1887
Volume 43, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze the clitic YUM (< ‘thing’) in Khalkha Mongolian which, in different syntactic contexts, reinforces assertiveness or expresses different shades of presumption or presupposition. The former holds for declaratives where the presence of YUM conveys the speaker’s strong subjective commitment. In question clauses, YUM is used to indicate the speaker’s subjective and often strong guess, sometimes to the point that the speaker presupposes that the proposition actually obtains. In subordinate clauses, YUM may fulfill the same function or serve as a structurally necessary nominalizer for adjectival predicates without introducing any semantic opposition. In declaratives marked as immediately perceived, YUM conveys inference via assumptive reasoning. We thus analyze YUM as a marker of subjective speaker conviction that within the Khalkha Mongolian declarative system is opposed to both simple factuality and overt evidential marking.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18050.bro
2020-01-23
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra & R. M. W. Dixon
    (eds.) 2014The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach, Kent & Robert Harnish
    1979Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barðdal, Jóhanna
    2011 The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua121(1). 60–79. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bayancoγtu
    Bayancoγtu 2002Qorcin aman ayalγun-u sudulul [A study of the Khorchin dialect]. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli-yin keblel-ün qoriy-a.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Behrens, Leila
    2012 Evidentiality, modality, focus and other puzzles. InAndrea Schalley (ed.), Practical theories and empirical practice: A linguistic perspective, 185–244. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.40.08beh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.40.08beh [Google Scholar]
  7. Binnick, Robert
    2012The past tenses of the Mongolian verb. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004216143
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216143 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bläsing, Uwe
    1984Die finit indikativischen Verbalformen im Kalmückischen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brosig, Benjamin
    2012Bilee sul ügiin utaɢ, xereglee [The meaning and function of the particle bilee]. Xel Zox’ool Sudlal5(37). 10–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2014 The aspect-evidentiality system of Middle Mongol. Ural-Altaic Studies13(2). 7–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2015a Aspect and epistemic notions in the present tense system of Khalkha Mongolian. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana11(3). 46–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2015b Negation in Mongolic. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne95. 67–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2018 Factual vs. evidential? – The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian. InAd Foolen, Helen de Hoop & Gijs Mulder (eds.), Empirical approaches to evidentiality, 45–75. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. . in preparation. Expressing intent, imminence and ire by attributing speech/thought in Mongolian.
  15. Brosig, Benjamin & Elena Skribnik
    2018 Evidentiality in Mongolic. InAlexandra Aikhenvald (ed.), Oxford handbook of Evidentiality, 554–579. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Byambasaŋ, P., C. Önörbayaŋ, B. Pürew-Očor, Ž. Sanžaa & C. Žančiwdorž
    1987Orčoŋ cagiiŋ moŋɢol xelnii ügzüin baiɢuulalt [The structure of (verbal) morphology of contemporary Mongolian]. Ulaaŋbaatar: Šinžlex uxaanii akademi.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Croft, William
    2001Radical Construction Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dummett, Michael
    1981Frege: Philosophy of language, 2nd edn.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, Adele
    1995Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. [Gotō] Goto (後藤), Ksenia
    2009 Sistema finitnych form prošedšego vremeni v kalmyckom jazyke [The system of finite past tense forms in Kalmyk]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana5(2). 124–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Guntsetseg, Dolgor
    2016Differential case marking in Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 10.2307/j.ctvc770sp
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc770sp [Google Scholar]
  22. [Gāo, Liánhuā] Guu, Lingqu-a (高莲花)
    2013 Mongγul kitad kelen-ü keterkü asaγuqu ögülebüri-yi dügümken jergecegülkü ni [A short comparison of rhetorical questions in Mongolian and Chinese]. Kele ba Orciγulγ-a 2013/3. 16–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hughes, Geoffrey
    1988Words in time: a social history of English vocabulary. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Janhunen, Juha
    2012Mongolian. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/loall.19
    https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.19 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jary, Mark
    2010Assertion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230274617
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274617 [Google Scholar]
  26. [Jīngāng] Jingan (金罡)
    2007 Mongorugo no shūjoshi yum to nihongo no “da”, “no da” nado bunmatsu keishiki no taishō kenkyū [A contrastive study of the Mongolian sentence-final particle yum and sentence-final forms such as da and no da in Japanese]. Shigen (Tōkyō Gaikokugo Daigaku Kijū Gengogaku Ronshū)3. 3–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jīngāng Jingan
