ISSN: 2306-5737E-ISSN: 2658-4069
Acta Linguistica Petropolitana
Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies
ISSN: 2306-5737E-ISSN: 2658-4069
Acta Linguistica Petropolitana
Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies 

Clitic ʨə in Maloe Karachkino dialect of Chuvash: A copula, a retrospective shift marker, a focus particle

DOI:10.30842/alp23065737171306338
PDF, 498.58 kb
Romanova Ye. A., Saparova D. A. Klitika ʨə v malokarachkinskom govore chuvashskogo yazyka: kopula, pokazatel retrospektivnogo sdviga, fokusnaya chastitsa. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 2021. 17(1): 306–338.

In this paper, we consider the distribution of the clitic ʨə / ʨë in the Maloe Karachkino (Poshkart) dialect of Chuvash. The study builds on data collected during the field trips to Maloe Karachkino village in 2017–2019. We identified a wide range of functions with this marker. In this paper, we separately consider the usage of ʨə in non-verbal and verbal predications. In non-verbal predications, the clitic ʨə performs the function of a copula of the past tense. It can attach to non-verbal predicates or to the verb pol- ‘be’, with its usage in both contexts only limited to direct evidentiality contexts. This marker can also attach to both the predicate and the focused phrase. Our analysis of the distribution of the clitic in verbal predications shows that in Maloe Karachkino Chuvash, when attached to verb forms the marker ʨə, can be used in a wide range of contexts that are usually associated with a marker of retrospective shift in the languages of the world. We identified the following functions: the pluperfect marker, the discontinuous imperfect marker, the marker used in the protasis and apodosis of irrealis and counterfactual condition clauses, the optative marker, and the permissive question marker. We established that the clitic can stand after the predicate or occupy the Wackernagel’s position (i.e. be attached to the first phrase in the clause). When attached to a non-predicative component, ʨə can express contrastive focus (in direct evidentiality contexts) or optative meanings. Our findings also show that there can be more than one ʨə in one sentence.

Keywords
Chuvash, non-verbal predication, contrastive focus, pluperfect, irrealis, counteractive conditional, permissive question
References
Ashmarin 1898
N. I. Ashmarin.Materialy dlya issledovaniya chuvashskogo yazyka [Materials for the Study of the Chuvash Language]. Kazan: Tipo-litografi ya Imperatorskogo universiteta, 1898.
Büring 2016
D. Büring. (Contrastive) topic. C. Féry, S. Ishihara (eds.).The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. P. 64–85.
Church 1981
E. Church.Le système verbal du wolof. Dakar: CLAD, 1981.
Curnow 2002
T. J. Curnow. Types of interaction between evidentials andfirst-person subjects. Anthropological Linguistics. 2002. Vol. 44. No. 2. P. 178–196.
Dahl 1997
Ö. Dahl. The relation between past time reference and counterfactuality: A new look. A. Athanasiadou, R. Dirven (eds.).On Conditionals Again. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1997. P. 97–114.
Dobrushina 2009
N. R. Dobrushina. Semantika chastitsby i b [Semantics of particles by and b]. K. L. Kiseleva, V. A. Plungian, E. V. Rahilina, S. G. Tatevosov (eds.). Korpusnyye issledovaniya po russkoy grammatike [Corpus Studies on Russian Grammar]. Moscow: Probel, 2009. P. 283–313.
Heine, Kuteva 2002
B. Heine, T. Kuteva.World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. DOI: 10.1017/ CBO9780511613463.
Johanson 1995
L. Johanson. On Turkic converb clauses.M. Haspelmath, E. König (eds.). Converbs in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995. P. 313–347. DOI: 10.1515/9783110884463-010.
Kholodilova 2016
M. Kholodilova. Moksha non-verbal predication. K. Shagal, H. Arjava (eds.).Mordvin Languages in the Field. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2016. P. 229–260.
Kozlov 2017
A. A. Kozlov. Gornomariyskaya chastitsaok i grani emfaticheskoy identichnosti [Hill Mary particle ok and emphatic identity edges]. E. A. Lyutikova, A. V. Zimmerling (eds.). Tipologiya morfosintaksicheskikh parametrov. Materialy mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii [Typology of Morphosyntaclic Parameters. Materials of the International Conference]. Vol. 4. Moscow: The Pushkin State Russian Language Institute, 2017. P. 240–254.
Levitskaya 1976
L. S. Levitskaya.Istoricheskaya morfologiya chuvashskogo yazyka [Historical Morphology of the Chuvash Language]. Moscow: Nauka, 1976.
Mithun 1995
M. Mithun. On the relativity of irreality. J. Bybee, S. Fleischman (eds.).Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1995. P. 367–388. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.32.16mit.
Mordashova 2017
D. Mordashova. Hill Mari verbal constructions withə̑ l’ə̑ / ə̑ lə̑ n: Discontinuous past and beyond. K. Bellamy, A. Ionova, G. Saad (eds.). ConSOLE XXV. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics Press, 2017. P. 297–310.
Pavlov (ed.) 1957
I. P. Pavlov (ed.).Materialy po grammatike sovremennogo chuvashskogo yazyka [Materials on the Grammar of the Modern Chuvash Language]. Cheboksary: Chuvashgosizdat, 1957.
Plungian 2001
V. A. Plungian. Antirezultativ: do i posle rezultata [Antiresultative: Before and after result]. V. A. Plungian (ed.).Issledovaniya po teorii grammatiki [Studies in the Theory of Grammar]. Iss. 1: Glagolnyye kategorii [Verbal Categories]. Moscow: Russkiye slovari, 2001. P. 50–88.
Plungian 2004
V. A. Plungian. O kontrafakticheskikh upotrebleniyakh plyuskvamperfekta [On counterfactual uses of pluperfect]. Y. A. Lander, V. A. Plungian, A. Yu. Urmanchieva (eds.).Issledovaniya po teorii grammatiki [Studies in the Theory of Grammar]. Iss. 3: Irrealis i irrealnost [Irrealis and Irreality]. Moscow: Gnozis, 2004. P. 273–291.
Plungian, van der Auwera 2006
V. A. Plungian, J. van der Auwera.Towards a typology of discontinuous past marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung. 2006. Vol. 59. No. 4. P. 317–349. DOI: 10.1524/stuf.2006.59.4.317.
Savelyev 2020
A. Savelyev. Chuvash and the Bulgharic languages. M. Robbeets, A. Savelyev (eds.).The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. P. 446–464. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198804628.003.0028.
Sergeyev 1963
L. P. Sergeyev. Nekotoryye materialy dlya dialektologicheskogo atlasa chuvashskogo yazyka [Some materials for the dialectological atlas of the Chuvash language]. G. E. Kornilov (ed.).Materialy po chuvashskoy dialektologii [Materials on Chuvash Dialectology]. Iss. 2. Cheboksary: Chuvashskoye gosudarstvennoye izdatelstvo, 1963. P. 101–109.
Sichinava 2013
D. V. Sichinava.Tipologiya plyuskvamperfekta. Slavyanskiy plyuskvamperfekt [Typology of Pluperfect. Slavic Pluperfect]. Moscow: AST-Press, 2013.
Sichinava 2018
D. V. Sichinava. Chastitsabylo: poryadok slov, semantika i informatsionnaya struktura predlozheniya [Particle bylo: Word order, semantics and information structure of sentence]. Rhema. 2018. No. 1. P. 82–101.
Steele 1975
S. Steele. Past and irrealis: Just what does it all mean?International Journal of American Linguistics. 1975. Vol. 41. No. 3. P. 200–217. DOI: 10.1086/465362.
Zakirova 2019
A. N. Zakirova. Chastitsy emfaticheskoy identichnosti v povolzhskom yazykovom soyuze [Particles of emphatic identity in the Volga-Kama sprachbund].Master’s thesis. Moscow: Moscow State University, 2019.
Keywords
Chuvash, non-verbal predication, contrastive focus, pluperfect, irrealis, counteractive conditional, permissive question
E-Library.ruScopusCrossRefCyberLeninkaVAKERIH Plus