Search results

Ферхеес С. К происхождению эвиденциальности в нахско-дагестанских языках: структурные и ареальные перспективы // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2018. Вып. 57. С. 110-123. DOI: 10.15382/sturIII201857.110-123
This article deals with the grammatical expression of the source of information by means of past tense forms of the verb (so-called “past unwitnessed” forms) in the East Caucasian (Nakh-Dagestanian) languages. These languages are spoken in a relatively small territory in the Northeast Caucasus and partly in Transcaucasia. It is part of a larger area ranging from the Balkans to Central Asia (including the Caucasus), where similar verb forms are found. It is considered probable that these forms arose among diff erent languages spoken in this area as a result of language contact with Turkic languages. For some languages of this area (e.g. Armenian and Georgian), this hypothesis has been confi rmed. For the East Caucasian languages, this question has not been studied yet. This article is the fi rst attempt to make preliminary assessment of the probability of this hypothesis. First of all, the formal characteristics of these forms in the East Caucasian languages are discussed, as well as their genetic and areal distribution among the languages of the family. It is claimed that this distribution is not trivial. Three distinct zones can be distinguished in the East Caucasian area: more grammaticalised forms are common in the northwest, less grammaticalised expressions are characteristic of the central zone, while they are almost absent in the southern part of the region. It remains unclear which specifi c Turkic language from this region could have acted as a source language, and it is not possible at this point to establish the exact ways in which the feature in question was spread through the East Caucasian family. The specifi c distribution outlined in this paper does, however, indicate that Turkic languages have played a role in the distribution of this feature.
evidentiality, Nakh-Daghestanian languages, East Caucasian languages, language contact, morphology, Turkic languages, verbal morphology, grammaticalisation, Caucasian languages, perfect, areal typology
  1. Aikhenvald A. (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford.
  2. van den Berg H. (2001) Dargi Folktales. Oral Stories from the Caucasus, with an Introduction to Dargi Grammar. Leiden.
  3. van den Berg H. (2005) “The East Caucasian Language Family”. Lingua, 115, pp. 147–190.
  4. Bybee J., Perkins R., Pagliuca W. (1994) The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago.
  5. Chafe W., Nichols J. (eds.) (1986) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. New Jersey.
  6. Chirikba V. (2008) “The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund”, in P. Muysken (ed.) From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics. Amsterdam. Pp. 25–93.
  7. Dahl Ö. (1985) Tense and aspect systems. Oxford.
  8. Dobrushina N. R. (2011) “Mnogoiazychie v Dagestane kontsa XIX — nachala XXI v.: popytka kolichestvennoi otsenki” [“Multilingualism in Daghestan of the Late 19th — Early 21st Centuries: an Attempt at a Quantitative Evaluation”]. Voprosy iazykoznaniia, 2011, 4, pp. 61–80 (in Russian).
  9. Erdal M. (2004) A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden.
  10. Forker D. (2018) “Evidentiality in Nakh-Daghestanian Languages”, in A. Y. Aikhenvald (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford. Pp. 490–509.
  11. Friedman V. (2007) “The Expression of Speaker Subjectivity in Lak (Daghestan)”, in Z. Guentchéva, J. Landabaru (eds.) L’énonciation médiatisée II. Le traitement épistémologique de l’information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes. Louvain; Paris. Pp. 351–376.
  12. Gardani F., Arkadiev P., Amiridze N. (eds.) (2014) Borrowed Morphology. Berlin.
  13. Guentchéva Z., Landabaru J. (eds.) (2007) L’énonciation médiatisée II. Le traitement épistémologique de l’information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes. Louvain; Paris.
  14. Johanson L., Utas B. (eds.) (2000) Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighboring Languages. Berlin; New-York.
  15. Johanson L. (2018) “Turkic Indirectivity”, in A. Aikhenvald (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford. Pp. 510–524.
  16. Khalilova Z. (2011) “Evidentiality in Tsezic Languages”. Linguistic Discovery, 9/2, pp. 30–48.
  17. Kibrik A., Kodzasov S., Olovjannikova I. (1972) Fragmenty Grammatiki Khinalugskogo iazyka [Fragments of Khinalug Grammar]. Moscow (in Russian).
  18. Koryakov Y. (2006) Atlas kavkazskikh Iazykov [Atlas of Caucasian Languages]. Moscow (in Russian).
  19. Maisak T. (2018) “Structural and Functional Variations of the Perfect in Lezgic Languages”, in K. Eide, M. Fryd (eds.) The Perfect Volume. Amsterdam.
  20. Maisak T., Merdanova S. (2002) “Kategoriia evidentsial’nosti v agul’skom iazyke” [“Category of Evidentiality in Agul”]. Kavkazovedenie, 2002, 1, pp. 102–112 (in Russian).
  21. Maisak T., Tatevosov S. (2001) “Evidentsial’nost’” [“Evidentiality”], in A. Kibrik (ed.) Bagvalinskii iazyk. Grammatika. Teksty. Slovari [The Bagvalal Language. Grammar. Texts. Glossaries]. Moscow. Pp. 293–317 (in Russian).
  22. Maisak T., Tatevosov S. (2007) “Beyond Evidentiality and Mirativity: Evidence from Tsakhur”, in Z. Guentchéva, J. Landabaru (eds.) L’énonciation médiatisée II. Le traitement épistémologique de l’information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes. Louvain; Paris. Pp. 377–406.
  23. Maisak T., Plungian V., Semenova K. (eds.) (2016) Tipologiia perfekta [Typology of the Perfect]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  24. Molochieva Z. (2010) Tense, Aspect and Mood in Chechen. Leipzig.
  25. Moroz G. Lingtypology: Easy Mapping for Linguistic Typology, available at https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lingtypology (16.11.2018).
  26. Nedjalkov V., Jakhontov S. (1988) “The Typology of Resultative Constructions”, in V. Nedjalkov (ed.) Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam. Pp. 3–62.
  27. Nichols J. (2011) Ingush Grammar. Berkley.
  28. Plungian V. (2001) “The Place of Evidentiality within the Universal Grammatical Space”. Journal of Pragmatics, 2001, 33, pp. 349–357.
  29. Plungian V. (2010) “Types of Verbal Evidentiality Marking: an Overview”, in G. Diewald, E. Smirnova (eds.) Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, Berlin. Pp. 15–58.
  30. Tatevosov S. (2001) “From Resultatives to Evidentials: Multiple Uses of the Perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages”. Journal of Pragmatics, 2001, 33, pp. 443–464.
Verhees Samira
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: National Research University Higher School of Economics; 21/4 Staraia Basmannaya, 105066, Moscow, Russian Federation;
Post: intern-researhcer in the Linguistic Convergence Laboratory;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3479-7420;
Email: jh.verhees@gmail.com.
The article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project '5-100'