1

Griffith University, Research Seminar Series 20th March, 2014

Evidentiality and related categories in Sanzhi Dargwa Diana Forker (Cairns Institute & University of Bamberg)

diana.forker@uni-bamberg.de 1. Introduction 1.1. Dargi varieties - Nakh-Daghestanian language family, Dargi subbranch - Dargi languages are spoken by about 500,000 people living in the Caucasian mountains and the Daghestanian plains - rather large consonant inventory, including a number of ejectives - predominantly dependent-marking with a rich case inventory, ergative case - gender/number marking (of the absolutive argument) and person indexing (according to a person hierarchy) on verbs and other parts of speech - in this talk I focus on Sanzhi Dargwa (South Dargi variety), approximately 150 speakers, heavily endangered since all speakers left the village more than 40 years ago

- important characteristic of Dargi verbal morphology is the aspectual system - most of the verbs have a perfective and an imperfective stem - some verb forms can only be formed from the imperfective or only from the perfective stem 1.2. Evidentiality in Nakh-Daghestanian languages - evidentiality: indication of the source of information (Aikhenvald 2004: 3; Plungian 2010: 17)

Dargi-speaking area in Daghestan

2

- most Nakh-Daghestanian languages have grammaticalized evidentiality - systems with two choices:

1. equipollent systems with two marked choices: firsthand vs. non-firsthand, e.g. Tsez Comrie & Polinsky (2007), Bezhta (Khalilova 2011), Chechen (Molochieva 2011)

2. marked non-firsthand vs. ‘everything else’, e.g. Hinuq (Forker 2014), Hunzib (van den Berg 1995: 103), Avar, and Bagvalal (Tatevosov 2001, 2007)

3. marked hearsay or reported vs. ‘everything else’, e.g. Lezgian (Haspelmath 1993), and Agul (Maisak & Merdanova 2002)

- usually conflated with the tense system and restricted to past tenses - hearsay can be expressed through particles (developing from some form of the verb ‘say’) 2. Verbal evidentiality in Sanzhi Dargwa 2.1. Resultativity - the preterite can be used with and without a copula (this concerns only the third person since this verb form cannot be used with the first or second person) - the presence of the copula conveys perfectivity/resultativity: focus on the resulting state of a situation - usually not used in personal narratives (1) b-ark-le b-i-b kelg-un=ca-b

N-inside-ADVZ N-in-N remain.PFV-PRET=COP-N ‘(The color) has remained inside.’ - the focus on the resulting state can lead to an evidential (non-firsthand) interpretation - situation: Sanijat must wash the dishes, she goes to the kitchen and sees that somebody already has washed the dishes and says: (2) uže t'alaˁħ-ne d-irc-ib=ca-d

already dishes-PL NPL-wash.PFV-PRET=COP-NPL ‘The dishes have already been washed.’

-> so she concludes from the result that someone must have washed them - if she then asks hil dircibe? ‘Who washed (them)?’, an appropriate answer of somebody who saw the event would be:

3

(3) Sanžijat-li d-irc-ib Sanzhiat-ERG NPL-wash.PFV-PRET ‘Sanzhiat washed (them).’

-> now the agent is at stake, not the result of the action [Looking out of the window and seeing a wet road, A concludes from this] (4) marka-l b-us-ib=ca-b

rain-ERG N-rain-PRET=COP-N ‘It has rained.’

- the non-firsthand interpretation can be cancelled (5) Sanijat-li t'alaˁħ-ne d-irc-ib=ca-d. dam=q'ar il Sanijat-erg dishes-PL NPL-wash.PFV-PRET=COP-NPL 1SG.DAT=PRT 3SG či-b-až-ib=da SPR-N-see.PFV-PRET=1 ‘Sanijat has washed the dishes. I saw it myself.’ 2.2. Evidentiality - evidentiality is grammatically coded in the verbal system and restricted to indicative sentences with past time reference: pluperfect - the pluperfect is built from the imperfective and the perfective stem by adding the preterite suffix, the converb suffix -le and the past enclitic =de - in the corpus the pluperfect rarely occurs - apparently not with the ergative construction when an imperfective verb stem is used, but needs to be checked - the pluperfect expresses relative past time reference and/or non-firsthand evidentiality - usually this means that the speaker concludes from an observed result that an event has taken place (6) du sa-jʁ-ij=satːina, r-ebč'-ib-le=de aba

1sg hither-come.PFV-INF=until F-die.PFV-PRET-CVB=PST mother ‘Before I came (home) my mother had already died.’

