Abstract
This paper explores the verbal system of Tundra Nenets and offers a partition of the entire set of derivationally minimal verbs into actional classes, which include stative, process, inceptive-stative, ingressive-atelic, durative and punctual telic, durative and punctual ingressive, and bi-telic verbs. This classification is established in a bottom-up manner, starting from the lowest level of actional interpretations of individual subparadigms of a verb. As a result, 18 subparadigmatic classes are established. At the next stage, an actional characteristic is assigned to the entire paradigm and the 18 subparadigmatic classes are reduced to seven actional macroclasses. However, at the paradigmatic level, one discovers that for certain types of verbs actional information available paradigm-internally does not suffice. To recover the missing information, one needs to examine derivationally related lexical items that realize semantic configurations unavailable paradigm-internally. This paradigm-external perspective leads to the recognition of cross-paradigmatic actional characteristics assigned to groups of derivationally related verbs.
Funding source: Russian Foundation for Basic Research
Award Identifier / Grant number: #19-012-00627
Acknowledgments
Studies of the indigenous languages of Russia are part of the Development Program of the Interdisciplinary Scientific and Educational School of Lomonosov Moscow State University «Preservation of the World Cultural and Historical Heritage». The paper is based on the data from the Malaya Zemlya dialect, one of the Western dialects of Tundra Nenets, as spoken in the Nelmin Nos village (Nenets Autonomous Discrict, Russia). The data were collected during fieldwork expeditions organized by the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (Lomonosov Moscow State University) in 2003–2005. The observations and generalizations presented below have been made possible by the collective effort and contribution of the entire team, which included Lev Blumenfeld, Philip Dudchuk, Pavel Iosad, Denis Ivanov, Mikhail Ivanov, Daria Kavitskaya, Elena Khanina, Olga Khanina, Ekaterina Lyutikova, Irina Nikolaeva, Anna Pazelskaya, Andrey Shluinsky, Petr Staroverov, Sergei Tatevosov, Maria Tsyurupa, Ekaterina Volovich, Nikolay Vorontsov, Natalia Zevakhina. The author expresses his immensely deep gratitude to the native speakers of Tundra Nenets the expedition was proud and happy to work with: Anna Apitsyna, Ekaterina Ardeeva, Maria Kanyukova, Valentina Maryueva, Clara Taleeva, Ekaterina Taibarei and Mikhail Taibarei. This work and personal interaction will always remain a source of cherished memories, optimism, and hope. The author is grateful to the anonymous STUF reviewers for stimulating comments, suggestions, and criticism. All mistakes, shortcomings, and oversights are mine.
-
Research funding: This study received financial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant #19-012-00627).
Appendix A: Verb sample
ye ‘heard at night, yoq ‘lose’, yeweyøh ‘eat liquid food’, yempøq ‘put on’, yenyer ‘shoot’, yoryem ‘deepen’, yesyeda ‘steel’, yoxo ‘diappear’, yíbyeq ‘be smart’, yilye ‘live, be alive’, yincyelye ‘listen’, ladø ‘hit’, lat°ra ‘compress, pinch’, løxønø ‘talk’, loxom ‘come to a boil’, møly°ye ‘break, tr.’, møly°yo ‘break, intr.’, møyøm ‘be glad’, madør ‘bark’, masø ‘smear, smutch’, masør ‘make dirty’, mo ‘throw’, me ‘take’, menye ‘love’, ngødør ‘tear, tr.’, ngødarø ‘tear, intr.’, nømtø ‘hear’, ngødim ‘show up’, ngødyø ‘bee visible’, ngøm ‘eat’, ngamtø ‘sit down, sit’, ngamtyo ‘be sitting’, ngøtye ‘wait’, nyelye ‘marry’, ngoxølø ‘swim, float’, nger ‘drink’, nyu°cya ‘kiss’, nyøqmø ‘take, receive’, padø ‘write’, paye ‘swell’, panø ‘fill’, pyínø ‘fear, be scared’, pyi ‘boil, cook’, pyísyøh ‘laugh’, peda ‘get tired’, søl ‘return’, sara ‘burst’, sarøq ‘pierce, perforate’, so ‘be audible’, syúr ‘hide’, syakøl ‘bite’, ta ‘give’, tøna ‘rise, climb’, tørpø ‘go out’, tyenyewø ‘know’, tyí ‘fly’, tyím ‘rot, go bad’, to ‘come’, tola ‘read’, tum ‘catch fire’, tira ‘dry’, tebølø ‘be thin’, tyu ‘come in, enter’, xøwø ‘fall, fall down’, xøwønø ‘rain’, xødyeq ‘scratch’, xayo ‘leave’, xøl°ta ‘wash’, xømta ‘spill, tr.’, xømtum ‘spill, intr.’, xønyim ‘get cold, freeze’, xørwa ‘want’, xørye ‘frighten, scare’, xa ‘die’, xo ‘find’, xoy°dø ‘wave’, xoy°sa ‘wave, flap’, xona ‘fall asleep’, xonyo ‘sleep’, xæ ‘go away’, yutø ‘beat’, yadø ‘walk’, yampum ‘lengthen’.
