Search

CARITIVE IN NANAI // Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology. 2020. Issue 1 (27). P. 32-43

The paper deals with the expression of caritive in Nanai. The research is based on the author’s elicitation materials collected during the fieldwork as well as oral texts recorded from the Nanai speakers by various scholars. The study leads to a conclusion that the expression of caritive in Nanai varies greatly from one dialect to another: while varieties of the lower Amur (Naikhin, Dzhuen, Gorin) obtain a determined marker ana, Sikachi-Aljan dialect uses a negative existential aba to express caritive. The paper describes grammatical and semantic properties of ana in detail. Thus, in modern Nanai, ana almost does not combine with morphological markers, although combination of ana with possessive markers is attested in earlier texts of mid-20th century. Absentee (dependent from caritive marker) can be expressed by any nominal phrase including pronouns, nouns with dependents and even adjectives. When an absentee is expressed by an adjective, ana marks for privative deriving an antonym of the adjective. Absentee cannot be expressed by a verbal form, even by a participle form, although it is close to a nominal phrase. The use of inflectional markers with absentees is acceptable, however, the use of a bare stem is preferable. As for the semantic properties, absentee can have different potential semantic roles such as a companion, instrument, possessum, relative, etc. Absentee cannot refer to an action. Besides, the use of clitics’ variants is described. Variants anaǯi and abaǯi (with an instrumental marker) appear mostly in the case when the situation of absence/non-involvement modifies another situation. They correlate with co-predicate and adverbial syntactic position of the caritive phrase. The variant ana bi is usually attested in the case when the situation of the absence modifies a target participant. Caritive phrases with ana bi tend to have an attributive syntactic position.

Keywords: The Nanai language, caritive, abessive, dialectal variety, syntactic positions, grammatical semantics, parts of speech

EXPRESSING ABSENCE IN THE TURKIC LANGUAGES OF THE VOLGA-KAMA SPRACHBUND: CHUVASH AND BASHKIR // Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology. 2021. Issue 4 (34). P. 9-31

The paper describes means of expressing absence and non-participation in (Maloye Karachkino = Poshkart) Chuvash and (Kubalyak) Bashkir, two Turkic languages of the Volga-Kama Sprachbund. The field data were collected in Bashkortostan (2011–2016) and Chuvash Republic (2017–2019). Additionally, we bring into comparison available data on Tatar from existing grammars, dictionaries, and corpora (and, for some aspects, from native speakers). The presented data reveal that Chuvash, Bashkir, and Tatar use very similar sets of markers to express absence or non-involvement of a participant. In each language, one of the markers (Chuvash ɕok, Bashkir juq, Tatar juk) can be described as a negative existential/possessive copula, another one (Chuvash -SƏr, Bashkir -hEð, Tatar -sEz) functions as a caritive (abessive) suffix. These markers are cognate to each other in all three languages. These markers also have the very similar ranges of basic syntactic positions and semantic functions. Syntactically, the copulas form separate clauses and usually occur as predicates of independent clauses. The caritive markers can be used in different syntactic positions: attributive, adverbial, depictive, or predicative (where they compete with the copulas). Semantically, the copulas express meanings expectable for negative existentials: existential negation proper, presentative locative negation, negation of various types of possession, and ‘no’ reply. The caritive markers express the basic caritive meanings: non-involvement or absence of a companion, of an instrument, of various types of possessees (legal and temporary possessees, body parts, relatives, parameters, etc.). Interestingly, the distribution of affirmative counterparts of the caritive marker is practically the same in Bashkir, Chuvash, and Tatar, despite the fact that these comitative-instrumental markers have different morphosyntactic nature: the Chuvash suffix -PA(lA) vs. the Bashkir and Tatar postpositions menæn and belæn. However, there is a number of differences between these three systems. First, the markers in question can have uses as part of larger constructions that differ in Chuvash, Bashkir, and Tatar. The Bashkir copula juq can combine with the participle form (in -GAn) in experiential contexts, as well as the Tatar copula juk, but not the Chuvash copula ɕok. The copula ɕok in Chuvash can be used with the infinitive in -mA to express impossibility, which has not been attested for Bashkir and Tatar. Also, only Chuvash has a complex verbal form combining an infinitive (in -mA) with the caritive marker -SƏr which functions as a “negative converb”. Chuvash has an exceptive construction which includes the caritive marker: -SƏr poɕnʲa, while in Bashkir and Tatar cognate exceptive postpositions baʃqa/baʃka are used with the ablative marker. The Chuvash and Tatar markers ɕok and juk can be used attributively without overt marking of subordination, while the Bashkir marker juq demands an additional auxiliary verb in such contexts. The Chuvash marker -SƏr displays the most features of case markers: unlike the Bashkir marker -hEð and the Tatar marker -sEz, it can combine with possessive markers and wordforms with this marker can have nouns as its dependents. And the Chuvash marker and the Tatar marker are similar in that, unlike the Bashkir marker, wordforms with them can have personal pronouns as dependents. In general, all three Turkic languages of Volga-Kama Sprachbund have similar systems of expressing absence or non-involvement of a participant. They differ only in a number of details, where Tatar has an intermediate position between Chuvash and Bashkir. This is in line with the geographical distribution of the three languages: Chuvash in the West, Bashkir in the North, and Tatar in the middle between the two.

Keywords: Bashkir, Chuvash, Tatar, Kubalyak, Maloye Karachkino, Poshkart, Volga-Kama Sprachbund, caritive, abessive, negative existential, absence

Ablatives in Nanaic Languages // Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology. 2023. Issue 3 (41). P. 71-89

The article deals with the markers expressing ablative semantics in Nanaic varieties, including several Nanai dialects (Naikhin, Dzhuen, Gorin, and Bikin), Ulcha, Uilta, and Kili (Kur-Urmi). The study compiled a list of contexts with ablative and closely related semantics and analyzed which grammatical element is used in each context in each language variety. The study draws on textual data from a variety of sources, including our own field recordings, archival texts, and published texts. The final dataset shows several clusters of language varieties, meanings, and ablative markers. There are three clusters of Nanaic varieties based on the attested ablative cases: Naikhin and Dzhuen Nanai, Gorin Nanai and Uilta, and a random cluster of Bikin Nanai and Ulcha. The Kili variant stands out from these. The observed ablative markers cluster according to the meaning groups they cover: proper ablative markers, the ablative/instrumental marker -ǯi, prolative case markers -ki and -kki, which cover a near-prolative subset of the ablative domain, and a broader locative/prolative marker -la, which combines nearprolative meanings and sources of information or transmission. The Nanaic varieties show three stable polysemy patterns: ablative core meanings, near-prolative meanings, and physical and metaphorical transfer. Finally, there are two clusters based on the distribution of markers within the ablative domain: The first cluster includes Naikhin Nanai, Dzhuen Nanai, Kili, and possibly Bikin Nanai, while the second cluster includes Uilta and Ulcha. Gorin Nanai stands apart.

Keywords: Tungusic languages, Nanaic languages, Nanai, Ulcha, Uilta, Kili, ablative