Additive Particle in Turkic Languages of the Volga-Kama Sprachbund

Introduction. The paper deals with the functions of the additive clitic =DA in three Turkic languages of the Volga-Kama Sprachbund: Chuvash, Tatar, and Bashkir. It aims to describe in detail the use of the clitic in the languages in question by way of analyzing typologically expected functions, as well as additional functions observed in the collected data, with special attention paid to those that have not been described before and on differences of its usage. Materials and methods. The analysis was based on a variety of source materials, including Chuvash data collected with elicitation during fieldwork (Maloye Karachkino variety) and Tatar (Mishar dialect), Bashkir (Kubalyak variety) data collected from published corpora of oral texts. Results. According to our data, the functions of the additive clitic =DA may be as follows: proper additivity, scalar additivity, formation of the concessive clauses, mirativity, conjunction, universal quantification, marking of the numerals with collective meaning, marking of indefinites, distributive plurality, usage in complex numerals and verbal constructions (complex verbs and serial constructions), and marking of contrastive topic and conjunctional adverbs. The most frequent contexts for the additive clitic are those of conjunction, slightly less numerous are proper additivity contexts and then mirative contexts, with universal quantifiers and indefinite pronouns. The discursive functions are least typical of the additive clitic in the languages under study, except for the Bashkir material. Also, its use in peripheral, conjunction-related, functions may be specific: Chuvash and Bashkir data (but not Tatar) include the examples of the clitic marking distributive plurality and of its use in complex numerals; then, Tatar and Bashkir data (no data for Chuvash) indicates the use of the particle as a part of complex verbs; and, finally, only Bashkir material includes serial constructions, with the additive clitic as an obligatory part. In all the other functions, the use of the additive clitic appears to be similar in the three Turkic languages of the Volga-Kama Sprachbund. 

1. Leontieva T. A. Coordinating and comitative constructs. Materials of Report delivered during the expedition to Maloye Karachkino (Chuvash Republic, Russian Federation) on 12 July 2019. (In Russ.)

2. Russkikh A. A. Field data collected in Maloye Karachkino (Chuvash Republic, Russian Federation), 2018–2020. (In Chuv.)

3. Russkikh A. Quantifiers with a Meaning of Full Coverage: A Typological Perspective. Manuscript (B. A. thesis). St. Petersburg, 2019. (In Russ.)

4. Aikhenvald A. Y. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology. 2012. Vol. 16. No. 3. Pp. 435–485. (In Eng.)

5. Bumford D. Universal quantification as iterated conjunction. In: Aloni M., Franke M., Roelofsen F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium. 2013. Pp. 67–74. (In Eng.)

6. Creissels D. Polysemy patterns involving non-scalar additive particles in Sub-Saharan languages: The coordinative connection. In: Additives Across Languages. 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE 2015). Vol. 2. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, 2015. Available at: http://www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-Additives.pdf (accessed: July 14, 2021). (In Eng.)

7. Forker D. Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua. 2016. No. 180. Pp. 69–100. (In Eng.)

8. Ganiev F. A. Russian-Tatar Dictionary. 4th ed., rev. Moscow: INSAN, 1997. 720 p. (In Russ. and Tat.)

9. Gil D. Universal quantifiers and distributivity. In: Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Springer, 1995. Pp. 321–362. (In Eng.)

10. Haspelmath M. Indefinite Pronouns (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. 380 p. (In Eng.)

11. Haspelmath M., König E. 9 Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. In: Auwera J. van der, O Baoill D. P. (eds.) Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 2011. Pp. 563–640. (In Eng.)

12. Kim M.-J., Jahnke N. The meaning of utterance-final even. Journal of English Linguistics. 2011. Vol. 39. No. 1. Pp. 36–64. (In Eng.)

13. König E. Syntax and semantics of additive focus markers from a cross-linguistic perspective. In: Cesare A.-M. de, Andorno C. (eds.) Focus on Additivity: Adverbial Modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017. Pp. 23–44. (In Eng.)

14. König E. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London; New York: Routledge, 1991. 218 p. (In Eng.)

15. Krifka M. Additive particles under stress. Semantics and Linguistic Theory. 1998. Vol. 8. Pp. 111–128. (In Eng.)

16. Logvinova N. N. Non-possessive functions of the third person possessive in Maloe Karachkino dialect of Chuvash. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 2019. Vol. 15. No. 2. Pp. 86–129. (In Russ.)

17. Ovsyannikova M., Say S., Aplonova E., Smetina A., Sokur E. Oral Corpus of Bashkir: Rakhmetovo and Baimovo Villages. St. Petersburg: Institute for Linguistic Studies (RAS); Moscow: Higher School of Economics (Linguistic Convergence Laboratory). Available at: http://lingconlab.ru/spoken_bashkir/ (accessed: July 14, 2021). (In Bash.)

18. Pazelskaya A. G. Discourse marker or syntactic marker: Particle da in Tatar and Chuvash. In: Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies (Dialogue) 2002. Conference proceedings. Available at: http://www.dialog-21.ru/en/digest/2002/articles/pazelskaya/ (accessed: July 14, 2021). (In Russ.)

19. Poppe N. Bashkir Manual: Descriptive Grammar and Texts with a Bashkir-English Glossary. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1964. 181 p. (In Eng.)

20. Puchkova A. I. Constructions with coordinative means menän and häm in the Bashkir language. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 2017. Vol. 13. No. 1. Pp. 255–283. (In Russ.)

21. Szabolcsi A. What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy. 2015. Vol. 38. No. 2. Pp. 159–204. (In Eng.)

22. Tatevosov S. G., Pazelskaya A. G., Suleymanov D. Sh. (eds.) Elements of Tatar in a Typological Perspective: The Mishar Dialect. Moscow: Buki Vedi, 2017. 764 p. (In Russ.)

23. Tenishev E. R. (ed.) A Comparative Historical Grammar of Turkic Languages: Morphology. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. 560 p. (In Russ.)

24. Winterstein G., Lai R., Lee D. T. H., Luk Z. P. S. From additivity to mirativity: The Cantonese sentence final particle tim1. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics. 2018. Vol. 3. No. 1. Pp. 1–38. (In Eng.)

25. Yuldashev A. A. (ed.) Grammar of Modern Standard Bashkir. Moscow: Nauka, 1981. 495 p. (In Russ.)

26. Zaefferer D. Conditionals and unconditionals: Cross-linguistic and logical aspects. In: Zaefferer D. (ed.) Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2019. Pp. 210–236. (In Eng.)

27. Zakiev M. Z. et al. (eds.) Tatar Grammar. In 3 vols. Vol. 2: Morphology. Ibragimov Institute of Language, Literature and History; Kazan Scientific Center (RAS). Kazan: Tatarstan Book Publ., 1993. 397 p. (In Russ.)