Cover not available

In:Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Na'ama Pat-El and Stephen Mark Carey
[Studies in Language Companion Series 200] 2018
► pp. 55–82

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

Chapter 3
Affective constructions in Tsezic languages

 | University of California, Santa Barbara
 | University of Jena
 | Tsadasa Institute of Language, Literature and Art of the Dagestan Scientific Centre of the Russian Academy of Science
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.200.03com
Abstract
This article addresses affective (“experiencer”) constructions in the Tsezic languages (Nakh-Daghestanian), which represent the most frequent type of non-canonical subject constructions in these languages. They differ from transitive constructions in a number of ways that go far beyond case marking and affect various domains of grammar (e.g. inflectional morphology, complex clause structures, reflexive and reciprocal binding, etc.). In this paper, we explore morphological, syntactic and semantic features of Tsezic affective constructions from a typological perspective. We investigate variation, stability, and change between the constructions in the various Tsezic languages and try to give explanations for the observed patterns of variation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Affective predicates: Formal properties and additional functions
  • 3.Verbal inflection and derivation
    • 3.1Imperative/prohibitive
    • 3.2Intentional future
    • 3.3Causative verbs
    • 3.4Potential verbs
    • 3.5Antipassive
  • 4.Affective predicates in simple clauses
    • 4.1Biabsolutive construction
    • 4.2Reflexive and reciprocal constructions
  • 5.Affective predicates in complex clauses
  • 6.Affective predicates and extended intransitive predicates
  • 7.Is the more prominent argument of affective predicates a subject?
  • 8.From meaning to form: Affective predicates in the wider context of experiential constructions
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (38)
References
Abdulaev, Arsen K. & Abdullaev, Isa K. 2010. Cezyas folklor. Leipzig–Makhachkala: Lotos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 39–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2018. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Grimm, Scott & Ahmed, Tafseer. 2006. Dative subjects. Talk presented at the NWO/DFG Workshop on Optimal Sentence Processing, Nijmegen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2001. Love your enemies: Affective constructions in two Daghestanian languages. In Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 90], István Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds), 59–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Oblique-case subjects in Tsez. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol.1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 113–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & van den Berg, Helma. 2006. Experiencer constructions in Daghestanian languages. In Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds), 127–154. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Forker, Diana & Khalilova, Zaira. 2011. Alignment typology, reflexives, and reciprocals in Tsezic languages. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Chundra Cathcart, I-Hsuan Chen, Greg Finley, Shinae Kang, Clare S. Sandy & Elise Stickles (eds), 32–51. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crisp, Simon. 1983. Subject marking in some languages of Daghestan. Paper in Linguistics 16: 203–216.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael & Forker, Diana. 2009. Reconstruction of morphosyntactic function: Nonspatial usage of spatial case marking in Tsezic. Language 85: 588–617.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein. 2014. The morphosyntax of the Experiencer in Early Vedic. In Perspectives on Semantic Roles, Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds), 181–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2011. Grammatical relations in Hinuq. In Languages and Cultures in the Caucasus. Papers from the International Conference “Current Advances in Caucasian Studies”, Macerata, January 21–23, 2010, Vittorio S. Tomelleri, Manana Topadze & Anna Lukianowicz (eds), 553–568. Berlin: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh-Daghestanian. Folia Linguistica 46: 75–108.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. A Grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitry. 2006. Experiencer coding in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Case, Valence and Transitivity, Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 179–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1991. On the question of deep ergativity. Papiere zur Linguistik 44/45: 5–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Isakov, Isak A. & Khalilov, Madžid Š. 2001. Gunzibsko-russkij slovar’. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khalilov, Madžid Š. 1999. Cezsko-russkij slovar’. Maxačkala: Institut JaLI DNC RAN.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A Grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1994. Archi. In The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Vol. 4: The North East Caucasian Languages, II, Rieks Smeets (ed.), 297–365. Delmar NY: Caravan Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1997. Beyond subject and object: Towards a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology 1: 279–346.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Konstanty i peremennye jazyka. St. Petersburg: Aletheia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ljutikova, Ekatеrina A. 2001. Anaforičeskie sredstva. In Bagvalinskij jazyk, Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), 615–681. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohanan, Karavannur P. & Mohanan, Tara. 1990. Dative subjects in Malayalam: Semantic information in syntax. In Verma & Mohanan (eds), 43–57.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulike. 2006. Grammaticography: The art and craft of writing grammar. In Catching Language: The Standing Challange of grammer writing. Felix K. Ameka, Alan Charles Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), 41–68. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1980. Control and Ergativity in Chechen. Chicago Linguistics Society 16: 259–268.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 1990. Experiencer (dative) NPs in Marathi. In Verma & Mohanan (eds), 161–179.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245–282.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and Thematic Roles: Ergative, Accusative and Active. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 2009. A new model of metaphorization: Case systems in East Caucasian. In Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25], Klaus Uwe Panther, Linda L. Thornburg & Antonio Barcelona (eds), 147–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toldova, Svetlana J. 1999. Mestoimennye sredstva podderžanija referencii. In Èlementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii, Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), 629–674. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van den Berg, Helma. 1995. A Grammar of Hunzib. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2007. Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya [Studies in Language Companion Series 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verma, Mandindra K. & Karavannur Puthanvettil Mohanan (eds) 1990. Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ilioaia, Mihaela, Marleen Van Peteghem & Jóhanna Barðdal
2025. Romanian plăcea ‘like’: an alternating Dat-Nom/Nom-Dat verb. Probus DOI logo
Marina Chumakina, Oliver Bond & Steven Kaye
2023. Agreement beyond the Verb, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 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.

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