Abstract
The paper provides evidence for the existence of endoclitics in Andi, a Nakh-Daghestanian language of the Avar-Andic branch spoken in the Republic of Daghestan, Russia. In Andi, the additive marker (‘also’) and the intensifying marker (‘even, at all’) behave as enclitics on various types of hosts and as endoclitics when they occur on negative verb forms. In the latter case, the additive and intensifying markers break up the word form and appear before the negation marker. I argue that both the additive and the intensifier are clitics, especially in view of their highly promiscuous attachment. I also show that negative verb forms are morphologically synthetic, so the additive and the intensifier are genuine endoclitics, i.e. clitics that occur inside morphological words. In addition I provide a few parallels for the unusual morphosyntactic behaviour of additive and intensifying clitics in some other Nakh-Daghestanian languages as well as in some languages of Northern Eurasia. Although in these cases the corresponding markers do not qualify as endoclitics proper, the available data hint at a cross-linguistic tendency towards word-internal placement of morphemes with meanings like ‘also’, ‘even’ or ‘only’.
Funding source: Russian Academic Excellence Project
Acknowledgements
My thanks are due to Chopan Gaziev for his native speaker judgements on Andi, and to Steven Kaye for the help with the English of the paper.
-
Research funding: The article was prepared within the framework of the HSE University Basic Research Program and funded by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5–100’.
Abbreviations
abstr = abstract noun; ad = localization ‘near’; add = additive; adv = adverbializer; aff = affective (case); aor = aorist; attr = attributivizer; aux = auxiliary; caus = causative; cl = class (gender); cond = conditional; conneg = connegative (verb form); cont = localization ‘in contact’; cop = copula; cvb = converb; dat = dative; degr = degree marker; delim = delimitative (‘only’); dem = demonstrative; dir = directive; down = direction ‘down’; elat = elative; emph = emphatic; erg = ergative; excl = exclusive; f = feminine; f/n = feminine or neuter; fut = future; gen = genitive; hab = habitual; iii = third (neuter) gender; imp = imperative; in = localization ‘inside’; indef = indefiniteness; inf = infinitive; infr = inferential; int = intensifier; inter = localization ‘in a mass’; ipfv = imperfective; iv = fourth (neuter) gender; lat = lative; lim = limitative (‘only’); loc = locative; lv = light verb; m = masculine; mnr = manner adverbial; msd = masdar (action nominal); neg = negation; n = neuter gender; num = numeral marker; obl = oblique stem; pl = plural; pret = preterite; prf = perfect; prog = progressive; proh = prohibitive; prs = present; pst = past; ptcp = participle; ptcl = particle; q = polar question; quot = quotative; sim = simultaneous; st = stem (detached part); sup = localization ‘on top’; temp = temporal; v = fifth (neuter) gender; voc = vocative; wh = content question.
Textual sources
Tales = Magomedova, P. A. (ed.) & Alisultanova, M. A. (transl.). 2010. Dunjalla baxunnirssi xalɢilʟol ɢvanab mic’c’illassol muxal [World fairy-tales in Andi]. Makhachkala: ID Nurul’ iršad.
Luke = Lukašdi bosam rerhanoɬɬi xabar [The Gospel according to Luke]. 2015. Moscow: Institut perevoda Biblii.
