Article published In: Studies in Language
Vol. 43:4 (2019) ► pp.896–940
Assertion, presumption and presupposition
An account of the erstwhile nominalizer YUM in Khalkha Mongolian
Published online: 23 January 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18050.bro
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18050.bro
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.
Keywords: assertion, presumption, presupposition, inference, evidentiality
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Data, methods and conventions
- 3.Uses of yum: An overview
- 4.The morphological status of yum
- 5.Referential uses
- 6.Sentence-final YUM
- 6.1Sentence-final YUM in declaratives
- 6.2Sentence-final YUM in questions
- 7.YUM in connectors
- 7.1YUM in conditionals
- 7.2YUM in similative complements
- 8.The presumptive reasoning construction YUM + copula
- 9.Discussion and conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Glosses
References Corpora and primary sources
References (55)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.). 2014. The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, Kent & Robert Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua 121(1). 60–79.
Bayancoγtu. 2002. Qorcin aman ayalγun-u sudulul [A study of the Khorchin dialect]. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli-yin keblel-ün qoriy-a.
Behrens, Leila. 2012. Evidentiality, modality, focus and other puzzles. In Andrea Schalley (ed.), Practical theories and empirical practice: A linguistic perspective, 185–244. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bläsing, Uwe. 1984. Die finit indikativischen Verbalformen im Kalmückischen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Brosig, Benjamin. 2012.
Bilee sul ügiin utaɢ, xereglee [The meaning and function of the particle bilee
]. Xel Zox’ool Sudlal 5(37). 10–18.
. 2015a. Aspect and epistemic notions in the present tense system of Khalkha Mongolian. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 11(3). 46–127.
. 2018. Factual vs. evidential? – The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian. In Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop & Gijs Mulder (eds.), Empirical approaches to evidentiality, 45–75. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. in preparation. Expressing intent, imminence and ire by attributing speech/thought in Mongolian.
Brosig, Benjamin & Elena Skribnik. 2018. Evidentiality in Mongolic. In Alexandra Aikhenvald (ed.), Oxford handbook of Evidentiality, 554–579. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byambasaŋ, P., C. Önörbayaŋ, B. Pürew-Očor, Ž. Sanžaa & C. Žančiwdorž. 1987. Orčoŋ cagiiŋ moŋɢol xelnii ügzüin baiɢuulalt [The structure of (verbal) morphology of contemporary Mongolian]. Ulaaŋbaatar: Šinžlex uxaanii akademi.
Dummett, Michael. 1981. Frege: Philosophy of language, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[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 Petropolitana 5(2). 124–159.
[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.
Janhunen, Juha. 2012. Mongolian. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
[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) 31. 3–21.
Jīngāng Jingan. 2010. Mongorugo no modaritei [Modality in Mongolian]. Tōkyō: Tōkyō Gaikokugo Daigaku Unpublished doctoral thesis.
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]. Mongkolhak 141. 21–52.
Karlsson, Anastasia Mukhanova. 2003. Tonal gestures in Mongolian interrogatives. Phonum (Reports from the Department of Phonetics, Umeå University) 91. 189–192.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3(1). 91–110.
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2018. A dialectical approach to presupposition. Intercultural Pragmatics 15(2). 291–313.
Michaelis, Laura. 2001. Exclamative constructions. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, vol. 21. Berlin: De Gruyter. 1038–1050.
Möŋx-Amɢalaŋ, Yumžiriiŋ. 1996. Moŋgol xelnii “YUM” gedeg ügiiŋ üüreg-utaɢzüiŋ onclog [The functional and semantic peculiarities of the Mongolian word “yum”]. In E. Rawdaŋ & M. Bazarragčaa (eds.), Moŋɢol yar’aanii xel, 28–52. Ulaaŋbaatar: Moŋgol Ulsiiŋ Ix Surguul’.
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 Studies 311. 69–90.
Pagin, Peter. 2016. Assertion. In Edward Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). [URL]
Schmidt-Radefeldt, Jürgen. 1977. On so-called ‘rhetorical’ questions. Journal of Pragmatics 11. 375–392.
Seesing, Olga. 2013. Die temporalen Infinitkonstruktionen im Kalmückischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Song, Jae-mog. 1997. Tense, aspect and modality in Khalkha Mongolian. London: University of London, SOAS Unpublished doctoral thesis.
. 2002. Grammaticalization of the verb ge- ‘to say’ in Khalkha Mongolian. Ōsaka Keizai Hōka Daigaku Sōgō Kagaku Kenkyūsho Nenpō 31. 29–38.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1991. Tense, mood and aspect in Mongolian. Lund University, Department of Linguistics, Working Papers 381. 189–204.
Tantucci, Vittorio. 2017. From immediate to extended intersubjectification. Language and Cognition 91. 88–120.
Tournadre, Nicolas & LaPolla, Randy. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2). 240–263.
Baranova, Vlada (created 2007–2014). Narrative corpus of Kalmyk [2 hours, transcribed, glossed and translated]. Partially published in Vlada Baranova & Sergei Say. 2009. Kommmentarij k korpusu tekstov & Teksty [Note on texts & Texts]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 5(2). 710–852.
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.
Östling, Robert & Benjamin Brosig. 2011 (created). Corpus of Khalkha Mongolian internet texts. 34,642,000 words, text file.
Saito, Yoshio (斉藤純男). 2008. The Mongolian Words in the Muqaddimat al-Adab: Romanized text and word index (as of January 2008). Tokyo. [URL]
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Ragagnin, Elisabetta
Brosig, Benjamin
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 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.