Appendix B: Partial paradigms
The paradigms below come from Salminen (1998: 25).
Partial paradigms of Aorist of me ‘take’ и te ‘flow’.
| sg | du | pl | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subjective conjugation | |||
| I person | meø-d°m || meø-m°h | me°-nyih | me°-waq |
| II person | meø-n° | me°-dyih | me°-daq |
| III person | me°-∅ | menga-x°h | me°-q |
| Objective conjugation; singular object | |||
| I person | meø-w° | me°-myih | me°-waq |
| II person | meø-r° | me°-ryih | me°-raq |
| III person | me°-da | me°-dyih | me°-doh |
| Objective conjugation; dual object | |||
| I person | menga-xøyu-n° | menga-xøyu-nyih | menga-xøyu -naq |
| II person | menga-xøyu-d° | menga-xøyu-dyih | menga-xøyu -daq |
| III person | menga-xøyu-da | menga-xøyu-dyih | menga-xøyu-doh |
| Objective conjugation; plural object | |||
| I person | meyø-n° | mey°-nyih | mey°-naq |
| II person | meyø-d° | mey°-dyih | mey°-daq |
| III person | mey°-da | mey°-dyih | mey°-doh |
| Reflexive conjugation | |||
| I person | teyø-w°q | tey°-nyih | tey°-naq |
| II person | teyø-n° | tey°-dyih | tey°-daq |
| III person | tey°-q | teyø-x°h | teyø-d°q |
-
Light gray shading = special finite stem, Dark gray shading = dual object stem, No shading = general finite stem.
Appendix C: Subparadigmatic classes
| Process ntS intransitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | P | — | — |
| Examples: yadø ‘walk’ (ntS: ‘DP is walking’), myih ‘go, move’ (ntS: ‘DP is going’) | |||
| Stative ntS intransitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | S | — | — |
| Examples: ngødyø ‘be visible’ (ntS: ‘DP is visible’), xonyo ‘sleep’ (ntS: ‘DP is sleeping’), yíbyeq ‘be smart’ (ntS: ‘DP is smart’) | |||
| Telic ntS intransitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | ES | — | — |
| Examples: xa ‘die’ (ntS: ‘DP died’), to ‘come’ (ntS: ‘DP came’), møly°yo ‘break’ (ntS: ‘DP broke’), yoxo ‘get lost’ (ntS: ‘DP got lost’) | |||
| Ingressive ntS intransitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | EP | — | — |
| Examples: loxom ‘come to a boil’ (ntS: ‘DP came to boil’) | |||
| Telic Rfl intransitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | — | — | ES |
| Examples: ngamtø ‘sit down’ (Rfl: ‘DP sat down’), tøna ‘go up, climb’ (Rfl: ‘DP went up’), sara ‘burst’ (Rfl: ‘DP burst’), panø ‘fill’ (Rfl: ‘DP filled’), | |||
| Ingressive Rfl intransitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | — | — | EP |
| Examples: tum ‘catch fire’ (Rfl: ‘DP caught fire’), møyøm ‘get glad, become glad’ (Rfl: ‘DP became glad’) | |||
| Ingressive-atelic ntS-Rfl intransitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | P | — | EP |
| Examples: yincyelye ‘listen’ (ntS: ‘DP1 is listening to DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP1 started listening to DP2’), yeweyøh ‘eat liquid food’ (ntS: ‘DP is eating liquid food’; Rfl: ‘DP started eating liquid food’), løxønø ‘talk’ (ntS: ‘DP is talking’; Rfl: ‘DP started talking’), ngoxølø ‘swim, float’ (ntS: ‘DP is swimming’; Rfl: ‘DP started swimming). | |||
| Inceptive-stative ntS-Rfl intransitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | S | — | ES |
| Examples: syúryo ‘hide’ (ntS: ‘DP is hidden’; Rfl: ‘DP hid’), yilye ‘live, be alive’ (ntS: ‘DP is alive’; Rfl: ‘DP came to life’), ngamtyo ‘sit down, sit’ (ntS: ‘DP is sitting’; Rfl: ‘DP sat down’), paye ‘swallow’ (ntS: ‘DP is swallen’; Rfl: ‘DP swelled up’) | |||
| Ingressive-telic ntS-Rfl intransitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | ES | — | EP |
| Examples: ngødarø ‘tear’ (ntS: ‘DP tore’; Rfl: ‘DP started tearing’), tira ‘dry’ (ntS: ‘DP’ dried; Rfl: ‘DP started drying’), yoryem ‘deepen’ (ntS: ‘DP deepened’; Rfl: ‘DP started deepening’) | |||
| Telic ntS-Rfl intransitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | ES | — | ES |
| Examples: peda ‘get tired’ (ntS: ‘DP got tired’; Rfl: ‘DP got tired’), xøwø ‘fall, fall down’ (ntS: ‘DP fell down’; Rfl: ‘DP fell down’), ngødim ‘show up’ (ntS: ‘DP showed up’; Rfl: ‘DP showed up’) | |||
| Stative tSO transitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | — | S | — |