References
Alekseev, Mixail E. 1988. Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja morfologija avaro-andijskix jazykov [A comparative-historical grammar of Avar-Andic languages]. Moscow: Nauka.Search in Google Scholar
Arkadiev [Arkad’ev], Pёtr M. 2016. K voprosu ob èndoklitikax v russkom jazyke [On endoclitics in Russian]. In Anton V. Zimmerling & Ekaterina Anatol’evna Ljutikova (eds.), Arxitektura klauzy v parametričeskix modeljax: Sintaksis, informacionnaja struktura, porjadok slov, 325–331. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur. https://www.academia.edu/26693489/ (accessed 07 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279906.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Cercvadze, Ilia I. 1965. Andiuri ena: gramat’ikuli analizi tek’st’ebit [Andi language: grammatical analysis with texts]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Search in Google Scholar
Conathan, Lisa & Jeff Good. 2001. Morphosyntactic reduplication in Chechen and Ingush. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 36. 49–61. https://ubir.buffalo.edu/xmlui/handle/10477/38639 (accessed 07 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Dirr, Adolf M. 1906. Kratkij grammatičeskij očerk andijskogo jazyka [Short grammatical sketch of Andi]. Sbornik materialov dlja opisanija mestnostej i plemën Kavkaza 36, Section 4, 1–200. Tiflis: Upravlenie Kavkazskogo Učebnogo Okruga.Search in Google Scholar
Fedotov, Maksim L. 2014. Fokus, zaglagol’nye zavisimye i èndoklitiki v gban [Focus, post-verbal dependents, and endoclitics in Gban]. In Valentin F. Vydrin & Nina V. Kuznecova (eds.), Ot Bikina do Bambaljumy, iz varjag v greki: Èkspedicionnye ètjudy v čest’ E. V. Perexval’skoj, 195–214. Saint Petersburg: Nestor–Istorija.Search in Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2015. Towards a semantic map for intensifying particles: Evidence from Avar. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 68. 485–513. https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2015-0021.Search in Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2016. Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua 180. 69–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.008.Search in Google Scholar
Forker, Diana & Oleg Belyaev. 2016. Information structure in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert Van ValinJr. (eds.), Information structure and spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, 239–261. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110368758-012Search in Google Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitry, Timur Maisak & Solmaz Merdanova. 2010. Periphrastic verbal forms and clause structure in Agul. Paper prepared for the workshop Typology of Periphrasis. University of Surrey. https://www.academia.edu/3007159/ (accessed 07 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2000. Where in the word is the Udi clitic? Language 76. 593–616. https://doi.org/10.2307/417136.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1). 31–80. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2011.002.Search in Google Scholar
Kalinina, Elena & Nina Sumbatova. 2007. Clause structure and verbal forms in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness, 183–249. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kari, Ethelbert E. 2002. On endoclitics: Some facts from Degema. Journal of Asian and African Studies 63. 37–53.Search in Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2002. Focus in Daghestanian and word order typology. Linguistic Typology 6. 289–316. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2003.002.Search in Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E., Konstantin I. Kazenin, Ekaterina A. Ljutikova & Sergej G. Tatevosov (eds.). 2001. Bagvalinskij jazyk: Grammatika. Teksty. Slovari [Bagwalal: Grammar, texts, dictionaries]. Moscow: IMLI RAN.Search in Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 1985. Absentiv-Aorist und Resultativ in der andischen Sprache. In Bernd Wilhelmi (ed.), Sprachen Europas und Asiens, 55–66. Jena: Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.Search in Google Scholar
Kozlov, Aleksej & Ivan Stenin. 2014. Neneckie fokusnye markery: dva vida neožidannosti [Nenets focus markers: Two types of unexpectedness]. Paper presented at the 11th Conference on Typology and Grammar for Young Scholars, ILI RAN, Saint Petersburg. http://youngconfspb.com/application/files/2214/4770/6669/21_Kozlov_Stenin.pdf (accessed 07 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Kushnir [Kušnir], Elizaveta L. 2016. Osobennosti topikalizacii v jazyke jaurè (južnye mande) [Topicalization in the Yauré language (South Mande family)]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 12(1). 106–113. https://alp.iling.spb.ru/static/alp_XII_1.pdf (accessed 07 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Malchukov [Mal’čukov], Andrej L. 2008. Sintaksis evenskogo jazyka [The syntax of Even]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka.Search in Google Scholar
Masuda, Ryo. 2014. Revisiting the phonology and morphosyntax of Chechen and Ingush verb doubling. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 40. 336–353. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v40i0.3147.Search in Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1982. Prosodic structure and expletive infixation. Language 58(3). 574–590. https://doi.org/10.2307/413849.Search in Google Scholar
McMillan, James B. 1980. Infixing and interposing in English. American Speech 55(3). 163–183. https://doi.org/10.2307/455082.Search in Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110320640.Search in Google Scholar
Oskol’skaja, Sof’ja A. & Natal’ja M. Stojnova. 2016. Sistemnoe i nesistemnoe v inventare raznorodnyx morfosintaksičeskix sredstv: pokazateli otricanija v nanajskom jazyke [Systemic and asystemic in the inventory of heterogeneous morphosyntactic means: Negation markers in Nanai]. In Ekaterina A. Ljutikova, Anton V. Zimmerling & Marija B. Konošenko (eds.), Tipologija morfosintaksičeskix parametrov. Vyp. 3. Materialy meždunarodnoj konferencii “Tipologija morfosintaksičeskix parametrov – 2016”, 211–231. Moscow: MPGU. https://www.academia.edu/34960257/ (accessed 07 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Peterson, David A. 2001. Ingush ˀa: The elusive Type 5 clitic? Language 77. 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0032.Search in Google Scholar
Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rudnitskaja, Elena L. 2017. Delimitativnyj affiks -riktV- i fokusnaja častica (h)ələ v èvenkijskom jazyke kak veršiny dvux raznyx proekcij DelimP i FocP [The delimitative affix -riktV- and the focalizing particle (h)ələ in Evenki as heads of the two different projections DelimP and FocP]. In Ekaterina A. Ljutikova & Anton V. Zimmerling (eds.), Tipologija morfosintaksičeskix parametrov. Vyp. 4. Materialy meždunarodnoj konferencii “Tipologija morfosintaksičeskix parametrov – 2017”, 209–221. Moscow: IRJa imeni A. S. Puškina. https://www.academia.edu/36533177/ (accessed 07 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Salimov, Xangerej S. 2010. Gagatlinskij govor andijskogo jazyka [The Gagatli dialect of the Andi language]. Makhachkala: IJaLI RAN.Search in Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. What Sorani Kurdish absolute prepositions tell us about cliticization. Texas Linguistics Society (TLS) 9. 265–285.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Peter W. 2013. On the cross-linguistic rarity of endoclisis. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 39. 227–244. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v39i1.3883.Search in Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Ana Luís. 2012a. The canonical clitic. In Dunstan P. Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville C. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 123–150. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0006Search in Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Ana Luís. 2012b. Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139033763Search in Google Scholar
Sulejmanov, Jakub G. 1957. Grammatičeskij očerk andijskogo jazyka (po dannym govora s. Rikvani) [Grammatical sketch of Andi: Based on the variant spoken in Rikvani]. Moscow: Institut jazykoznanija AN SSSR dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Lopes, Célia Regina dos Santos & Maria Teresa Brocardo. 2016. Main morphosyntactic changes and grammaticalization processes. In W. Leo Wetzels, João Costa & Sergio Menuzzi (eds.), The handbook of Portuguese linguistics, 471–486. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118791844.ch26Search in Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergej G. 1999. Otricatel’naja poljarnost’ i pragmatičeskaja škala: èmfatičeskie glagol’nye formy v bagvalinskom jazyke [Negative polarity and the pragmatic scale: Emphatic negative verb forms in Bagwalal]. Dagestanskij lingvističeskij sbornik 7. 60–68.Search in Google Scholar
Vydrin, Arsenij P. 2014. Glagol v osetinskom jazyke [The verb in Ossetic]. Vostokovedenie. Istoriko-filologičeskie issledovanija 30. 25–81.Search in Google Scholar
Van den Berg, Helma. 2004. Coordinating constructions in Daghestanian languages. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 197–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.58.12berSearch in Google Scholar
Walther, Géraldine. 2012. Fitting into morphological structure: Accounting for Sorani Kurdish endoclitics. In Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise & Athanasios Karasimos (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Cagliari, Italy, 300–321. University of Patras.Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A natural history of infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279388.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Zimmerling, Anton. 2016. Towards a typology of endoclitics. Paper presented at the conference Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters – 2016, Moscow. https://www.academia.edu/28392976/ (accessed 10 February 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59. 502–513. https://doi.org/10.2307/413900.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
