Cover not available
Part of
Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Na'ama Pat-El and Stephen Mark Carey
[Studies in Language Companion Series 200] 2018
► pp. 55–82

Chapter 3
Affective constructions in Tsezic languages

| University of California, Santa Barbara
| University of Jena
| Tsadasa Institute of Language, Literature and Art of the Dagestan Scientific Centre of the Russian Academy of Science
This article addresses affective (“experiencer”) constructions in the Tsezic languages (Nakh-Daghestanian), which represent the most frequent type of non-canonical subject constructions in these languages. They differ from transitive constructions in a number of ways that go far beyond case marking and affect various domains of grammar (e.g. inflectional morphology, complex clause structures, reflexive and reciprocal binding, etc.). In this paper, we explore morphological, syntactic and semantic features of Tsezic affective constructions from a typological perspective. We investigate variation, stability, and change between the constructions in the various Tsezic languages and try to give explanations for the observed patterns of variation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Affective predicates: Formal properties and additional functions
  • 3.Verbal inflection and derivation
    • 3.1Imperative/prohibitive
    • 3.2Intentional future
    • 3.3Causative verbs
    • 3.4Potential verbs
    • 3.5Antipassive
  • 4.Affective predicates in simple clauses
    • 4.1Biabsolutive construction
    • 4.2Reflexive and reciprocal constructions
  • 5.Affective predicates in complex clauses
  • 6.Affective predicates and extended intransitive predicates
  • 7.Is the more prominent argument of affective predicates a subject?
  • 8.From meaning to form: Affective predicates in the wider context of experiential constructions
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.200.03com
References (38)
References
Abdulaev, Arsen K. & Abdullaev, Isa K. 2010. Cezyas folklor. Leipzig–Makhachkala: Lotos.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 39–106.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2018. Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Grimm, Scott & Ahmed, Tafseer. 2006. Dative subjects. Talk presented at the NWO/DFG Workshop on Optimal Sentence Processing, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2001. Love your enemies: Affective constructions in two Daghestanian languages. In Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 90], István Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds), 59–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Oblique-case subjects in Tsez. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol.1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 113–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & van den Berg, Helma. 2006. Experiencer constructions in Daghestanian languages. In Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds), 127–154. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Forker, Diana & Khalilova, Zaira. 2011. Alignment typology, reflexives, and reciprocals in Tsezic languages. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Chundra Cathcart, I-Hsuan Chen, Greg Finley, Shinae Kang, Clare S. Sandy & Elise Stickles (eds), 32–51. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Crisp, Simon. 1983. Subject marking in some languages of Daghestan. Paper in Linguistics 16: 203–216.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael & Forker, Diana. 2009. Reconstruction of morphosyntactic function: Nonspatial usage of spatial case marking in Tsezic. Language 85: 588–617.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Eystein. 2014. The morphosyntax of the Experiencer in Early Vedic. In Perspectives on Semantic Roles, Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds), 181–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2011. Grammatical relations in Hinuq. In Languages and Cultures in the Caucasus. Papers from the International Conference “Current Advances in Caucasian Studies”, Macerata, January 21–23, 2010, Vittorio S. Tomelleri, Manana Topadze & Anna Lukianowicz (eds), 553–568. Berlin: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
. 2012. The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh-Daghestanian. Folia Linguistica 46: 75–108.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. A Grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitry. 2006. Experiencer coding in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Case, Valence and Transitivity, Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 179–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1991. On the question of deep ergativity. Papiere zur Linguistik 44/45: 5–27.Google Scholar
Isakov, Isak A. & Khalilov, Madžid Š. 2001. Gunzibsko-russkij slovar’. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Khalilov, Madžid Š. 1999. Cezsko-russkij slovar’. Maxačkala: Institut JaLI DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A Grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1994. Archi. In The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Vol. 4: The North East Caucasian Languages, II, Rieks Smeets (ed.), 297–365. Delmar NY: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
1997. Beyond subject and object: Towards a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology 1: 279–346.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Konstanty i peremennye jazyka. St. Petersburg: Aletheia.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ljutikova, Ekatеrina A. 2001. Anaforičeskie sredstva. In Bagvalinskij jazyk, Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), 615–681. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Karavannur P. & Mohanan, Tara. 1990. Dative subjects in Malayalam: Semantic information in syntax. In Verma & Mohanan (eds), 43–57.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulike. 2006. Grammaticography: The art and craft of writing grammar. In Catching Language: The Standing Challange of grammer writing. Felix K. Ameka, Alan Charles Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), 41–68. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1980. Control and Ergativity in Chechen. Chicago Linguistics Society 16: 259–268.Google Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 1990. Experiencer (dative) NPs in Marathi. In Verma & Mohanan (eds), 161–179.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245–282.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and Thematic Roles: Ergative, Accusative and Active. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 2009. A new model of metaphorization: Case systems in East Caucasian. In Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25], Klaus Uwe Panther, Linda L. Thornburg & Antonio Barcelona (eds), 147–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toldova, Svetlana J. 1999. Mestoimennye sredstva podderžanija referencii. In Èlementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii, Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), 629–674. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
van den Berg, Helma. 1995. A Grammar of Hunzib. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2007. Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya [Studies in Language Companion Series 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verma, Mandindra K. & Karavannur Puthanvettil Mohanan (eds) 1990. Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Marina Chumakina, Oliver Bond & Steven Kaye
2023. Agreement beyond the Verb, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.