Evidentiality in the Rikvani dialect of Andi
This paper presents a description of evidentiality marking in the Rikvani dialect of Andi. As a language spoken in the Caucasus, Andi is situated in the centre of a large area within Eurasia where evidentiality is frequently expressed with a perfect or resultative form of the verb (general indirective), and special particles marking hearsay (and sometimes also inference). Both are attested in Andi and form independent evidential paradigms. I will explore the way these forms are used in natural texts and elicitation and how they interact with each other. An important issue is to what extent evidentiality can be considered grammaticalized as part of the verbal paradigm in Andi. I will compare my observations on Andi to the systems found in other East Caucasian languages.
This paper contains the findings from the areal and typological research of the systems of cardinal numeral in the languages of the Caucasus. It is based on the structural analysis (which isn’t a phonetic or etymological comparison) of the numeral systems in the languages of the three autochthonic language families of the Caucasus (Kartvelian, East Caucasian and West Caucasian) and in some non-autochthonic languages of the area (Armenian, Azerbaijani, Karachay-Balkar, Kumyk, Nogai, Ossetic, Russian, Talysh, Tat) with the focus on markers of addition.There are four types of addition markers systems in the Caucasus. This typology has been compared with the same research into cardinal numeral in the languages of the World, where five types of addition markers systems are presented. The results of the research are the two distributions of the different types of addition markers systems and some probable explanations of the difference between these distributions.
The book is a yearly almanach on Daghestanian linguistics and philology.
The article analyzes instances of verbal l-forms used without auxiliary in Old Russian Hypatian Chronicle (13th–15th c.). Special emphasis is on the contexts where l-forms do not convey the meaning of the perfect tense. One part consists of contexts that are typical for participle predications. The other part consists of examples where the l-forms appear in typical participle contexts of the vstavъ (i) reče type. All examples where l-forms do not have the meaning of the perfect tense can be attributed either to the first or to the second group. Taking this into account, as well as the material from the dialects and other Slavic languages that include, to varying extent, adjectives going back to l-participles, it seems reasonable to assume that l-forms could function not only as a part of the compound verbal predicate, but also as a past participle -ъš-/-vъš-.
The volume presents several papers on Mehweb, a one-village language spoken in the central part of Daghestan, a republic of the Russian Federation.
The paper considers the grammatical expression of information source with past tense forms of the verb in the Nakh-Daghestanian languages. These languages are spoken on a relatively compact territory in the North Caucasus and, partly, in the Transcaucasian area. The area is part of a larger area ranging from the Balkan Peninsula to Central Asia, which includes the Caucasus, and where similar verb forms used to express information source are found. It is considered plausible that these forms arose as the result of language contact with Turkic, and for some languages (e.g. Armenian, Georgian), this is confirmed. The paper compares the characteristics of these forms in the Nakh-Daghestanian language family based on descriptive grammars, and illustrates their genetic and areal distribution on a map. I will show that the areal vs. genetic distribution is not trivial. There are three distinct zones within the territory of the Nakh-Daghestanian languages: more grammaticalized forms are attested in the nortwestern region, partly grammaticalized forms are dominant in the central region, and in the southern area the feature is absent. It is currently impossible to establish how these forms appeared in the Nakh-Daghestanian languages, through contact with which Turkic language exactly, and how this process took place. However, the distribution outlined in this article indicates that language contact played a role in their dissemination.
In Standard Average European (SAE), addressees of speech verbs are marked with dative or, in languages lacking cases, with dative-like prepositions. This merger is commonly explained through a metaphor: the information transferred in a speech act is said to be construed as the object being transferred, or Theme, and the addressee as its Recipient. This status of the addressee as a derived concept, a metaphor of the Recipient, and its dative marking in many languages rather than in SAE alone, is the reason why the addressee is usually not considered to be a separate semantic role. Based on data from East Caucasian languages that use different marking for Recipients and addressees of speech, I argue that speech addressees constitute a separate semantic role, also an animate Goal, but not a metaphor of the Recipient. Focusing on case marking assigned by the main speech verb, speech acts are shown to be construed in East Caucasian as spatial configurations: the crucial component is their directedness towards the addressee. In the conclusion, I come back to SAE and question the status of the dative addressees. Taking into account that the dative often develops from lative markers, it is suggested that, in the languages with dative addressees, one should also consider an alternative to the conventional explanation: merging the Recipient and the addressee in one marking may result not from a metaphorical extension but from formal under-specification of two different animate Goals.
We discuss the data from Adyghe (Northwest Caucasian), Udi and Tanti Dargwa (Northeast Caucasian) related to the presence and absence of constraints on relativization from syntactic islands.