    2010 Mongorugo no modaritei [Modality in Mongolian]. Tōkyō: Tōkyō Gaikokugo Daigaku Unpublished doctoral thesis.
  28. Johanson, Lars
    2006 Indirective sentence types. Turkic Languages10. 73–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kang, Sin
    2003 Hyen.tay.mong.kol.e.uy yang.thay.chem.sa.ey kwan.han yen.kwu [A study of modal particles in Modern Mongolian]. Mongkolhak14. 21–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Karlsson, Anastasia Mukhanova
    2003 Tonal gestures in Mongolian interrogatives. Phonum (Reports from the Department of Phonetics, Umeå University)9. 189–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kullmann, Rita & Dandii-Yadamiin Tserenpil
    1996Mongolian grammar. Ulaanbaatar: Admon.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lazard, Gilbert
    1999 Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other?Linguistic Typology3(1). 91–110. 10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91 [Google Scholar]
  33. Macagno, Fabrizio
    2018 A dialectical approach to presupposition. Intercultural Pragmatics15(2). 291–313. 10.1515/ip‑2018‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0008 [Google Scholar]
  34. Matthews, George
    1965Hidatsa syntax. The Hague or Den Haag: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Michaelis, Laura
    2001 Exclamative constructions. InMartin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, vol.2. Berlin: De Gruyter. 1038–1050.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Möŋx-Amɢalaŋ, Yumžiriiŋ
    1996 Moŋgol xelnii “YUM” gedeg ügiiŋ üüreg-utaɢzüiŋ onclog [The functional and semantic peculiarities of the Mongolian word “yum”]. InE. Rawdaŋ & M. Bazarragčaa (eds.), Moŋɢol yar’aanii xel, 28–52. Ulaaŋbaatar: Moŋgol Ulsiiŋ Ix Surguul’.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mukai, Shin-Ichi (向井晋一)
    2001 Mongorugo no shōten chōsei keishiki = On the focus of sentence in Mongolian. Nihon Mongorugo Gakkai Kiyō = Bulletin of the Japan Association for Mongolian Studies31. 69–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Nugteren, Hans
    2011Mongolic Phonology and the Qinghai-Gansu Languages. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pagin, Peter
    2016 Assertion. InEdward Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/assertion
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Palmer, Frank
    2001 [1986]Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schmidt-Radefeldt, Jürgen
    1977 On so-called ‘rhetorical’ questions. Journal of Pragmatics1. 375–392. 10.1016/0378‑2166(77)90029‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(77)90029-7 [Google Scholar]
  42. Seesing, Olga
    2013Die temporalen Infinitkonstruktionen im Kalmückischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Song, Jae-mog
    1997 Tense, aspect and modality in Khalkha Mongolian. London: University of London, SOAS Unpublished doctoral thesis.
  44. 2002 Grammaticalization of the verb ge- ‘to say’ in Khalkha Mongolian. Ōsaka Keizai Hōka Daigaku Sōgō Kagaku Kenkyūsho Nenpō3. 29–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Street, John C.
    1963Khalkha structure. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Svantesson, Jan-Olof
    1991Tense, mood and aspect in Mongolian. Lund University, Department of Linguistics, Working Papers38. 189–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tantucci, Vittorio
    2017 From immediate to extended intersubjectification. Language and Cognition9. 88–120. 10.1017/langcog.2015.26
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.26 [Google Scholar]
  48. Tournadre, Nicolas & LaPolla, Randy
    2014 Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area37(2). 240–263. 10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou [Google Scholar]
  49. Umetani, Hiroyuki (梅谷博之)
    2013 Classifications of some sentence-final modal particles in Khalkha Mongolian. Tokyo University Linguistic Papers33. 301–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wierzbicka, Anna
    2003 [1991]Cross-cultural pragmatics. 2nd edn.Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110220964
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220964 [Google Scholar]
  51. Baranova, Vlada
    (created 2007–2014) Narrative corpus of Kalmyk [2 hours, transcribed, glossed and translated]. Partially published inVlada Baranova & Sergei Say 2009 Kommmentarij k korpusu tekstov & Teksty [Note on texts & Texts]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana5(2). 710–852.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hán, Guójūn (韩国君), Benjamin Brosig, Hasiqimeg, Hasihuu, Mandala, Udbal, Lu Man, Celger
    2012/2016 (created). Corpus of spoken Khorchin Mongolian. 6,5 hours, audio and text, partially textgrid.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Östling, Robert & Benjamin Brosig
    2011 (created). Corpus of Khalkha Mongolian internet texts. 34,642,000 words, text file.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Saito, Yoshio (斉藤純男)
    2008The Mongolian Words in the Muqaddimat al-Adab: Romanized text and word index (as of January 2008). Tokyo. www.u-gakugei.ac.jp/%7Esaito/Text%20and%20Index.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Zolžarɢal, Baasaŋžaw & Benjamin Brosig
    2012 (created). Corpus of unscripted Khalkha Mongolian TV data. 9 hours, video & text files.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18050.bro
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18050.bro
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): assertion , evidentiality , inference , presumption and presupposition
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error