1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 46, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 46, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Although SAY-complementizers have been extensively documented, the question of the used in this function and their specific properties has received less attention. The paper focuses on the complementizer (an action nominalization of SAY), which is used with communicative reception verbs (‘hear’, ‘read’, etc.), in a dialect of Chuvash (Turkic). The main puzzle concerns the difference between and the more general complementizer (the same-subject converb of SAY) with respect to the controller of shifted first person (namely, , but not , disallows non-subject controllers). An account of this restriction based on three independent language-specific constraints is offered. An alternative account is discussed whereby (and ) are non-finite forms of SAY. The findings highlight the importance of the form of the complementizer as well as of the choice of controller for shifted 1st person in SAY-based complementation and extend the typological parameters of indexical shift.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19078.kny
2021-09-14
2024-10-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.19078.kny
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2008 Semi-direct speech: Manambu and beyond. Language Sciences30. 383–422. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.07.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2014 The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge. A cross-linguistic typology, 1–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anand, Pranav & Valentine Hacquard
    2014 Factivity, belief and discourse. In Luka Crnič and Uli Sauerland , The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim, 69–90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Anand, Pranav & Andrew Nevins
    2004 Shifty operators in changing contexts. In Robert B. Young (ed.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theoryXIV, 20–37. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. 10.3765/salt.v14i0.2913
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v14i0.2913 [Google Scholar]
  6. Anand, Pranav
    2006 De de se. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Ašmarin, Nikolaj I.
    1898 Materialy dlja izsledovanija čuvašskogo jazyka [Materials for the study of the Chuvash language]. Kazan: Tipo-litografija imperatorskago universiteta.
  8. Banfield, Ann
    1973 Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech. Foundations of Language10.1–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth & Keir Moulton
    2018 Nominalized clauses and reference to propositional content. In Robert Truswell , Chris Cummins , Caroline Heycock , Brian Rabern & Hannah Rohde , Processing of Sinn und Bedeutung21, 215–232. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, Joan
    2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cattell, Ray
    1978 The source of interrogative adverbs. Language54. 61–77. 10.2307/412999
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412999 [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, Herbert H. & Richard J. Gerrig
    1990 Quotations as demonstrations. Language66. 764–805. 10.2307/414729
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  13. Clements, George N.
    1975 The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages10: 141–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Comrie, Bernard
    1985 Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165815
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165815 [Google Scholar]
  15. Coulmas, Florian
    1986 Reported speech: Some general issues. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 1–28. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110871968.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.1 [Google Scholar]
  16. Curnow, Timothy Jowan
    2002 Three types of verbal logophoricity in African languages. Studies in African Linguistics31. 1–25. 10.32473/sal.v31i1.107351
     https://doi.org/10.32473/sal.v31i1.107351 [Google Scholar]
  17. Deal, Amy Rose
    2018 Indexiphors: notes on embedded indexicals, shifty agreement, and logophoricity. In Rodica Ivan (ed.), UMOP 40: The leader of the pack: A festschrift in honor of Peggy Speas, 59–86. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2020 A theory of indexical shift: Meaning, grammar, and crosslinguistic variation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/12374.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12374.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Evans, Nicholas
    2013 Some problems in the typology of quotation: A canonical approach. In Dunstan Brown , Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 66–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Güldemann, Tom & Manfred von Roncador
    2002 Preface. In Tom Güldemann & Manfred von Roncador (eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains, vii–ix. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.52.01gul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.52.01gul [Google Scholar]
  21. Güldemann, Tom
    2008 Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110211450
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211450 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hansen, Björn , Alexander Letuchiy & Izabela Błaszczyk
    2016 Complementizers in Slavonic. In Kasper Boye & Petar Kehayov (eds.), Complementizer semantics in European languages. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 57), 175–225. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110416619‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416619-008 [Google Scholar]
  23. Haspelmath, Martin
    1993 A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110884210
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884210 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hyman, Larry M. & Bernard Comrie
    1981 Logophoric reference in Gokana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics3. 19–37. 10.1515/jall.1981.3.1.19
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jall.1981.3.1.19 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kaufmann, Magdalena , & Claudia Poschmann
    2013 Embedded imperatives: Empirical evidence from colloquial German. Language89. 619–637. 10.1353/lan.2013.0050
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0050 [Google Scholar]
  27. Khanina, Olesya
    . n.d.Sentencial’nye aktanty čuvašskogo jazyka. Unplublished fieldwork report. Unpublished manuscript. Moscow State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Knyazev, Mikhail
    2016 Complementizers in Kalmyk. In Kasper Boye & Petar Kehayov (eds.), Complementizer semantics in European languages. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 57), 655–679. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110416619‑019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416619-019 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2019 Two say-complementizers in Poshkart Chuvash. Subject-orientation, logophoricity and indexical shift under verbs of hearing. In Tatiana Bondarenko , Colin Davis , Justin Colley & Dmitry Privoznov (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL14), 137–144. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Koptjevskaya-Tamm, Maria
    1993 Nominalizations. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kožemjakina, Nastja
    2017 Nekotorye dannye o konstrukcijax s sentencial’nym aktantom v čuvašskom jazyke (malokaračinskiij dialekt) [Some data on sentential complement constructions in the Maloe Karachkino dialect of Chuvash]. Paper presented at afieldwork seminar, Maloe Karachkino, August 2017.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Li, Charles N.
