOM—nom­ inative; PERF—perfect; PERF.PART—perfect participle; PL—plural; POS—possessive; PRES—present; PRES.PART—present participle; PROB—probability (mood); PTCL— particle; QUOT—quotative; REF—reflexive, RES—resultative, SIMIL—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-til-tel-toi-II-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

&ad mes=pa khau son.in.Iaw last.night food

kam little

zaza eat/NF

r

prat-o-ts picaQ turjzO. da servi ng.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, dis­ course context denotes the temporal situation of the clause. (2)

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

ni-ta-k be-FUT-lsG

(3)

do-go skul-o huš-idya s/he-PL school-LOC read-NOM 'They were students.'

čhai)-o du-ge/ boy-PL be-PST

to-ke/ be-PST

ni be/NONFUT/3

-7

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)

kdtab dam to / book good be/PRST 'The book is good.'

du / be/PRST

ni be/pRST

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. M 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 'Sonam is good.'

du / be/PRST

ni be/PRST

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 / *du-ge-k I priest be-PST-lSG be-PST-lsG 'I was a priest.'

474 Anju Saxena

.

(7)

kd pijares to-ke-n / *du-ge-n you(-HON) priest be-PST-2(-HON) be-PST-2(-HON) 'YOU(-HON) were a priest.'

(8)

nu skul-o huš-idya čhag to-ke/ he school-LOC read-NOM boy be-PST 'He was a student.'

.

du-ge/ ni be-PST be/NONFUT/3

The copula to is used in (8) above, if the subject is either a family mem­ ber 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 con-i structions in Kinnauri. (9)

ram-is čharj-u name-ERG boy-DAT 'Ram saw a boy.'

taqtarj see/PERF

du-ge/ be-PST

to-ke be-PST

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 re­ lated 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 giřaT} lan-ts to-ke-k I song make-iMPF be-PST-lSG 'I used to sing songs.'

Evidentiality in Kinnauri (11) Ici toto you(HON) sick 'You are sick.'

475

to-ň be-2HON

(12) šupakts lis bdd-o evening cold come-PROG 'It is cold in the evening.'

du be/PRST

(13) lag kim-o bang tshutshu to cow house-LOC outside tie/PERF be/PRST 'The cow is tied outside.'

3. Direct and indirect speech in Kinnauri In this section we will observe that the semantic information associat­ ed 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 Kin­ nauri 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 Kinnau­ ri. (14) ram-is ruj-o "ga kam3T) šurjšuij to-k" name-ERG say-PST I work finish/PERF be-lSG 'Ram said "I have finished the work." '

476 Anju Saxena

:'A

(15) ram-is rig-a ki do-s kamarj šugšui) 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 nrj-a ki do-s kamaij ŠUIJŠOIJ 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) gd-s do -pdij "pq-ts bo " I-ERG s/he-DAT here-ABS go/iMP 'I asked him to go from here.'

lo-k say-lsG

Evidentiality in Kinnauri

All

(18) ga-(s) do-pdij J3i)-ts bi-mu lo-k I-ERG s/he-DAT here-ABS go-NOM say-lSG 'I 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 kv" may occur between the main clause and the com­ plement, but it does not occur with direct quotes, for example, (19) ama-s nq-a-š ki čhag mother-ERG say-PST-3(HON) COMP boy 'Mother said that the boy is sick today.' (20) niija-s fas-e-č ki ram we-ERG hear-PST-lPL COMP name 'We heard that Ram has won (X).'

tóro toto today sick

zitatBya win/PERF

du 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 rirj. The lexical verb riq is used when referring to the speaker and lo is used when referring to someone else. In the quotative construction in Kinnauri, rirj-o (literally 'say-PST') functions as the quotative marker, occurring after the quoted material. The quotative construction retains the direct speech charac­ teristics. For example, first and second person pronouns in the quoted material refer to the original speaker and not to the person who is re­ porting the message. (21) lagtsya-s

hurs-o

g3-s ma-fyo-k

servant-ERG deny-PST I-ERG

nijo

NEG-take.away-lsG QUOTE

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

478

Anju Saxena

(22) ama-s čhag-u dok ku-š khou za-ň mother-ERG boy-ACC then call-3(HON) food eat-2(HON) 'Mother called the boy to come and eat.'

