Temporal perspective and its formal background: An explanation for aspectual synonymy between simple and analytic past tenses in Mari
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33340/susa.123024Avainsanat:
Mari languages, past tenses, aspect, temporal perspective, tense in discourse, grammatical evolutionAbstrakti
This paper examines and explains perspective-based temporal variation between simple and analytic past tenses in Mari narration. In current research, the analytic past tenses are presented as aspectually synonymous with the simple past tense 2, implicating that there is no functional distinction between these morphologically very dissimilar operators. To overcome the apparent shortages of the purely aspectual approach, this paper dismantles the tenses into their morphosemantic ingredients and explains their exact functions by their form, giving hence also new light to the development of the items. As will be shown, the reason for tense variation is the position of perspective time, a temporal vantage point from which an event is seen. The simple past tense 2 sets the perspective time outside of the story line, while the analytic tenses locate it inside the narrative world, which affects the temporal and non-temporal structure of the discourse. Crucially, the concept of perspective is inherently built in the structure of the tenses: I will argue, that the “auxiliary” of the analytic tenses is de facto a deictic particle developed for temporal manipulation of events, and its application in anaphoric narration creates internal complexity to the story. The “pastness” of the simple past tense 2, in contrast, is anaphoric by nature, which makes narrations structured with it temporally one-dimensional.
Lähdeviitteet
Data
Egorkina = Егоркина, Елизавета. 2012. Ӹлӓ гӹнь шӹдӹр шӱмӹштет… Повесть дон шайыштмаштвлӓ. Йошкар-Ола: Мары книгӓ издательство.
IO = Ондрин Валька. 2007. Икӓнӓ Опанас. Масаквлӓ. Шайыштмашвлӓ. Монологвлӓ. Йошкар-Ола: ГУК РМЭ «Республиканский научно-методический центр народного творчества и культурно-досуговой деятельности».
KS = Кырык сирышты. Повесть, лыдышвлӓ, пьесывлӓ, очерк. 1968. И. И. Тарьянов йӓмдылен. Йошкар-Ола: Книгам лыкшы мары издательство.
KSYT = Кырык сирышты, Йыл тӹрышты. Лыдышвлӓ, шайыштмаштвлӓ, очерквлӓ. 1967. Кокшы выпуск. Редколлегий: И. Горный, А. Канюшков, В. Сузы, Г. Матюковский, С. Захаров. Йошкар-Ола: Книгам лыкшы мары издательство.
Onchyko = Archive of journal Ончыко. Available: Ончыко (PDF) — Mari-Lab, <https://mari-lab.ru/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%BD%D1%87%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%BE_(PDF)>, volumes 4/1996: p. 4–11, 39–102, 111–129, 149–155, 157; 5/1996: p. 29–70, 79–117, 140–148; 6/1996: p. 3–57, 66–78, 138–150, 157–155; 7/1996: p. 100–116; 10/1996: p. 14–48, 82–96; 12/1996: p. 26–60.
References
Abaffy, Erzsébet. 1992. Az igemód- és igeidőrendszer. In Benkő Loránd (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana II/1: A kései ómagyar kor: Morfematika, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Alhoniemi, Alho. 1985. Marin kielioppi (Apuneuvoja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten opintoja varten X). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Arregui, Ana & Rivero, María Luisa & Salanova Andrés. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation in imperfectivity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32. 307–362.
Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of conversation (Studies in Natural Language Procession). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bartens, Raija. 1979. Mordvan, tšeremissin ja votjakin konjugaation infiniittisten muotojen syntaksi (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 170). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Bartens, Raija. 2000. Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 238). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Becker, Martin. 2021. The pluperfect and its discourse potential in contrast: A comparison between Spanish, French and Italian. Revue Romane 56. 267–296.
Becker, Martin & Egetenmeyer, Jakob. 2018. A prominence-based account of temporal discourse structure. Lingua 214. 28–58.
Beke, Ödön. 1911. Cseremisz nyelvtan. Javított különnyomat a Nyelvtudományi Közleményekből (Finnugor füzetek 16). Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia.
Bereczki, Gábor. 2002. A cseremisz nyelv történeti alaktana (Studies in Linguistics of the Volga-Region, University of Debrecen Supplementum I). Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadója.
Bergqvist, Henrik & Kittilä, Seppo. 2020. Epistemic perspectives: Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement. In Bergqvist, Henrik & Kittilä, Seppo (eds.), Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 30), 1–21. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco & Ebert, Karen H. & de Groot, Casper. 2000. The progressive in Europe. In Dahl, Östen (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bickel, Balthasar. 1997. Aspectual scope and the difference between logical and semantical representation. Lingua 102. 115–131.
Binnick, Robert I. 2006. Aspect and aspectuality. In Aarts, Bas & McMahon, April (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 244–268. Malden – Oxford – Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.
Boneh, Nora & Doron, Edit. 2008. Habituality and the habitual aspect. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bradley, Jeremy. 2016. Mari converb constructions: Productivity and regional variance. Wien/Vienna: Universität Wien.
Bradley, Jeremy & Klumpp, Gerson & Metslang, Helle. 2022. TAM and evidentials. In Bakró-Nagy, Marianne & Laakso, Johanna & Skribnik, Elena (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Uralic languages Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Breu, Walter. 1994. Interactions between lexical, temporal and aspectual meanings. Studies in Language 18. 23–44.
Bybee, Joan & Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press.
Caenepeel, Mimo & Moens, Marc. 1994. Temporal structure and discourse structure. In Werner Winter (ed.), Tense and aspect in discourse (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 75), 5–20. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danilova, Anna. 2022. Taxis interpretation of -n converbs in Hill Mari (Presentation on August 25th 2022). Vienna: Congressus XIII Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum.
Ferreira, Marcelo. 2016. The semantic ingredients of imperfectivity in progressives, habituals and counterfactuals. Nat Lang Semantics 24. 353–397.
Galkin 1964 = Галкин, И. С. 1964. Историческая грамматика марийского языка. Морфология. Часть 1. Йошкар-Ола: Марийское книжное издательство.
Golosov & Kozlov 2018 = Голосов, Ф. В. & Козлов, А. А. 2018. Наблюдатель в системе прошедших времен горномарийского языка (Internet publication). Москва: НИУ ВШЭ НИУ ВШЭ – ИЯз РАН. <https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/nablyudatel-v-sisteme-proshedshih-vremen-gornomariyskogo-yazyka/viewer> (Accessed 2022-10-22.)
Grønn, Atle. 2008. Imperfectivity and completed events. In Josephson, Folke & Söhrman, Ingmar (eds.), Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses (Studies in Language Companion Series 103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
GSUYa 1962 = Перевощиков, П. Н. & Вархушев В. М. & Алатырев, В. И. & Поздеева А. А. & Тараканов И. В. 1962. Грамматика современного удмуртского языка: Фонетика и морфология. Ижевск: Удмуртского книжное издательство.
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2010. Typology of tense, aspect and modality systems. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 445–464. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, Paul. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Syntax and Semantics 12. 213–241.
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299.
Isanbaev 1961 = Исанбаев, Н. И. 1961. Деепричастия в марийском языке. Йошкар-Ола.
Johanson, Lars. 1995. On Turkic converb clauses. In Haspelmath, Martin & König, Ekkehard (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13), 313–348. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johanson, Lars. 2000. Viewpoint operators in European languages. In Dahl, Östen (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kamp, Hans. 2013. Deixis in discourse: Reichenbach on temporal reference. In von Heusinger, Klaus & Ter Meulen, Alice (eds.), Meaning and the dynamics of interpretation (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 29), 105–159. Leiden: Brill.
Kamp, Hans. 2019. Tense and aspect in discourse representation theory. In Truswell, Robert (ed.), Oxford handbook of event structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Student Edition. Dordrecht – Boston – London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kamp, Hans & van Genabith, Josef & Reyle, Uwe. 2011. Discourse representation theory. In Gabbay, Dov M. & Guenthner, Franz (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 15, 125–394. 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1998. Mari. In Abondolo, Daniel (ed.), The Uralic languages, 219–248. London – New York: Routledge.
Kiss, Katalin É. 2013. Az ótörök–ősmagyar kontaktus nyomai az ómagyar igeidőrendszerben és a birtokos szerkezetben. In Agyagási, Klára & Hegedűs, Attila & É. Kiss, Katalin (eds.), Nyelvelmélet és kontaktológia 2, 190–205. Piliscsaba: PPKE BTK Elméleti Nyelvészeti Tanszék – Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszék.
Kittilä, Seppo. 2019. General knowledge as an evidential category. Linguistics 57(6). 1271–1304.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.
Krasnova, Nadezhda & Riese, Timothy & Yefremova, Tatiana & Bradley, Jeremy. 2017. Reading Hill Mari through Meadow Mari. Vienna: .