4

(7) Tawlu žaˁndaruwič b-elk'-un-ne=de Tawlu Zhandaruvich N-write.PFV-PRET-CVB=PST ‘(He) wrote Tawlu Zhandaruvich.’

(8) bahsar k'ʷah r-ič-ib-le=de iž

first silent F-occur.PFV-PRET-CVB=PST 3sg ‘First she had been silent.’

- unwitnessed does not mean uncertain or untrue, i.e. the evidential cannot be challenged, only the propositional content; B is not an adequate reaction to A (9) A: itːa-la durħ-ne karta-b-a-l b-irq'-ib-le=de 3pl.OBL-GEN boy-PL card-PL-OBL-ERG N-do.IPFV-PRET-CVB=PST

‘Their kids played cards.’

B: * il b-arx-le=kːu, at=q'ar či-b-až-ib=de itːi this N-direct-ADVZ=NEG 2sg.DAT=PRT SPR-N-see.PFV-PRET=2sg 3pl cet'-le b-irq'-ul=de=l how-ADVZ N-do.IPFV-ICVB=PST=INDQ

‘That’s not true (that you did not see it). You saw how they played!’ - if used with first person then the referent of the first person was not a conscious agent, but acted unconsciously, were drunk, etc. (10) dam Arsen či-w-až-ib-le=de

1sg.DAT Arsen SPR-M-see.PFV-PRET-CVB=PST ‘I saw Arsen.’ (as it seems, and e.g. did not recognize him)

- the referent of the first person pronoun is not necessarily the subject, but can be non-core argument - does this contradict Curnow (2003: 43)? “The notion of non-volitionality arises only in sentences which have a first person subject.” (11) dučːi du keple, ʡaˁli di-cːella w-iħ-ib-le=de

night 1sg drunk Ali 1sg.OBL-COMIT M-fight.IPFV-PRET-CVB=PST ‘(Last) night I was drunk and Ali fought with me.’

5

- can be used in questions (but this deserves further research) (12) birikːalla.ʁut'-e d-uqna d-eʁ-ib-le=de=w?

cow.parsnip-PL NPL-old NPL-go.PFV-PRET-CVB=PST=Q ‘Was the cow parsnip already ripe?’

- in some Dargi varieties (Icari, Ashti) there is a correlation between imperfectivity and evidentiality: imperfective verbs only express non-firsthand evidentiality, and not resultativity (cf. Sumbatova & Mutalov 2003, Belyaev 2012) - explanation: the respective verb suffix expresses perfectivity and non-firsthand evidentiality, but when an imperfective verb is used perfectivity cannot be conveyed, so only non-firsthand evidentiality remains 2.3. The periphrastic inferential construction - the lexical verb -už- ‘be, be at, stay, remain’ is used as an auxiliary with evidential / inferential meaning - the auxiliary predominantly has the form of the resultative (preterite + copula), but also perfect or pluperfect are attested (i.e. verb forms that by themselves express resultativity) - the lexical verb takes the converb suffix -le or the imperfective converb suffix -ul - expresses inferential meaning (13) or reasoning (15) - or highlighting surprise - sometimes only evidential meaning (no traces, mere speculation about the past and what must have happened) - common strategy in many (if not all) Dargi varieties, especially in traditional stories, e.g. the introductory formula for tales in Sanzhi is bužibcab (bužiblekːu) ‘once upon a time’ (13) il-i-l č'aˁm b-irq'-ul b-už-ib-le=kːu, qurt'

3sg-OBL-ERG chew HPL-do.IPFV-ICVB HPL-be-PRET-CVB=NEG swallow

iʁ-ul b-už-ib=ca-b χalq' do.PFV-ICVB HPL-stay-PRET=COP-HPL people ‘(It turned out that) she did not chew the people, but swallowed them.’

(14) c'il il-i-la šljaˁp'a kelg-un-ne b-už-ib-le=de

then 3sg-OBL-GEN hat remain.PFV-PRET-CVB N-stay-PRET-CVB=PST ‘Then (apparently) his hat remained there.’

6

(15) ix-tːi bahsar, ix-tːi qːuʁa-l er-b-irχ-ul 3sg-PL first 3sg-PL beautiful-ADVZ life-HPL-be.IPFV-ICVB

b-už-ib=ca-b hex-tːi, er-r-erč'-e! HPL-stay-PRET=COP-HPL 3sg-PL look-F-look.PFV-IMP ‘(It turned out) they lived well first, look!’

- in stories about the past: from a narration about the past, speculation about other people who are said to have lived close to Sanzhi, and others who are said to have come to Sanzhi and destroyed the village (16) het šaˁrʡaˁ-r-ka sa-b-ax-ul b-už-ib=ca<b>i

this Shari-ABL-ABL hither-HPL-go.IPFV-ICVB HPL-stay-PRET=COP<HPL> ‘They came from Shari (to us).’ -> can be used to narrate events that are known from hearsay

(17) [When I was a small child my father took me to Moscow to a meeting of the party.]

dam Stalin či-w-až-ib-le už-ib-le=de 1sg.DAT Stalin SPR-M-see.PFV-PRET-CVB stay-PRET-CVB=PST ‘(It turned out, that) I saw Stalin.’

3. Epistemic modality in Sanzhi Dargwa - definition of epistemic modality according to Nuyts (2001: 21): “evaluation of the chances that a certain hypothetical state of affairs under consideration (or some aspect of it) will occur, is occurring, or has occurred in a possible world” - there is a probability continuum in the evaluation ranging from absolute certainty that the state of affairs is real to absolute certainty that it is not real - Sanzhi has two periphrastic constructions expressing epistemic modality with two different auxiliaries that semantically cover the same range of meanings 3.1. Epistemic modality with the auxiliary -urkː- ‘find’ - the perfective stem is only used as an affective verb with the meaning ‘find’ - the imperfective is used with the meaning ‘find’ and as auxiliary with the epistemic meaning ‘probably, be possible’: -urkː-ar (i.e. conditional / present suffix -ar: agreement with third person) - looks at first glance like an almost completely grammaticalized adverb, but

7

the auxiliary can take at least three verbal suffixes in the epistemic construction, including a suffix expressing agreement with the first person

its default position is the default position for auxiliaries: following the lexical verb the lexical verb may be non-finite (18), (19), (20) it can be negated and then it behaves like any other auxiliary: it expressed the

negation of the predication (i.e. has scope over the lexical verb) (22) it can be the only verb in the clause and still have the epistemic meaning (21)

- the gender/number agreement is variable (i.e. can be with the ergative) (BUT maybe this is the case for adverbials, too) - the lexical verb (if there is any) is responsible for the temporal reference (18), (19) - lexical verb: is in the preterite, or preterite + converb -le, or the imperfective converb, or an existential copula, etc. (18) b-erčː-ib-le Ø-urkː-ar hel-i-l=ra

N-drink.PFV-PRET-CVB M-find.IPFV-PRS 3sg-OBL-ERG=and ‘He also drank probably.’

- agreement with the ergative (that has been omitted) (19) iχ-i-j b-alχ-ul b-urkː-ar ču-la t'ama.hama

3sg-OBL-DAT N-know.IPFV-ICVB N-find.IPFV-PRS REFL.PL-GEN scandal ‘He probably knows their scandal.’

(20) ca kilumetru k'e-b b-urkː-ar hextːu-b

one kilometre exist-N N-find.IPFV-PRS there-N ‘It is probably one kilometre there.’

(21) helij gu-r arg-an-qːel, durħuˁ nik'a-ce

therefore down-ABL go.IPFV-PTCP-WHEN boy small-ATTR

Ø-určː-i=q'al il M-find.IPFV-HAB.PST=PRT this ‘Therefore when he went away (from home) the son was probably small.’

(22) wmešiwatsja iχʷ-ij b-ikː-ul a-b-urkː-ar mingle be.PFV-INF N-want.IPFV-ICVB NEG-N-find.IPFV-PRS

‘(He) probably does not want to get involved.’

8

- similar constructions involving a verb ‘find’ are attested in many other Daghestanian languages (including other Dargi varieties): Hinuq and other Tsezic languages, Avar, Archi (23) Hinuq rokʼo gosme aže Ø-iɬi Ø-aši-š me

root without tree M-similar M-find-PST 2sg ‘You (male) turned out to be like a tree without roots.’