riijo 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-pdij pata du-š, or; čhan mother-DAT know be-3(HON) my boy 'Mother knows that her son is an alcoholic'

šarabi alcoholic

Quotative construction (24) dma-pdTj aß čkan šarabi ţo_ riijo mother-DAT my boy alcoholic be/PRST QUOTE 'Mother knows that her son is an alcoholic'

pata du-š know be-3(HON)

ţo be/PRST

Indirect speech (25) ama an-u ê-aî\ wal hušyar ţo tsal-o du mother self-GEN boy much intelligent be/PRST feel-PROG be/PRST 'Mother feels that her son is intelligent.' (26) ama-pdT] pata du-š toro bdjar mother-DAT know be-3(H0N) today market 'Mother knows that the market is closed today.'

band closed

du be/PRST

t

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 dis­ tinguish 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 un­ derlined pieces of propositions are instances of indirect speech or part of the narrator's narration.

Evidentiality in Kinnauri 479 (27) ga I

bi-î3-k

ga byobyo

kar-ta-k

rig-o

gO-FUT-lSG

I

bring-FUT-lSG

Say-PST

kata i at.all

mas refuse

go/PERF

kod-o du tell-PROG be/PRST

dok byo-o du then go-PROG be/PRST ' "I will go. I will go and bring it." He is refusing. Then he is going (away).' (28) an-e-nu self-EMPH-GEN

pa 4

hun ta_ hode-s now EMPH that-iNST

rani-le queen-EMPH šare beautiful

bal head

tshetskami girl

dukhaij-ts sad-iNST kar-a-š bring-PST-3(HON)

do nipi raja ts bal kťuš-is raj tsdlaya-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 structur­ ally 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 ana­ lyze the structural differences between direct and indirect free speech reveals interesting differences between the two. Here I will concen­ trate on the choice of the evidential markers to and du and the past tense markers.

480 Anju Saxena

Wî\

(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 be­ long to the speaker. In contrast, in the indirect free speech it is only du which occurs in both copula and noncopula constructions. (29) pa-ra p3-ra kd-n emij šwig hač-is du wait-iMP wait-iMP you(HON)-GEN udder red become-PERF be/PRST ' "Wait! Wait! Your udder is red." (The demon said to the cow).' ) (30) ai) enig-o i tsh' dtshats ţ& my 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 -ke/-ge4 and -gyo. The suffix -ke occurs with the copula to and -ge occurs with the copula du. ?

(31) g3-s idřar sa-ts to-ke-k I-ERG a lion kill-iMPF be-PST-lSG 'I had killed a lion.' 't

(32) g3 pi/ares to-ke-k I priest be-PST-lSG 'I 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 some­ times realized as -kyo. 4 (34) niš čhaij-o byo-gyo two boy-PL go-D.psT 'The two boys went.' (35) do-s lo-kyo (s)he-ERG 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 in­ volvement of the narrator. It seems that when the narrator tells the sto­ ry 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 nar­ rating, 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 II BNS-8711370 and the second by an Olof Gjerdman travel grant from Uppsala University. I would like to thank my lan­ guage 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 -če 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 N 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 dis­ course", R. E. Longacre (ed.), Discourse grammar, Part 1. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 147-258.

