Optative constructions in Meadow Mari and Hill Mari

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

Grammaticalization of optative forms and constructions remains understudied from a typological perspective. The goal of this study is to describe and investigate the grammaticalization paths of optative constructions in four Mari lects, namely in Morki-Sernur Mari, Volga Mari (< Meadow Mari) and in the Hill Mari lects of Mikryakovo and Kuznetsovo.

The following constructions are considered: 1) construction with the 3rd person imperative (jussive) form, 2) construction with the -aš-infinitive, 3) construction with the non-past 1SG form (NPST.1SG), 4) construction with the debitive form in -šaš. The compatibility of these constructions with different subjects (namely, 1SG and 3SG) is discussed. As it turns out, the optative construction with jussive retains the restrictions of the original form: it is only possible with 3rd person subjects. The construction with the infinitive in three lects is only compatible with 1SG subjects, while in the Volga dialects it can be used with 3SG subjects as well. Paradoxically, the construction with NPST.1SG form is used with 3SG subjects. Finally, the optative use of the form in -šaš in Meadow Mari lects is restricted to 1SG subjects, whereas in Hill Mari it can be used with both 1SG and 3SG subjects.

Possible grammaticalization mechanisms for these constructions are discussed. The construction with jussive develops from the imperative form, which is “softened” by the retrospective shift particle. The optative construction with infinitive emerges from independent uses of the -aš infinitive. The most important for the diachronic typology of optative is the construction with the NPST.1SG form. I propose that it had grammaticalized from counterfactual uses of the NPST.1SG form. Finally, the fourth optative construction developed based on the debitive form in -šaš.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Aigul N. Zakirova

Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: aigul.n.zakirova@gmail.com

