Lars Johanson Bo Utas (Editors)
Evidenţiate Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages
W DE
G. Mouton de Gruyter
Em...
159 downloads
1716 Views
15MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
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 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 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
-*'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
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 (
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'| ;, ", '' /, >•,•
-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
•