    1986 Direct and indirect speech: A functional study. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech: A functional study (Trends in Linguistics; Studies and Monographs 31), 29–46. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110871968.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.29 [Google Scholar]
  33. Logvinova, Natalia
    2019a Neposessivnye funkcii pokazatelja posessivnosti tret’ego lica v malokaračkinskom govore čuvašskogo jazyka [Non-possessive functions of the third person possessive in Maloe Karachkino dialect of Chuvash]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana15(2). 86–129. 10.30842/alp2306573715204
     https://doi.org/10.30842/alp2306573715204 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2019b Ob otnositel’nyx konstrukcijax i prišastijax v (malokaračkinskom) čuvašskom [On relative constructions and on participles in the Maloe Karachkino dialect of Chuvash]. Paper presented at afieldwork seminar, Maloe Karachkino, August 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Lord, Carol
    1993 Historical change in serial verb constructions. (Typological Studies in Language, 26.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.26
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.26 [Google Scholar]
  36. Maier, Emar
    2016 A plea against monsters. Grazer Philosophische Studien93(3). 363–395. 10.1163/18756735‑09303003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-09303003 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2017 The pragmatics of attraction: Explaining unquotation in direct and free indirect discourse. In Paul Saka & Michael Johnson (eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation, 259–280. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑68747‑6_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68747-6_9 [Google Scholar]
  38. Matić, Dejan , & Brigitte Pakendorf
    2013 Non-canonical SAY in Siberia: Areal and genealogical patterns. Studies in Language37. 356–412. 10.1075/sl.37.2.04mat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.2.04mat [Google Scholar]
  39. Matsumoto, Yoshiko , Bernard Comrie & Peter Sells
    2017 Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries. In: Yoshiko Matsumoto , Bernard Comrie & Peter Sells (eds.), Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries, 3–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.116.01mat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.116.01mat [Google Scholar]
  40. Messick, Troy
    2017 The morphosyntax of self-ascription: A cross-linguistic study. Storrs: University of Connecticut PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Munro, Robert , Rainer Ludwig , Uli Sauerland & David W. Fleck
    2012 Reported speech in Matses: Perspective persistence and evidential narratives. International Journal of American Linguistics78(1). 41–75. 10.1086/662637
     https://doi.org/10.1086/662637 [Google Scholar]
  42. Nikitina, Tatiana
    2012 Personal deixis and reported discourse: Towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology16. 233–263.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Özyıldız, Deniz , Travis Major , and Emar Maier
    2019 Communicative Reception Reports as Hear-say: Evidence from Indexical Shift in Turkish. In Richard Stockwell , Maura O’Leary , Zhongshi Xu & Z. L. Zhou (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 296–305. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Podobryaev, Alexander
    2014 Persons, imposters, and monsters. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Polinsky, Maria
    2015 Embedded finite complements, indexical shift, and binding in Tsez. Languages of the Caucasus1. 1–37. 10.5070/L911029245
     https://doi.org/10.5070/L911029245 [Google Scholar]
  46. Rice, Keren
    1986 Some remarks on direct and indirect speech in Slave (Northern Athapaskan). In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 47–76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110871968.47
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.47 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schlenker, Philippe
    2003 A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy26. 29–120. 10.1023/A:1022225203544
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022225203544 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2011 Indexicality and de se reports. In Klaus von Heusinger , Claudia Maienbor & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, 1561–1604. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Sells, Peter
    1987 Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry18. 445–479.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Simons, Mandy
    2007 Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua117. 1034–1056. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  51. Shklovsky, Kirill & Yasutada Sudo
    2014 The syntax of monsters. Linguistic Inquiry45. 381–40. 10.1162/LING_a_00160
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00160 [Google Scholar]
  52. Spronck, Sjef & Tatiana Nikitina
    2019 Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology23. 1–41. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0005 [Google Scholar]
  53. Steever, Sanford B.
    2002 Direct and indirect discourse in Tamil. In Tom Güldemann and Manfred von Roncador (eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains, 91–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.52.07ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.52.07ste [Google Scholar]
  54. Stephenson, Tamina
    2007 Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics & Philosophy30. 487–525. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9023‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sudo, Yasutada
    2010 The syntax and semantics of indexical shifting in Modern Uyghur. Unpublished manuscript. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Sundaresan, Sandhya
    2018 An alternative model of indexical shift: Variation and selection without context-overwriting. lingbuzz/004115. Available at: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004115 (last access12 December 2021).
  57. Williams, Edwin
    1992 Adjunct control. In Richard Larson , Sabine Iatridou , Utpal Lahiri & James Higginbotham (eds.), Control and grammar, 297–322. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑7959‑9_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7959-9_9 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19078.kny
Loading
SAY-complementizers and indexical shift in Poshkart Chuvash
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 46, 402 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19078.kny
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19078.kny
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19078.kny
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): action nominalizations; Chuvash; indexical shift; logophoricity; SAY-complementizers; speech reports; Turkic; verbs of hearing

Most Cited

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