Junior Research Fellow

Russian Federation, 1 bld. 1 Bolshoy Kislovsky Lane, Moscow, 125009

References

  1. Bybee, J.L., Perkins, R.D., Pagliuca, W. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world (Vol. 196). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
  2. Plungian, V.A. Antirezultativ: do i posle rezultata [Anti-Resultative: Before and After the Result]. V.A. Plungian (ed.). Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki. Vyp. 1: Grammaticheskie kategorii [Studies in Grammatical Theory. Vol. 1: Grammatical Categories]. Moscow: Russkie slovari Publ., 2001, pp. 50–88. (In Russ.)
  3. Plungian, V.A, van der Auwera, J. Towards a typology of discontinuous past marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung. 2006, No. 59(4), pp. 317–349.
  4. Mordashova, D.D., Zakirova, A.N. Optativnaja zona [The Optative Zone]. E.V. Kashkin (ed.). Elementy gornomarijskogo jazyka v tipologicheskom osveshhenii [Elements of Hill Mari in a Typological Perspective]. Moscow: Buki Vedi Publ., 2023, pp. 366–372. (In Russ.)
  5. Ivanov, I.G. Marij dialektologij. Universitetyse student-vlaklan tunemme kniga [Mari Dialectology. University Student’s Book]. Yoshkar-Ola: Marijskij gosudarstvennyj universitet Publ., 1981. (In Mari)
  6. Hajdu, P. Uralskie jazyki i narody [Uralic Languages and People]. Moscow: Progress Publ., 1985. (In Russ.)
  7. Bereczki, G. Grundzüge der tscheremissischen Sprachgeschichte [Basic linguistic history of Mari]. Т. 1. Universitas Szegediensis de Attila József Nominata, 1994. (In German)
  8. Palmer, F.R. Mood and modality. Cambridge university press, 2001.
  9. Dobrushina, N. The optative domain in East Caucasian languages. Tense, aspect, modality and finiteness in East Caucasian languages, 95, 130. 2011.
  10. Gusev, V.Ju. Tipologija imperativa [Typology of Imperative]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kultury Publ., 2013. (In Russ.)
  11. Dobrushina, N.R. Naklonenie i modalnost [Mood and Modality]. Kibrik, A.E., Tatevosov, S.G., Lyutikova, E.A., Kazenin, K.I (eds.). Bagvalinskij yazyk: Grammatika. Teksty. Slovari [Bagvalal Language: Grammar. Texts. Dictionaries]. Moscow: Nasledie Publ., 2001. (In Russ.)
  12. Dobrushina, N., van der Auwera, J., Goussev, V. The Optative. Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/73, Accessed on 2024-02-29.)
  13. Grosz, P.G. On the grammar of optative constructions. PhD Thesis. Massachusetts, 2011.
  14. Rifkin, J. If only if only were if plus only. Proceedings of CLS 36.1 Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, 2000, pp. 369–384.
  15. Biezma, M. Optatives: Deriving desirability from sca- lar alternatives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 15, pp. 117–132). 2011.
  16. Sadock, J.M., Zwicky, A.M. Speech Acts Distinctions in Syntax. T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. I. Cambridge: CUP, 1985, pp. 155–196.
  17. Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H., Seongha, R. World lexicon of grammaticalization, 2nd Edn, 2019. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Van der Auwera, J., Plungian, V. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 1998, pp. 79–124.
  19. Vanhove, M. A diachronic semantic map of the Optative negative in Beja (North-Cushitic). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft. 2022, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 263–277.
  20. Mordashova, D.D. Analiticheskie konstrukcii s formami glagola ‘byt’’v gornomarijskom jazyke [Analytical Constructions Using Forms of the Verb ‘to be’ in Hill Mari]. Uralo-altajskie issledovanija [Ural-Altai Studies]. 2017. No. 04 (27), pp. 59–76. (In Russ.)
  21. Mordashova, D.D. Formy imperativnoj serii [Forms of the Imperative Series]. E.V. Kashkin (ed.). Elementy gornomarijskogo jazyka v tipologicheskom osveshhenii [Elements of Hill Mari in a Typological Perspective]. Moscow: Buki Vedi Publ., 2023, pp. 350–366. (In Russ.)
  22. Zakirova, A.N. Gornomarijskij modalnyj pokazatel -šaš, parametr sujektivnosti i uchastniki rechevogo akta [The Hill Mari Modal Marker -šaš, the Parameter of Subjectivity and Speech-Act Participants]. D.F. Mishhenko (ed.). 14th Conference on Typology and Grammar for Young Scholars (St. Petersburg, 23–25 November 2017). Book of abstracts. St. Petersburg: ILI RAN Publ., 2017, pp. 61–64. (In Russ.)
  23. Zakirova, A.N. Optativ i debitiv v gornomarijskom: upotrebleniya v polipredikacii i ogranicheniya na podlezhashchee [Optative and Debitive in Hill Mari: Uses in Polypredication and Restrictions on the Subject]. Talk at the conference: Malye yazyki v bolshoj lingvistike [Small Languages in Big Linguistics]. 17–18 April 2020, Moscow State University, online. (In Russ.)
  24. Pengitov, N.T. Sovremennyj marijskij jazyk: morfologija [Modern Mari: Morphology]. Yoshkar-Ola: Marijskoe knizhnoe izdatelstvo Publ., 1961. (In Russ.)