Krifka, M. & Pelletier, F. J. & Carlson, G. & ter Meulen, A. & Chierchia, G. & Link, G. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In Carlson, G. & Pelletier, F. J. (eds.), The generic book, 1–124. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, William & Fanshel, David. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Lee, EunHee. 2017. Pluperfect in discourse: When and why do we go back in time? Journal of Pragmatics 121. 76–90.
Levitskaya 1976 = Левитская, Л. С. 1976. Историческая морфология чувашского языка. Москва: Наука.
Lund, Karl-Henrik. 2015. Retrospection and the observer in a narrative text (in Danish and Russian). Scando-Slavica 61(1). 57–72.
Mohay, Zsuzsanna. 2018. Múltidő-használat a középmagyar korban: A múlt idők középmagyar kori funkcióinak vizsgálata. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Bölcsészettudományi Kar.
Moisio, Arto. 1993. Marin ja suomen kielen tempusdeiksis. In Juhlakirja Alho Alhoniemen 60-vuotispäiväksi 14.5.1993 (Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 42), 133–146. Turku.
MY 1985 = Учаев, З. В. 1985. Марий йылме: Факультативный занятийым эртарыме учебный пособий. Кокымшо ужаш. Йошкар-Ола: Марий книга издательство.
Nuyts, Jan. 2014. Analyses of the modal meanings. In Nuyts, Jan & van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 31–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oversteegen, Leonoor & Bekker, Birgit. 2002. Computing perspective: Pluperfect in Dutch. Linguistics 40(1). 111–161.
Paducheva 1992 = Падучева Е. В. 1992. О семантическом подходе к синтаксису и генитивной субъекте глагола быть. Russian Linguistics 16. 53–63.
Pallaskallio, Ritva. 2016. Absoluuttisuudesta relatiivisuuteen: Pluskvamperfektin diskursiiviset funktiot kertovissa teksteissä. Virittäjä 120. 84–121.
Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy 70. 601–609.
Plungian 2001 = Плунгян, Владимир. 2001. Антирезультатив: до и после результата. In Плунгян, В. А. [Plungian, Vladimir A.] (ed.), Исследования по теории грамматики. I: Глагольные категории Москва: Русские словари.Plungian,
Vladimir A. 2010. Types of verbal evidentiality marking: an overview. In Diewald, Gabriele & Smirnova, Elena (eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 49), 15–58. Göttingen: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plungian, Vladimir A. & van der Auwera, Johan. 2006. Towards a typology of discontinuous past marking. Language Typology and Universals 59(4). 317–349.
Pollak, Wolfgang. 1960. Studien zum ‘Verbalaspekt’ im Französischen (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzunsberichte 233,5). Wien.
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. London: Macmillan.
Saarinen, Sirkka. 2022. Mari. In Bakró-Nagy, Marianne & Laakso, Johanna & Skribnik, Elena (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Uralic languages Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saraheimo, Mari. 2018. Aikamuodot muutoksessa: Udmurtin kielen menneen ajan liittotempukset. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Savatkova 2002 = Саваткова, А. А. 2002. Горное наречие марийского языка (Bibliotheca Ceremissica V). Szombathely: Berzsenyi Dániel Főiskola.
Serebrennikov 1960 = Серебренников, Б. А. 1960. Категории времени и вида в финно-угорских языках пермской и волжской групп. Москва: Издательство Академии наук СССР.
Shagal, Ksenia. 2018. Participial systems in Uralic languages: An overview. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri / Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 9(1). 55–84.
Sichinava 2001 = Сичинава, Дмитрий. 2001. Плюсквамперфект и ретроспективный сдвиг в языке сантали. In Плунгян, В. А. [Plungian, Vladimir A.] (ed.), Исследования по теории грамматики. I: Глагольные категории Москва: Русские словари.Skribnik, Elena & Kehayov, Petar. 2018. Evidentials in Uralic languages. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 525–553. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Carlota. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht – Szombathely – Kluwer.
SMYa 1961 = Пенгитов, Н. Т. & Галкин, И. С. & Исанбаев, Н. И. 1961. Современный марийский язык. Морфология. Йошкар-Ола: Марийское книжное издательство.
Spets, Silja-Maija. 2022. What are contact-based features in Mari 2nd past tense and what are not? (Presentation on August 24th 2022). Vienna: Congressus XIII Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, University of Vienna.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics and philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
VISK = Hakulinen, Auli & Vilkuna, Maria & Korhonen, Riitta & Koivisto, Vesa & Heinonen, Tarja Riitta & Alho, Irja (eds.). 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. (Online version <https://kaino.kotus.fi/visk/etusivu.php>) (Accessed 2022-10-26.)