| Examples: tyenyewø ‘know, remember’ (tSO: ‘DP1 remembers DP2’); menye ‘love’ (tSO: ‘DP1 loves DP2’) | |||
| Process tSO transitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | — | P | — |
| Examples: ye ‘herd at night’ (tSO: ‘DP1 is herding/watching DP2 at night’), ngøtye ‘wait’ (tSO: ‘DP1 is waiting for DP2’) | |||
| Telic tSO transitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | — | ES | — |
| Examples: nyøqmø ‘take, receive’ (tSO: ‘DP1 took DP2’), xo ‘find’ (tSO: ‘DP1 found DP2’), yutø ‘beat’ (tSO: ‘DP1 beat DP2’), xødyeq ‘scratch’ (tSO: ‘DP1 scratched DP2’), | |||
| Inceptive-stative tSO-Rfl transitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | — | S | ES |
| Examples: tyenewø ‘know’ (tSO: ‘DP1 knows DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP1 came to know DP2’); xørwa ‘want’ (tSO: ‘DP1 wants DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP1 started wanting DP2’)[17] | |||
| Telic tSO-Rfl transitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | — | ES | ES |
| Examples: xørye ‘frighten’ (tSO: ‘DP1 frightened DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP2 got frightened’), syúr ‘hide’ (tSO: ‘DP1 hid DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP1/DP2 hid/disappeared’), xømda ‘spill, pour’ (tSO: ‘DP1 spilled DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP2 spilled’), mo ‘throw’ (tSO: ‘DP1 threw DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP1 threw herself (somewhere)’), yempøq ‘dress’ (tSO: ‘DP1 dressed DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP1 dressed’) | |||
| Ingressive-atelic tSO-Rfl transitives | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | — | ES | EP |
| Examples: nger ‘drink’ (tSO ‘DP1 drank DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP1 started drinking DP2’), tola ‘read’ (tSO ‘DP1 read DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP1 started reading DP2’), nyu°cya ‘kiss’ (tSO ‘DP1 kissed DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP1 started kissing DP2’) | |||
| Bi-telic ntS-tSO-Rfl verbs | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | P | ES | EP |
| Examples: madør ‘bark’ (ntS: ‘DP1 is barking’; tSO: ‘DP1 barked at DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP1 sarted barking at DP2’) | |||
| Ingressive-atelic ntS-tSO-Rfl verbs | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | P | EP | EP |
| Examples: xøw°nø ‘rain’ (ntS: ‘DP2 is raining’; tSO ‘DP1 is raining DP2’; Rfl: ‘DP1 started raining DP2’ | |||
Appendix D: Glossary
Actional matrix. The mapping between subparadigms of a verb and actional meanings they manifest.
| Verb yincyelye ‘listen’ | |||
| Subparadigm | ntS | tSO | Rfl |
| Actional characteristics | P | — | EP |
Actional meanings are defined as follows. Let a verb form F represent the main predicate in a clause CF. Then F is associated with the actional interpretation
|
a. |
state, S, iff CF describes a state; |
|
b. |
process, P, iff CF describes a process that does not reach a culmination (no matter if it can reach a culmination in some relevant worlds); |
|
c. |
entry into a state, ES, iff CF describes an eventuality that reaches a culmination with a subsequent state |
|
d. |
entry into a process, EP, iff CF describes an eventuality that reaches a culmination with a subsequent process |
Conjugation. A group of inflectional verb forms defined by designated person-number agreement morphology. Reflexive conjugation. Objective conjugation. Subjective conjugation.
Cross-paradigmatic actional class. A set of groups of verbs with identical cross-paradigmatic actional labels.
Cross-paradigmatic actional label. The union of actional meanings represented in paradigmatic actional labels of a group of derivationally related verbs. Meanings that come from different lexical items are separated by the comma. Derivationally related verbs are enclosed in the “‹›” angle brackets.
| Imperfective group of xa ‘die’, ‹xa, xa-nø›: < ES; P > |
Non-trivial subjective conjugation. Forms that bear the subjective conjugational morphology and do not fall under the trivial subjective conjugation.
Paradigmatic actional label. The union of actional meanings represented in the actional matrix of a verb.
| Verb yincyelye ‘listen’: {EP P} |
Subparadigm. One or more conjugations that show identical argument-structural, temporal and aspectual behavior. Rfl subparadigm (forms of the reflexive conjugation); ntS subparadigm (forms of the non-trivial subjective conjugation); tSO subparadigm (forms of the objective and trivial subjective conjugation).
Subparadigmatic class. A set of verbs with identical actional matrices.
Paradigmatic actional class. A set of verbs with identical paradigmatic actional labels.
Trivial subjective conjugation. Verb forms that bear the subjective conjugational morphology and occur in the same argument-structural, temporal and aspectual environment as the corresponding forms of the objective conjugation.
References
Burkova, Svetlana. 2010. Kratkij ocherk grammatiki tundrovogo dialekta nenetskogo jazyka [A short sketch of the Tundra Nenets grammar]. In Natalia B. Koshkarëva (ed.), Dialektologichsekij slovar’ neneckogo jazyka, 180–349. Ekaterinburg: Basko.Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1977. Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English “imperfective” progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 45–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00351936.Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.Search in Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Еmma. 1987. The typology of reflexives. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Gyarmathy, Zsofia. 2015. Achievements, durativity, and scales. Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin.Search in Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 1996. Terminality operators and their hierarchical status. In Betty Devriendt, Louis Goossens & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), Complex structures: A functionalist perspective, 229–258. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya & Petr Staroverov. 2010. When an interaction is both opaque and transparent: The paradox of fed counterfeeding. Phonology 27. 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675710000126.Search in Google Scholar
Khanina, Olesya. 2008. Intransitive split in Tundra Nenets, or how much semantics can hide behind syntactic alignment. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 162–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Körtvély, Éva. 2005. Verb conjugation in Tundra Nenets. Szeged: Studia Uralo-Altaica.Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2003. The event argument and the semantics of verbs. UMass-Amherst: Ms.Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne & Hamida Demirdache. 2020. Partitive accomplishments across languages. Linguistics 58(5). 1195–1232. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0201.Search in Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina A. 2014. A grammar of Trundra Nenets. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Ristinen, Elaine K. 1973a. Some remarks on the function of the subjective and objective conjugations in Samoyedic. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 72. 337–347.Search in Google Scholar
Ristinen, Elaine K. 1973b. Observations on the Functions of the Conjugations in Samoyedic. Uralica 1. 11–38.Search in Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspects. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani. 1997. Tundra Nenets inflection. Helsinki: Suomolais-Ugrilainen Seura.Search in Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani. 1998. A morphological dictionary of Tundra Nenets. Helsinki: Suomolais-Ugrilainen Seura.Search in Google Scholar
Schepper, Kees de. 2010. The space between one and two: Transitives, intransitives and the middle voice. In Patrick Brandt & Marco García García (eds.), Transitivity. Form, meaning, acquisition, and processing, 191–208. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2002. The parameter of actionality. Linguistic Typology 6. 317–401.Search in Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2005. Aktsionalnost’: tipologija i teorija [Actionality: Typology and theory]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1. 108–141.Search in Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2016a. Glagol’nyje klassy i tipologija actsionalnosti. Moscow: Jazyki Skavjanskikh Kultur.Search in Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2016b. Struktura i interpretatsija nenetskogo glagola [Structure and interpretation of the Nenets verb]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 3. 81–114. https://doi.org/10.31857/s0373658x0001008-7.Search in Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2020. On the temporal structure of nonculminating accomplishments. Linguistics 58(5). 1323–1371. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0018.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, Barry. 1977. Tense and continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00353457.Search in Google Scholar
Tereščenko, Natalja. 1947. Ocherk grammatiki nenetskogo (jurako-samojedskogo) jazyka [A survey in the grammar of the Nenets (Yurak Samoyedic) language]. Leningrad: Uchpedgiz.Search in Google Scholar
Tereščenko, Natalja. 1956. Materialy i issledovanija po jazyku nentsev [Materials and studies on the Nenets language]. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Search in Google Scholar
Tereščenko, Natalja. 1965. Nenetsko-russkij slovar’ [Nenets-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Sovetskaja Èkciklopedija.Search in Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 66(2). 143–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182371.Search in Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Search in Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A theory of aspectuality. The iInteraction between temporal and atem-poral structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Zucchi, Sandro. 1999. Incomplete events, intensionality, and imperfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics 7. 179–215. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008310800632.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