482

AnjuSaxenaA-i

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 evidential s 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

Abkhaz275,313, 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 Archi317,325 areal - contact 3, 420 - feature 7, 378 - influence 9, 419, 442 - phenomenon 9-11, 149, 276, 284 a(r)miš 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 aspectotemporal, 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

atelic413,424,428,431,443 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, 402^08, 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 M 84, 223, 315, 334, 346 -Bit, -byt 72, 80, 445 border area 383, 393 Bukhara 231, 256

Bulgarian, bulgare 3,76,83,84, 86, 100, 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- AA6, 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, 5Q, 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 Cheremis315,419 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 of - 295 Common Slavic 329, 338, 340, 359 complexive 66, 67, 73-75 compound 89,92,97-99, 169, 205,206, 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 constaţi ve 91, 253 contact 2, 3,11, 58,59, 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 Dari4, 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, 475^181 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, 66, 70, 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, 452456, 459, 460, 463, 465, 466

ebitl9-i\ 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, 354,396,399,451,453,458 endopathique 216 English 27,36,39,40,61,64,69,71,73, 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, 250255, 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 ergativity split - 177 erinč 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, 466468 Evenki 442, 446-449, 458-462, 466469 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, 67, 68, 70,75,77, 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, 431^136, 441-447, 449, 452, 454458, 460-466, 469, 471, 479 existential 46, 48, 49, 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 15, 17-26,45-47, 51, 52, 55, 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- 17-19, 21,25, 26,47, 51, 52, 65, 82, 252, 434 indirect- 15, 17,22,26,45,46 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-Ugric67,315,419 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, 10,11,28,50,58, 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, 45, 51,52, 57 Georgian 3, 6, 83, 125, 141, 236, 275281, 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

Grabar401,402 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, 433,446, 460 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, 56,63,72,73,91,115,118,120,187, 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 imiš, imiş, -Imlş (cf. -(y)mlş) 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, 179,283,284,314,315 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, 475479,481 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, 67, 6972, 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, 259,268,269,277,310 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, 9698,100,101,114,115,132,133,135, 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, 2426, 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, 425-427, 460, 464-467, 4 7 3 476 assimilated- 17, 25 novel - 22 new - 20-22, 57, 83 Ingilo283, 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 -ip 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 irgi 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, 316,319,402,404,469

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

Kaboli230, 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, 474^78, 480-482 Kipchak 112 Kirghiz 73 KomiPermyak419, 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, 100, 103, 147, 176, 277, 312, 378, 441, 445, 449 Laz 275, 276, 309, 313, 314, 322 /-form, /-participle 329, 332, 335, 336, 341-343, 347, 362, 366 literary language 79, 86, 275, 314, 342, 360, 361, 364, 367, 369, 375, 429, 432, 435, 440 localization 63, 374, 388 - point 388 interval of - 63 logical 17, 18, 66, 81, 82, 164, 178, 233, 338,425 - conclusion 61, 66, 81,82, 178 - deduction 15, 17, 18 - inference 23, 164 low-focal 107, 112, 125, 126, 132, 138, 386 - postterminality 96, 99, 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, 4 5 ^ 9 , 51, 52, 54-57,61,74,91, 115-117,129,130, 132, 148, 159, 165, 167, 175-178,

AMfalt 491 204, 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, 12, 15, 226,410,420,437,462 - 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, -mis, -mis, MIS 29-43, 62, 64-69, 72, 74-77, 79, 80, 82, 89, 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 -mišmiš 104, 108, 109 -mişti, MIŞTI 30, 39, 40, 43, 175

-mlstlr, MIŞTIR 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, 460, 461,463,465 modalizing 371, 380 modesty 67, 75 Mongolian, Mongolic 58, 67, 442, 447, 464, 466 mood 18, 59, 112, 147, 149, 165, 174, 176, 189, 191, 271, 278, 317, 326, 327, 360, 361, 366, 380, 403, 405, 420, 450, 456, 458, 459, 460, 461, 469 Mordvin 419

nachträgliche Feststellung 64 Nakh-Daghestanian 6 Nanai 8, 442, 450, 452-456, 459, 460, 462, 463, 466, 467 nambiquara217 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^*8, 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

neočevidnoe, neočevidnye 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 noncopula471, 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, 447450, 458, 460, 463, 465, 466 novelty 71, 83 Nuristan 67

očevidnye 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, 308, 310, 312, 316, 319, 326 Old Turkic 47,48, 58,62,65-68,70,74, 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

