Two scenarios of integration of negative

Two scenarios of integration of

negative existential into the standard

negation system:

The case of Nanai

aba

Sonya Oskolskaya, Institute for Linguistic Studies RAS (sonypolik@mail.ru)

1. Introduction

•

The Nanai language (<Tungusic, Khabarovskij Kraj,

Russia)

•

The negative existential

aba

•

The uses of

aba

in standard negation constructions:

• Bikin Nanai: more predictable uses;

• Amur Nanai: a more interesting use.

•

Abbreviations used:

• SN = standard negation

1.1.

Aba

–

an existential negation marker

(1) Kalgama aba

yeti EXNEG

Yeti does ot e ist. – existential proper (2) Mudur-du xasar aba

dragon-DAT wing EXNEG

Drago s do ot ha e i gs { ut the ha e a tail}. – possessive

(3) Əj dalean-du xaj=da aba

this bag-DAT what=EMPH EXNEG

{Is there a thi g i the ag?} – There is nothing in the bag. (= It is

e pt . – locative

Aba

≠ “N + e

Cf. aba vs. SN + ‘be’ competing in some contexts

(4a) Sogdata dərə-du bi-ə-si

fish table-DAT be-NEG-NPST

The fish is t o the ta le. It is i the ag.

(4b) Dərə-du sogdata aba

table-DAT fish EXNEG

Grammatical features of EN

aba

aba optionally takes agreement person-number markers (4); (5) Buə əsi xoton-du aba-(pu)

2PL now city-DAT EXNEG-(1PL)

{– Are you in the city now?} – We are ot i the it o .

TAM is expressed by the auxiliary bi to e 5):

(6) Mi ame-na-i ǯea ǯea-wari əčiə

1SG father-ASS.PL-1SG friend friend-P.REFL.PL NEG.PST

baa-ra oseni, mi aba bi- ə-i

find-CVB.NSIM if 1SG EXNEG be-SBJV-1SG

1.2. Standard negation in Nanai



A complex system of geterogenious dedicated markers

(Oskolskaya, Stoynova 2016).



I the Middle A ur diale t «“ta dard Na ai» a s theti

form for the present tense and an analytic construction for

the past tense are the most common:

(7) əsi=tə i naj=da ǯo o-a-si

now=but man=EMPH work-NEG-PRS

But o , people do t ork. (text, 2011, Sinda)

(8) bajan mapa xaj-wa=da əčiə wā-ra

rich old.man what-ACC=EMPH NEG.PST kill-NEG

1.3. The point of the research:

aba

in SN

constructions

a) SN constructions with aba in Bikin Nanai:

– behave in quite a predictable way;

– follow consistently the Negative Existential Cycle proposed by W. Croft (Croft 1991).

The past te se “N o stru tio V-mi (=dA) aba i A ur diale ts: – is more of interest in a broader crosslinguistic perspective;

2. Bikin Nanai:

the expansion of

aba

in the system of SN

2.1. The features of aba in SN constructions

aba – a pleonastic element with negation forms, except prohibitives.

(9) Xuə=də ab čik-si

plank.bed=EMPH EXNEG fit-PRS.NEG

He does ot fit i the pla k- ed! “e 1976, text 2)

aba – a particle: no inflection, no morphological / syntactic changes in the initial

negation construction.

 aba is:

– optional with synthetic negation forms;

– obligatory with analytic negation forms (forms with auxiliaries bi- e a d oda

-do; e o e .

2.2. Possible preconditions for the expansion of

aba

in Bikin

Nanai

Morphological reduction of aba in Bikin Nanai – also in EN (existential negation) use: no person-number markers (Sem 1976: 51).

The negative particles ə and əčiə are absent in Bikin Nanai. Aba takes

2.3. Aba

in Bikin Nanai in a grammaticalization

perspective

_{Jesperse s dou le egatio le Jesperse} 1917, cf. Auwera 2009; 2010):

NEG1 NEG1+(NEG2) NEG1+NEG2 (NEG1)+NEG2 NEG2

(ab) čik-si a ā ə ə-əsi bi- ə-i

NEG fit-PRS.NEG NEG go-PRS.NEG be-SBJV-1SG

3. Amur Nanai: the SN past tense

construction with

aba

beyond (?)

Croft s y le

(12) Mi čisə iə ǯo o-m(=da) aba-(i)

1SG yesterday work-CVB.SIM.SG=EMPH EXNEG-1SG

I did t ork esterda . lit. I am absent while orki g

V-CVB.SIM (=dA₎ aba_(-ni₎

3.1. Formal features of the SN construction

V-CVB.SIM=(dA) aba

•

Evidence for grammaticalization:



A shorten form of the converb is used more often

ǯo om=(da) aba and sometimes ǯo om’=(da) aba

instead of ǯo omi(=da) aba.



If the subject is plural, the plural form of the converb can be

used, but the singular form is still more preferable:

(13) uə ǯo o-m(i)(=da) | OKǯo o-mar(i)(=da) aba-(pu)

1PL work-CVB.SIM.PL=EMPH work-CVB.SIM.PL=EMPH EXNEG-1PL

3.2. V-CVB.SIM

=(dA) aba

construction

within (?)

Croft s y le

•

The same transitional type B~C?

•

The existential marker

aba

replaced the SN marker only in

the part of system

—

in the past tense indicative.

•

Gradual su stitutio i o l part of er al s ste

in

Croft s ter s.

•

This is not the case of doubling or reinforcement of any

existing SN-marker as in Bikin Nanai.

•

Another perspective

•

There is an affirmative imperfective construction in

Nanai:

•

V-CVB.SIM

bi-

lit.

to be

hile doi g .

•

Aba

-construction develops not to fulfill a gap in the

system of SN.

•

Hypothesis:

• The SN-construction V-CVB.SIM(=dA₎ aba _{emerges just as a}

negative counterpart of V-CVB.SIM bi-_.

• The negative existential (aba) appears legiti ately :

•

Two constructions are structurally symmetrical:

V-CVB.SIM

bi-

X e ists hile V

-

i g

V-CVB.SIM(=

dA

)

aba

X does ot e ist hile V

-

i g

•

At the first glance the link between them seems to be very

natural or even self-evident.

•

However some problems arise with the hypothesis.

•

These problems and possible ways to avoid them are

3.3. The affirmative construction V-CVB.SIM

bi-in Amur Nanai

•

Some relevant features:

–

no particle =

dA

in the construction

(cf. =

dA

in

aba

-construction)

–

the aspectual semantics of V-CVB.SIM

bi-(cf. the temporal semantics of

aba

-construction)

–

the use in different moods and tense forms

(cf. the only form with

aba

)

–

the construction V-CVB.SIM

bi

-

_{under negation}

1) Aspectual (imperfective) semantics

(Avrorin 1986: 231, text 38)

2) The use in different moods and tense forms

V-CVB.SIM bi- in the present tense form in (13);

V-CVB.SIM bi- in the past tense form in (14);

V-CVB.SIM bi- in the imperative form in (15):

(15) amtaka-wa keokto-sal-ba sea-mi bi-xəri=ə də

berry-ACC hips-PL-ACC eat-CVB.SIM.SG be-IMP=QUOT

Eat the erries, the hips! (texts, Naixin)

NB! The only one form with aba.

NB! This past tense aba-construction is formally equivalent to the present tense bi-construction:

(13b) tə̄-si-mi bi-i-ni = he is sitti g

sit-IPFV-CVB.SIM.SG be-PRS-3SG

3) Negation

There is no regular imperfective negative counterpart of

V-CVB.SIM

bi-

.

The expected form V-CVB.SIM

bi-

NEG is forbidden by

speakers:

(16) *N’oa i i xə-wə niru- i=də bi-ə-si

3SG letter-ACC write-CVB.SIM.SG=EMPH be-NEG-PRS

He is ot riti g / has ot ritte / did ot rite a letter.

3.4. V-CVB.SIM

bi-

vs. V-CVB.SIM(=

dA

)

aba

affirmative CVB.SIM bi_{- negative CVB.SIM(=}dA₎ aba

=dA _{as a part of}

construction

NO YES (however can be

ommited)

paradigm the whole TM paradigm the only past tense form

aspectual

PRESENT (for the form

which is symmetrical to the

aba-construction)

PAST

3.5. Possible link between two constructions

Are they related at least diachronically

?

Why do they differ in

some features?

Semantic and diachronic explanations for the mismatches

mentioned above.

1) Presence / absence of the emphatic =

dA



=

dA

in the negative construction is also optional;



egatio itself is e phati a d se a ti all arked ;



there are other cases of use =

dA

in negative contexts.

So the presence of =

dA

can be connected to the negation,

2) Full paradigm vs. only one form

No evidence of the diachronic direction:

? Affirmative: the development of new forms?

? Negative: the loss of forms?

The possible functional reasons:



a rich SN-system already exists in Nanai: too strong

competition with other SN-markers;



for the negative paradigm there is no need in so detailed

3) The tense-aspect mismatch

(17) ’oa i ao i ii  ’oa i ao i=da a a

he is sleepi g ≠ he did ot sleep , expected * he isn t sleepi g

P‘“, P‘OG‘ ≠ P“T, NEUT‘AL

Some important remarks:

– Upper Amur Nanai: the aba-construction is a default past tense SN-marker.

However: the

aba

-construction tends to be used in the perfect

aspectual context.

(19) Gə̄, əsi uə xaj-wa=dā

well now 1PL what-ACC=EMPH

wā-mari=da aba-pu

kill-CVB.SIM.PL=EMPH EXNEG-1PL

Well, e ha e ot aught a thi g o . A rori 1986: 243, text 42)

Possible diachronic shifts for aba-construction

I. IMPERFECTIVE ASPECTUALLY NEUTRAL II. PRESENT PAST

a) The stati e ature of negation, less aspectual distinctions under negation (Schmid 1980; Auwera, Miestamo 2011).

b) The imperfective reading is the only option for the present tense form. Possible aspectual reinterpretation as the result of the shift PRS>PST IMPERFECTIVE >

IMPERFECTIVE=all possible readings >

affirmative: lit. I am present while seeing it – I see it o ; negative: lit. I am absent while seeing it – I ha e ot see it .

the absence of the process in the present ~ the absence of the fact in the past and the absence of its results in the present

d) Special position of the perfect context

Perfect is semantically intermediate between Present and Past (cf. Comrie 1976: 52-53; Maslov 1987/2004: 426; Binnick 1991: 98-104);

The shift pro a l starts ith the i epti e-stative er s see, hear,

be.afraid etc.):

PRS: state (I see) ~ IMPERFECTIVE PST: entry to the state (I have seen) ~ PERFECT

(cf. the aspectual classification of Nanai verbs in Oskolskaya 2017)

For such verbs the semantic reinterpretation under negation seems to be very natural:

PRS IMPERFECTIVE PERFECT PST NEUTRAL

Therefore, if these assumptions are correct:

•

The past tense SN-construction V-CVB.SIM(=

dA

)

aba

emerges initially as a negative counterpart of the

imperfective V-CVB.SIM

bi

- (and than undergoes some

semantic and formal changes).

3.6

. “i ilar ases eyo d the Croft s y le

(discussed in Veselinova 2014, 2016)

Bulgarian and Macedonian: the existential construction with

njama

/

nema

there

is no

…

(the frozen form of NEG + the

verb

ha e

expresses standard negation in the future tense.

Old Church Slavonic: the similar affirmative construction

i ěti

ha e

+ INF with the meaning of the future tense is attested.

The future negator in Bulgarian and Macedonian is rather a

counterpart of this affirmative

have

-construction, so it does

4. Conclusions

•

Two different types of SN constructions with the

negative existential

aba

in Nanai:

•

a Bikin type

•

an Amur type

•

Both types represent stage B~C in Croft s terms.

•

The Bikin

aba-constructions

is a more typical case of

doubling / reinforcement.

•

The Amur past tense construction is more obscure and it

illustrates an extension of

Croft s

cycle.

•

The hypothesis is that the Amur

aba

-construction:

• emerges legitimatel as a counterpart of the affirmative imperfective construction with bi- to e ,

• not due to the requirements of negation system itself,

• has no possibilities of further development within NEC.

•

An interesting point: a semantic mismatch between

bi

References

• Auwera, J.van der. 2009. The Jespersen cycles // Gelderen, E. (Ed.) Cyclical change. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

• Auwera J. van der. 2010. On the diachrony of negation. Expression of Negation / Horn L. (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. P. 73–101.

• Avrorin, V.A. 1961. Grammatika nanajskogo jazyka (Nanai grammar). Vol. 2. М.–L.: Nauka.

• Avrorin, V.A. 1986. Materialy po nanajskomu jazyku I foljkloru (Materials on the Nanai language and folklore). L.: Nauka.

• Binnick, R. I. 1991. Time and the Verb. A Guide to Tense & Aspect. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Croft, W. 1991. The evolution of negation // Journal of Linguistics, 27. P. 1–39.

• Forker D. 2016. Toward a typology for additive markers // Lingua, 108. P. 69—100.

• Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. (Konelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser I,5.) Cope hage : Høst.

• Maslov, Yu. S. 1987/2004. Perfective // Selected works: aspectology. General linguistics. M.: LRC. P. 426—444.

• Miestamo, M. and J.van der Auwera. 2011. Negation and perfective vs. imperfective aspect // Mortelmans, J. et al. (Eds.) From now to eternity. Cahiers Chronos, 20.

• Oskolskaya, S. A. and N. M. Stoynova. 2016. Systemic and non-systemic aspects in the inventory of heterogeneous morphosyntactic means: negation markers in the Nanai language. // Typology of the morphosyntactic parameters. Materials of the international conference. / Eds. Konoshenko M. B., Lyutikova E. A., Tsimmerling A. V. Moscow: MSPU. P. 211—231.

• Oskolskaya, S. A. 2017. Aspect in Nanai. PhD Thesis.

• Schmid, M.A. 1980. Co-occurrence restrictions in negative, interrogative, and conditional clauses: A cross-linguistic study. Ph. D. Diss., State University of New York at Buffalo.

• Sem, L.I. 1976. Očerki dialektov nanajskogo jazyka. Bikinskij dialect (Sketches on Nanai dialects. The Bikin dialect). L.: Nauka.

• Veselinova, L. 2013. Negative existentials: A cross linguistic study // Delia Bentley, Francesco Maria Ciconte and Silvio Cruschina (Eds.) [Special issue] Italian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1). P. 107–145.

• Veselinova, L. 2014. The Negative Existential Cycle Revisited // Linguistics, 52(6). P. 1327–1389.

Abbreviations