3.2. Epistemic modality with the auxiliary -irχʷ- / -iχʷ- ‘be, become, be able’ - used as a lexical verb with the meaning ‘be, become, be able’ - also used for the formation of free-choice indefinite pronouns of the ever-series (by means of adding a concessive marker) - and as an auxiliary to convey the epistemic modality (almost exclusively with the perfective stem) - when used as an auxiliary it is usually inflected with the infinitive -iχʷ-ij; occasionally -ar (third person present / conditional suffix), -an-ne (modal participle + ?) - similar properties as the other epistemic modality construction: position in the clause, scope in negation, temporal reference, lexical verb is finite or non-finite, used in copula clauses - agreement: gender agreement with the absolutive argument (just like lexical verb) - similar construction in attested in other Dargi varieties (Icari Dargwa, Sumbatova & Mutalov 2003: 110) (24) χːula dard χe-b b-iχʷ-ij

big sorrow exist-N N-be.PFV-INF ‘(He) has probably big sorrows.’

(25) ik' admi Ø-iχʷ-ij

this.up person M-be.PFV-INF ‘This is probably a man.’

(26) nuˁq-be aq-d-arq'-ib=ca-d ik'-i-l=ra,

arm-pl high-NPL-do.PFV-PRET=COP-NPL 3sg-OBL-ERG=and

b-ikː-ul a-b-iχʷ-ij N-want.IPFV-ICVB NEG-N-be.PFV-INF ‘He also rose up his arms; he probably does not want to (be taken away).’

9

- development: from a conditional construction? - -iχʷ- is used as an auxiliary in conditional constructions (taking a conditional suffix, occasionally together with the conjunction raχle ‘if’) (27) iž-i-l il taˁkla a-haʔ-ib, “sa-r-b-uqː-a ca,

3sg-OBL-ERG 3sg simply NEG-say.PFV-PRET ANTE-ABL-N-carry.PFV-IMP one

raχle ašːi-j b-al a-b-irk-an b-iχʷ-ar!” if 2pl-DAT N-fit NEG-N-happen.IPFV-PTCP N-be.PFV-COND.3 ‘She did not say this in vain, “Take one away, if it does not fit for you!”’

(28) han d-irk-an-te d-iχʷ-ar

remember NPL-occur.IPFV-PTCP-ATTR.PL NPL-be.PFV-COND.3 ‘if these are his memories’ or ‘these are probably his memories’

4. A short glance at other categories 4.1. Epistemic particles and verbal modality - there are a few particles with modal meaning, e.g. belki ‘possibly’, ʡaˁʁunil ‘necessarily, needed’ (29) belki iž bahsar ca-b=el

it.is.possible this first COP-N=INDQ ‘This is probably the beginning.’

- the participle -an is used for the formation of the future tense and for deontic modality (‘should, must’) (30) ʁaj r-ik'-ul r-irχʷ-an=de heχ

word F-say.IPFV-ICVB F-become.IPFV-PTCP=PST 3sg ‘She must have been quarreling.’ 4.2. The enclitic =el - used in embedded interrogatives (polar interrogatives, WH-interrogative, etc.) (9B) and for the formation of indefinite pronouns (34)

10

- very often there is no matrix complement-taking predicate: insubordination, i.e. “the conventionalized main clause use of what, on prima facie grounds, appear to be formally subordinate clauses” (Evans 2007) - can be used with a converb, but the resulting clause is finite (33) - used when speakers are expressing thought whose truth they do not vouch for, when they advance a hypothesis, asking themselves (rhetorical questions) (31) c'il abuχar tusnaq-le w-ič-ib=el

then then prison-SPR M-occur.PFV-PRET=INDQ ‘Then he when to prison or so / or what.’

- often in the phrase ce ca-b=el ‘what it might be, whatever’ lit. ‘what be-N-INDQ’ (32) masliʡaˁt b-arq'-ij saˁ-q'-un-ne=jal cara ce

reconciliation N-do.PFV-INF hither-go.PFV-PRET-CVB=INDQ other what

ca-b=el COP-N=INDQ ‘He came out to reconcile them or so or there is something else.’