  25. Alhoniemi, A. Grammatik des Tscheremissischen (Mari) [A Grammar of Mari]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 1993. (In German)
  26. Petuhova, A.N. Detskij folklor naroda mari [Children Folklore of the Mari People]. Yoshkar-Ola, 2004. (In Russ.)
  27. Vasikova, L.P. Strukturnye shemy predlozhenij v marijskom jazyke [Structural Schemes of Sentences in Mari]. Sovetskoe finno-ugrovedenie [Soviet Finno-Ugric Studies]. 1982, No. 4, pp. 271–282. (In Russ.)
  28. Vasikova, L.P. Modalnye znachenija prichastij budushhego vremeni v sovremennom marijskom jazyke [Modal Meanings of Future Participles in Modern Mari]. Voprosy marijskogo jazyka [Issues in the Mari Language]. Yoshkar-Ola, 1975, pp. 46–55. (In Russ.)
  29. Dobrushina, N.R. Soslagatelnoe naklonenie v russkom jazyke: opyt issledovanija grammaticheskoj semantiki [Subjunctive in Russian: Study of the Grammatical Semantics]. Praha: Animedia Company, 2016. (In Russ.)
  30. Paducheva, E.V. Konstrukcija s nezavisimym infinitivom. Materialy dlja proekta korpusnogo opisanija russkoj grammatiki [Construction with the Independent Infinitive. Materials for the Corpus Description of Russian Grammar] (http://rusgram.ru). (In Russ.)
  31. Simonenko, A. Microvariation in Finno-Ugric possessive markers.Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 43) (Vol. 2, pp. 127–140). N.Y.: The City University of New York.
  32. Nikolaeva, I. Possessive affixes in the pragmatic structuring of the utterance: Evidence from Uralic. International Symposium on Deictic Systems и Quantification in Languages Spoken in Europe и North и Central Asia: Collection of papers. 2003, pp. 130–145.
  33. Siegl, F. The Non-Possessive Use of PX2P in Nganasan и Dolgan – a reappraisal. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen. 2015, No. 39, pp. 67–100.
  34. Tuzharov, G.M. Grammaticheskie kategorii imeni sushhestvitelnogo v marijskom jazyke [Grammatical Categories of the Noun in Mari]. Yoshkar-Ola: Marijskoe knizhnoe izdatelstvo Publ., 1987. (In Russ.)
  35. Nevskaya, I. The typology of the prospective in Turkic languages. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung-STUF, 2005, No. 58(1), pp. 111–123.
  36. Isanbaev, N.I. Marijsko-tjurkskie jazykovye kontakty Ch. 1. Tatarskie i bashkirskie zaimstvovanija [Mari-Turkic Language Contacts. Part 1. Tatar and Bashkir borrowings]. Yoshkar-Ola: Marijskoe knizhnoe izdatelstvo Publ., 1993. (In Russ.)
  37. Layton, B.A Coptic Grammar. With Chrestomathy and Glossary. Sahidic Dialect. Harassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2000.
  38. Mordashova, D.D. Retrospektivnyj sdvig [Retrospective Shift]. E.V. Kashkin (ed.). Elementy gornomarijskogo jazyka v tipologicheskom osveshhenii [Elements of Hill Mari in a Typological Perspective]. Moscow: Buki Vedi Publ., 2023, pp. 336–349. (In Russ.)
  39. Spronck, S., Van linden, A., Gentens, C., Sol Sansiñena, M. 2020. Perspective persistence and irregular perspective shift: Mismatches in form-function pairings. Functions of Language 27(1): 1–6 [Special issue ‘Notes from the field on perspective-indexing constructions: Irregular shifts and perspective persistence’, edited by Stef Spronck, An Van linden, Caroline Gentens and María Sol Sansiñena (https://benjamins.com/catalog/fol.27.1)]
  40. Galkin, I.S. Istoricheskaja grammatika marijskogo jazyka. Morfologija [Historical Grammar of Mari. Morphology]. Yoshkar-Ola: Marijskoe knizhnoe izdatelstvo Publ., 1964. (In Russ.)
  41. Pavlov, I.P. (ed.). Materialy po grammatike sovremennogo chuvashskogo jazyka [Materials in Modern Chuvash Grammar]. Cheboksary: Chuvashgosizdat Publ., 1957. (In Russ.)
  42. Tenishev, E.R. (ed.) Sravnitelno-istoricheskaja grammatika tjurkskih jazykov. Morfologija [Comparative Grammar of Turkic Languages. Morphology]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1988. (In Russ.)
  43. Johanson, L. Linguistic convergence in the Volga area. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 2000, Vol. 28, pp. 165–178.
  44. Ardysheva, S.M., Romanova, E.A., Saparova, D.A. Funkcii kopuly proshedshego vremeni =ʨə v malokarachkinskom govore chuvashskogo jazyka [Functions of the Past Copula =ʨə in Maloe Karachkino Chuvash]. D.F. Mishhenko (ed.). 15th Conference on Typology and Grammar for Young Scholars (St. Petersburg, 22–24 November 2018). Book of abstracts. St. Petersburg: ILI RAN Publ., 2018, pp. 7–11. (In Russ.)
  45. Romanova, E.A., Saparova, D.A. Klitika ʨə v malokarachkinskom govore chuvashskogo jazyka: kopula, pokazatel retrospektivnogo sdviga, fokusnaja chastica [Clitic ʨə in Maloe Karachkino Dialect of Chuvash: a Copula, a Retrospective Shift Marker, a Focus Particle]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Trudy instituta lingvisticheskih issledovanij [Proceedings of the Institute of Linguistics of the RAS]. 2021, Vol. 1, No. XVII, pp. 306–338. (In Russ.)

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences