Cover not available
Part of
On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia
Edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Lindsay J. Whaley
[Studies in Language Companion Series 164] 2014
► pp. 339–378

Evidentiality in Dzungar Tuvan

| Goethe University
Dzungar Tuvan is a Turkic language variety spoken in North-West China. This article describes the strategies of Dzungar Tuvan to express information source both in finite and infinite sentences. In finite sentences, the interplay between the suffixes -D, GAn, -(I)pdur and the copula irgin provide the means to distinguish direct-perceptive, inferential and reportive type of evidentiality. The functions of these elements are, however, text type dependent. Regarding infinite or a temporal interpretation, can be subordinated to an omitted sentences, the direct or indirect reading of perception verbs will be discussed, which depends on the aspecto-temporal marking of the complement predicate. Converbial -sA clauses, which allow a conditional perception clause to which the finite main clause constitutes a complement.
Keywords: direct perception, Dzungar Tuvan, explicit evidentiality marking, inference, reported information, text type dependent speaker’s perspective, Turkic
Published online: 17 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.164.12rin
References (26)
References
Arančin, Ju.L. et al. 2001. Istorija Tuvy. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar
Allkemper, Allo & Eke, Norbert Otto 2006. Literaturwissenschaft. Paderborn: W. Fink.Google Scholar
Comrie Bernard 2000. Evidentials: semantics and history. In Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, Lars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds), 1-12. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hillary 1992. Towards a typology of aspect in Sinitic languages. In Zhongguo Jingnei Yuyan ji Yuyanxue: Hanyu Fangyan (Chinese Languages and Linguistics: Chinese dialects) 1.1: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics, July 20–22 1990, 67–106. Taipei: Academia SinicaGoogle Scholar
Čeremisina, Maja Ivanovna, et al. 1986. Strukturnye tipy sintetičeskix polipredikatnyx konstrukcii v jazykax raznyx sistem. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar
Erdal Marcel 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Glück Helmut 2005. Metzler Lexikon Sprache. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.Google Scholar
Golden, Peter B. 1992. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Isxakov, Fazil Garifovič & Pal'mbax, Aleksandr Adol‘fovič 1961. Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija. Moskow: Izdatel’stvo vostočnoj literatury.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars 1971. Aspekt im Türkischen. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.Google Scholar
Johanson Lars 1994. Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora. In Tense Systems in the European Languages, 247–266. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
2000. Turkic indirectives. In Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, Lars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds), 61-88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars 2003. Evidentiality in Turkic. In Studies in Evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 273-390. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Indirective sentence types. Turkic Languages 10: 73–89.Google Scholar
Khiis, Gansux 2009. Ocobennosti tuvinskoj reči žitelej Cengela. Avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie učenoj ctepeni kandidata filologičeskix nauk. Novosibirsk.Google Scholar
Mawkanuli, Talant 1999. Phonology and Morphology of Jungar Tuva. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.
2001. The Jungar Tuvas: Language and national identity in the PRC. Central Asian Survey 20(4): 497–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Jungar Tuvan Texts. Bloomington IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Monguš, Marina V. 2002. Tuvincy Mongolii i Kitaja. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina Anatolevna 2005. Polipredikativnyx konstrukcii, obrazuemye formoj na -SA v šorskom jazyke. In Altajskie jazyki i vostočnaja filologija, Bičeldej, et al. (eds), 291-300. Moskow: Vostočnaja literatura, RAN.Google Scholar
Rind-Pawlowski, Monika 2014a. Nebensatzbildung im Dzungar-Tuvinischen. PhD dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin.
2014b. Text types and evidentiality in Dzungar Tuvan. Turkic Languages.Google Scholar
Sat, Š.Č. 1968. O govore nacelenija Tere-Xolja. In Sbornik naučno-metodičeskix statej. Kyzyl: Gumanitarnye nauki.Google Scholar
. 1987. Tïva Dialektologija. Kyzyl.Google Scholar
Seren, Polina Sergeevna 2006. Tere-xol'skij dialekt tuvinskogo jazyka. Abakan: Naučnoe Izdanie.Google Scholar
Wang, Li. 1957. Hanyu Shigao (Draft History of Chinese). Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

ÜZÜM, Melike
2022. Marking of Evidentiality in the Context of First Person Participation in the Works of Mehmet Âkif Ersoy. ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi (ODÜSOBİAD) DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.