(33) heš-tː-a-l sud b-irq'-ul=el this-PL-OBL-ERG trial N-do.IPFV-ICVB=INDQ ‘They are making a trial or what.’

4.3. Developing hearsay evidentiality - present tense form of the verb -ik'ʷ- ‘say’ that occurs in historical narrations about the past - this is not the matrix verb of a reported speech construction, i.e. no author can be retrieved, human-plural agreement; and it is not simply a quotative particle (-ik’ul) - in (35) combined with the auxiliary that is used in the inferential evidential construction (34) ik' gu gu-r-asː-ib=ca-b b-ik'ʷ-ar hil=el

3sg down down-ABL-buy.PFV-PRET=COP-N HPL-say.IPFV-PRS who.ERG=INDQ ‘Somebody has bought that (place), they say.’ (35) ištːu-b tːura b-ax-ul b-už-ib=ca-b b-ik'ʷ-ar

here-HPL outside HPL-go.IPFV-ICVB HPL-stay-PRET=COP-HPL HPL-say.IPFV-PRS ‘They apparently went away there, they say.’

11

5. Summary - Sanzhi Dargwa expresses evidentiality and epistemic modality in the typical Daghestanian way - non-firsthand knowledge is marked and opposed to unmarked forms that are neutral with respect to evidentiality - among the categories characterizing evidential systems (cf. Willett 1988, Aikhenvald 2004) Sanzhi Dargwa covers: inferred second hand

knowledge notes results reasoning

copula + - - pluperfect + + ? inferential + + + stylistic device in folklore - a range of construction for epistemic modality:

periphrastic verb forms with auxiliaries complementizer =el particles

- evolving hearsay evidentiality Abbreviations ABL ablative, ADVZ adverbializer, ATTR attributive, COMIT comitative, COND conditional, COP copula, CVB converb, DAT dative, ERG ergative, F feminine, GEN genitive, HAB habitual, HPL human plural, ICVB imperfective converb, IMP imperative, INDQ indirect question, INF infinitive, IPFV imperfective, M masculine, N neuter, NPL neuter plural, NEG negative, OBL oblique stem, PFV perfective, PL plural, PRET preterite, PRS present, PRT particle, PST past, PTCP participle, Q question enclitic, REFL reflexive, SG singular, SPR location ‘on’ References Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Belyaev, Oleg. 2012. Aspektual’no-temporala’naja Sistema aštynskogo darginskogo. In V.

Plungian (ed.) Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki. Vol. 6. Tipologija aspektual’niyx sistem i kategorij. (Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Vol. VIII), 181–227. St. Peterburg: Nauka.

Comrie, Bernard & Maria Polinsky. 2007. Evidentials in Tsez. In Zlatka Guentchéva & Jon Landaburu. L’énonciation médiatisée II. Paris/Louvain: Peeters, 335–350.

12

Curnow, Tim. 2003. Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language 27, 39–60.

Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.) Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Forker, Diana. 2014. The grammar of knowledge in Hinuq. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.) The grammar of knowledge, 52–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: de Gruyter. Khalilova, Zaira. 2011. Evidentiality in Tsezic languages. Linguistic Discovery 9, 30–48 Maisak, Timur & Solmaz Merdanova. 2002. Kategorija evidencial’nosti v agul’skom jazyke

[The category of evidentiality in Agul] Kavkazovedenie 1, 102–112. Molochieva, Zarina. 2011. Tense, aspect, and mood in Chechen. Ph.D. dissertation, University

of Leipzig, Leipzig. Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic

perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Plungian, Vladimir. 2010. Types of verbal evidentiality marking: An overview. In Gabriele

Diewald & Elena Smirnova (eds.) Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages, 15–58. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Sumbatova Nina. R. & Rasul O. Mutalov. 2003. A grammar of Icari Dargwa. München: Lincom Europe.

Tatevosov, Sergei. 2001. From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Dagestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 443–464

Tatevosov, Sergei. 2007. Evidencial’nost’ i admirativ v bagvalinskom jazyke [Evidentiality and admirativity in Bagwalal]. In Chrakovskij, Viktor S. (ed.) Evidencial’nost’ v jazykax Evropy i Azii. Moscow: Nauka.

Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12, 51–97.

van den Berg, Helma. 1995. A grammar of Hunzib. Munich: Lincom.