49$

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, 445447, 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, 433^36, 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, 216227, 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, 12,17,21,22,26,28,32,37, 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, 443^60, 463, 466, 472, 473, 479^182 distant - 152, 175, 178, 333, 445, 446, 480,481,482 - participle 182, 229, 242, 245, 257, 265, 268, 271, 314, 315, 347, 350, 361, 402^105, 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 direct-61, 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, 413^115, 420, 422-424, 430, 431, 436, 441-449, 452^157, 461, 462, 464^166, 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, 95101, 147-149, 152, 154, 164, 165, 175-179, 181, 185-187, 189, 199, 201, 202, 204-207, 228-234, 236238, 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 - Modem 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 predpoložitel ' nyi, predpoložitel ' 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, 450452, 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 97,99, 100, 101, 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

-M- 443, 444, 446, 447, 449 rakhshani 223 realis 16,27,45-47,55 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, 413^116,430,434 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 26,45, 51, 57, 66, 68, 152, 153, 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, 406,412,415,429,475,476 - evidence 165 - information3, 187,412 - speech 17, 66, 187, 198, 199, 201, 203,261,279,354,406,475 reportedness 329, 339, 343, 353 responsibility 17, 185, 203, 295 restriction, restrictive 1, 4, 6, 100, 118, 121, 123, 124, 126, 128, 135, 248, 294,317,344,379,436,443 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-^149, 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 6,45-52, 54-59, 73 Sanskrit 64, 278, 318, 326, 367, 368, 375,378,380,381 Sarigh Yoghur 48, 50, 59 šarti 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, 448-451, 454^57, 461, 464-466, 469, 472^175, 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 South-338, 341 Southern West South - 338, 342, 360 Solon 442, 447, 452 Sorani 150, 177, 178 source 1,2,16, 18, 21,22, 26, 27,45, 53, 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 Svan 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, 230232, 234, 236-245, 247, 250, 255257,262,270,315

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, 87,91,92,95,97-99,101, 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, 436-438, 444, 446, 450, 452, 453, 455, 459, 460, 466, 468, 471^73, 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-bírman 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 Tsez6-8, 11, 12

Tungusic 1, 8, 10, 432, 441, 442, 445, 447-450, 452-466 Tungus-Manchu 442,467-469 turc 43, 84, 211,213, 215, 328 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, 87, 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, 73,76 Tuvan 70, 73, 79, 85 tuyuca217 typology 86, 180, 322, 363, 367, 370, 372,378,401,416,442

Udihe 441, 442, 448-450, 452^55, 465, 467, 469 Udmurt 419^121, 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 499 332-334, 339-341, 344, 346, 347, 349, 358-360, 366, 394, 449, 452456, 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 48,49,66,68,70, 73, 76, 77, 79, 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

visuall, 65, 285, 388,420 - evidence 65 Vlah 363 Vogul419 voice 28, 170, 171, 289, 387, 435 volition 105 Votyak419 vouching 329 -(V)p turur 72

Western Even 441, 447 witnessed 6, 7, 9, 12, 65, 71, 74, 153, 174, 175, 191, 195, 199, 203, 229, 242, 266, 285, 286, 315-317, 329, 333, 408, 421, 425, 429, 447, 453456 - imperfect 454 - past 6, 7,9, 153, 175,455

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

zyriène215, 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 Diachronie 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 Muller-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. 20 EUROTYP. Nine volumes. 1997-1999. 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. O Baoill. 1998. 20-4 Word Prosodie Systems in the Languages of Europe. Edited by Harry van der Hülst. 1999. 20-5 Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Edited by Henk van Riemsdijk. 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.