Cover not available

Article published In: Diachronica
Vol. 41:5 (2024) ► pp.605–634

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Evaluation between grammar and context

The case of blessings and curses

ORCiD logo with link | Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage, CNRS | Université Lyon 2
Published online: 20 December 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.23032.dob
Abstract
This paper analyzes how the grammatical meaning of qualitative evaluation is developed in optatives which denote blessings and curses. Based on the analysis of several Turkic forms and several Russian constructions, this study distinguishes the grammatical meaning of evaluation from a pragmatic implication arising in particular contexts. It shows that grammatical items that have evaluative usages often exhibit a certain “fluidity”, with positive or negative interpretation specified by the context. Positive or negative evaluation comes as a pragmatic satellite, and even if the category generally leans towards a negative (or positive) interpretation, it can in certain contexts display the opposite evaluation. Based on this approach, the paper suggests two different paths of the development of grammatical markers which denote qualitative evaluation.
Résumé
Cet article analyse la façon dont le sens grammatical d’évaluation qualitative est développé dans les optatifs qui dénotent des bénédictions et des malédictions. En utilisant les données de plusieurs formes turciques et de plusieurs constructions russes, l’étude contribue à distinguer le sens grammatical de l’évaluation d’une implication pragmatique survenant dans des contextes particuliers. Elle montre que les éléments grammaticaux qui ont des usages évaluatifs présentent souvent une certaine « fluidité », avec une interprétation positive ou négative spécifiée par le contexte. L’interprétation positive ou négative est un satellite pragmatique, et même si la catégorie penche généralement vers une interprétation négative (ou positive), elle peut, dans certains contextes, afficher l’évaluation opposée. Sur la base de cette approche, l’article propose deux voies différentes de développement des marqueurs grammaticaux dénotant une évaluation qualitative.
Zusammenfassung
Der Beitrag analysiert, wie die grammatische Bedeutung der qualitativen Bewertung in Optativen, die Segen und Fluch bezeichnen, entwickelt wird. Anhand von Suffixen verschiedener Turksprachen und einiger russischer Konstruktionen trägt die Studie dazu bei, die grammatische Bedeutung der Bewertung von einer kontextgebundenen, pragmatischen Implikation zu unterscheiden. Sie zeigt, dass grammatische Elemente, die evaluativ verwendet werden, oft eine gewisse „Fluidität“ aufweisen, wobei die positive oder negative Interpretation durch den Kontext bestimmt wird. Die positive oder negative Interpretation ist ein pragmatischer Satellit, und selbst wenn die Kategorie im Allgemeinen zu einer negativen (oder positiven) Interpretation neigt, kann sie in bestimmten Kontexten die entgegengesetzte Bewertung aufweisen. Auf der Grundlage dieses Ansatzes werden zwei verschiedene Wege der Entwicklung von grammatischen Markern vorgeschlagen, die eine qualitative Bewertung anzeigen.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Evaluative optatives cross-linguistically
  • 3.Optatives formed with the suffix -gyr/-qyr in Turkic languages
    • 3.1Uzbek optative: Neutral
    • 3.2Kumyk and Nogai optatives: Evaluative in context
    • 3.3Kazakh optative: Evaluative in grammar
  • 4.Evaluative optatives: Russian wish-constructions
    • 4.1Blessings in Russian
      • 4.1.1Blessings based on clauses with the verb želatʹ ‘wish’
      • 4.1.2Blessings based on imperatives
      • 4.1.3Summary
    • 4.2Curses in Russian
    • 4.3Summary
  • 5.Why blessings and curses can be expressed by different means
  • 6.Evaluation between grammar and context: Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (51)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2020. “Damn your eyes!” (Not really): Imperative imprecatives, and curses as commands. In Nico Nassenstein & Anne Storch (eds.), Swearing and cursing, 53–78. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny, Sterre Leufkens & Eva van Lier. 2021. Small events: Verbal diminutives in the languages of the world. Linguistic Typology at The Crossroads 1(1). 223–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bammatov, Burgan G., & Nurmagomed È. Gadžiakhmedov (eds.). 2013. Kumyksko-russkij slovarʹ [Kumyk-Russian dictionary]. Maxačkala, Institut jazyka, literatury i iskusstva im. G. Cadasy.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baskakov, Nikolai A. 1988. Kategorija naklonenija. In Tenišev, È.R. (ed.), Sravnitelʹno-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskix jazykov: Morfologija [Comparative-historical grammar of Turkic languages: Morphology]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bizakov, Seidin. 2012. Učebnik trudnostej kazaxskogo jazyka [Textbook of Kazakh language difficulties]. Almaty, Kazakhstan: Kazakh ènciklopedijasy.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bodrogligeti, András J. E. 2003. An academic reference grammar of modern literary Uzbek. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chamoreau, Claudine. 2012. Spanish diminutive markers -ito/-ita in Mesoamerican languages A challenge for acceptance of gender distinction. In Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze & Hitomi Otsuka (eds.), Morphologies in contact, 71–91. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comtet, Roget. 1992. Usečennaja forma časticy russkogo soslagatelʹnogo naklonenija. [Truncated form of the Russian subjunctive mood particle]. Russian Linguistics 16(2). 225–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina. 2011. The optative domain in East Caucasian languages. In Gilles Authier & Timur A. Maĭsak (eds.), Tense, aspect, modality and finiteness in East Caucasian languages. Bochum, Germany: Brockmeyer Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. What is the Jussive for? Linguistics 50(1). 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina, Johan van der Auwera & Valentin Goussev. 2013. The Optative. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL]
Dobrushina, Nina. 2016. Soslagatelʹnoe naklonenie v russkom jazyke: Opyt issledovanija grammatičeskoj semantiki [Subjunctive in Russian: A study in semantics of grammar]. Prague: Animedia Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Lavinia M. Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German and other languages. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Nicolas. 2007. Insubordination and its functions. In Irina Nikolaeva & Frans Plank (eds.), Finiteness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 366–431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fishman, Alon. nd. Ya xatixat. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tel Aviv.
Gadžiakhmedov, Nurmagomed È. 2000. Inflectional categories of noun and verb in the Kumyk language [Slovoizmenitel’nye kategorii imeni i glagola v kumykskom yazyke]. Maxačkala.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.) 2014. Sovremennyj kumykskij jazyk [Contemporary Kumyk]. Maxačkala: IJaLI DNC RAN.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra & Sorrisi Fabrizio. 2018. An evaluative head in Romance. Annali di Ca’Foscari 651. 65–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grandi, Nicola & Livia Körtvélyessy (eds.). 2015. Edinburgh handbook of Evaluative Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grandi, Nicola. 2011. Renewal and innovation in the emergence of Indo-European evaluative morphology. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology 61. 5–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick Georg. 2012. On the grammar of optative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72(3). 533–578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kononov, Andrei N. 1960. Grammatika sovremennogo uzbekskogo literaturnogo jazyka [Grammar of contemporary standard Uzbek]. Moscow & Leningrad: Izd-vo Akad. nauk SSSR.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, Livia. 2015. Evaluative morphology from a cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koshal, Samyukta. 1979. Ladakhi grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacDonnell, Arthur A. 1927. A Sanskrit grammar for students. Third edition. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musaev, Kenesbaj M. (ed.). 2018. Nogajsko-russkij slovarʹ [Nogai-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Namugala, Samuel. 2014. Diminutive and augmentative functions of some Luganda noun class markers. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology MA thesis.
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2016. Analyses of the semantics of mood. In Jan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 68–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2017. Lamunkhin Even evaluative morphology in cross-linguistic comparison. Morphology 27(2). 123–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ponsonnet, Maïa & Marine Vuillermet. 2018. Introduction. Studies in Language 42(1). 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. 2011. Vvedenie v grammatičeskuju semantiku: grammatičeskie značenija i grammatičeskie sistemy jazykov mira: Učebnoe posobie [Introduction to grammatical semantics: Grammatical meanings and grammatical systems of the world’s languages: Textbook]. Moscow: URSS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Räsänen, Martti. 1955. Materialien zur Morphologie der türkischen Sprachen (Studia Orientalia 21). Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rusakov, Alexander & Maria Morozova. 2022. Optative in Albanian. Syntaxe et Sémantique 22(1). 29–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russian National Corpus. [URL]
Shimelman, Aviva. 2017. A grammar of Yauyos Quechua (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 9). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1993. How peculiar is evaluative morphology? Journal of Linguistics 29(1). 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2001. Regularity in semantic change. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Treis, Yvonne. 2008. A grammar of Kambaata. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Eat me, ground!” — Orders, blessings and curses in Kambaata. Contemporary Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. Handout. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tuggy, David. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 4, no. 3, 1993, pp. 273–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vanhove, Martine & Mohamed-Tahir Hamid Ahmed. 2018. Diminutives and augmentatives in Beja (North-Cushitic). Studies in Language 42(1). 51–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, Eline. 2022. A grammar of Kalamang. (Comprehensive Grammar Library 4). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zuckermann, Ghil’ad. 2006. Direct and indirect speech in straight-talking Israeli. Acta linguista Hungarica 53 (4). 467–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Jerrold M. Sadock. 1975. Identity tests and how to fail them. Syntax and Semantics 41. 1–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Dobrushina, Nina
2025. 954 Blessings and curses are structurally different: Data from Daghestan. In The Grammar of Impoliteness, ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Olmen, Daniel Van, Jonathan Culpeper, Riccardo Giomi & Marta Andersson
2025. 31 The grammar of impoliteness. In The Grammar of Impoliteness, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue