REPORTED SPEECH IN DARGWA

Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 Nina Sumbatova Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow REPORTED SPEECH IN DARGWA1 1. Introduction In the typology of reported speech, the classical opposition of direct vs. indirect speech is now known to be a non-realistic construct: in many languages, the linguists observe numerous constructions of the mixed and ‘biperspectival’ type (cf., among many others, [Evans 2013], [Nikitiva 2012], [Polinsky 2015]). In this paper, I shall analyze the most common type of reported speech constructions in Tanti Dargwa and try to (at least partly) explain some of the unusual phenomena observed in this language and implement them into a general model of the Dargwa sentence. Sections 2 and 3 provide some general information on Dargwa. In Section 4, I introduce the basic varying parameters of these constructions. Section 4 provides information of the morphosyntactic properties of their predicates, section 5 discusses the person of the NPs, section 6 deals with deictic adverbials. In sections 7, I formulate some generalizations and discuss some possible explanations of the facts described in previous sections. Useful terms: [Nikitina 2012]: current speech situation – current interlocutors (speaker/addressee) vs. reported speech situation – reported interlocutors (speaker/addressee) A-argument: the ergative agent of a transitive verb, P-argument: the absolutive patient of a transitive verb, Sargument: the absolutive subject of an intransitive verbs; core arguments: A/P/S-arguments 2. Dargwa: general information This paper uses the data of the Tanti dialect of Dargwa [Sumbatova, Lander 2014]. Dargwa: • East-Caucasian (Nakh-Daghestanian) • approximately 500,000 speakers • Central and Eastern part of Daghestan (Russian Federation) • well-known for dialectal divergences • ergative, left-branching, rich nominal and verbal morphology • both gender and person agreement • Tanti: spoken in the village of Tanti (830 inhabitants); close to the Tsudakhar dialect. 3. Clausal complements in Dargwa The verbs of speech and thought allow several syntactic strategies of expressing speech content: • (1) finite clauses without any marking (parenthesis) hat'i then zahidat Saidat(ABS) r-ik’˳-ar: F-say:IPF-TH “bazar-li-ja-b, – market-OBL-SUPER-HPL(ESS) 1 r-ikʼ˳-ar, – F-say:IPF-TH hiš-tː-a-li this-PL-OBL.PL-ERG se=satːenne what=INDEF The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, grant # 17-18-01184. 1 Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 asː-ib-le letːe» – r-ikʼ˳-ar take:PF-PRET-CONV EXST+NPL+PST F-say:IPF-TH ‘Then Sahidat says: “They have bought something at the market”.’ • [čina qʼ˳-aˁn-senne2] ʕaˁ-b-alχ-un-ne where(LAT) go:IPF-POT-ATR+IQ NEG-N-know:IPF-PRS-CONV ‘This thief did not know where to go.’ (2) • (3) hil this qulki-ž thief-DAT non-finite complements umra-li dam-cːe tiladi-b-arq’-ib [mura-ž neighbour-ERG I:OBL-INTER ask-N-do:PF-PRET hay-DAT ‘The neighbour asked me to help him with the hay.’ • (4) indirect questions: finite complements introduced by the indirect question marker =anne kumek help(ABS) b-arq’-aq-iž] N-do:PF-CAUS-INF finite complements introduced by the quotative particle ible (< perfective converb of the verb ʔ ‘say’). [[tːura-b-aˁq-ib-le, OUT-HPL-hit:PF-PRET-CONV ʕaˁšːalla you.PL:GEN quli house:LOC(LAT) d-aˁqʼ˳-eni-ja] 1/2PL-go:IPF-IMP-PL ible] CIT hel-tːi=ra maχ-b-arqʼ-ib-le=sa‹b›i hil kːurtːa-li this-PL(ABS)=ADD warn-HPL-LV:PF-PRET-CONV=COP‹HPL› this fox-ERG ‘“Turn them [the dragons] out and get back to your house,” – warned them the fox.’ (5) malla Mullah nasratːin Nasrreddin(ABS) simi-w-ač’-ib-le, angry-M-LV:PF-PRET-ADV ʕaˁsi-w-iχ-ub-le mad-M-LV:PF-PRET-ADV ča-r-ħela-w-iž-ib-le=sa-j [[sun-ni=ra b-irq-i-d] ible] self-ERG=ADD N-hit:IPF-TH-1 CIT ‘Mullah Nasreddin got angry, turned round, and thought: ‘I’ll hit him myself!’’ ON+UP-EL-BEHIND-M-LV-PRET-ADV=COP-M Table 1. Canonical direct and indirect speech (after [Evans 2013: 68–70]). CANONICAL DIRECT SPEECH: CANONICAL INDIRECT SPEECH: Canonical direct speech reproduces the original speaker’s words, or at least words that are presented as if they were original speech. Canonical direct speech includes all linguistic particularities of the original (e.g. language or dialect choice). Canonical indirect speech assimilates the material presented by the original speaker to the reporting speaker’s perspective. Canonical indirect speech abstracts away from all linguistic particularities of the original and replaces them with a stylistic representation consistent with the rest of the reporting speaker’s stylistic choices. In canonical indirect speech, all deictically sensitive expressions are presented from the perspective of the reporting speaker. Overt quotational clause obligatory Various deviations from main clause syntax possible Arguments may be raised into quotational clause Quote not interrupted by quotational clause *John she said that had left. Integrated intonation contour Canonical direct speech presents all deictically sensitive expressions from the perspective of the original speaker. Overt quotational clause optional Normal main clause morphosyntax Arguments remain in quoted clause Quote can be interrupted by quotational clause ‘John’ she said ‘has left.’ Independent, ‘vivid’ intonational contour in quoted material In Tanti, finite complements without a special marker show all the properties of direct speech; indirect questions and non-finite complements are close to canonical indirect speech. Complements with the complementizer ible are heterogeneous in this respect. These constructions are the main subject of this work. 2 -se + =anne > -senne. 2 Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 (6) Important features distinguishing direct vs. indirect speech constructions (adapted for Dargwa): Non-declarative illocutionary force Verbal mood (imperative, optative, prohibitive) Interrogative particles Personal deixis Pronouns Person agreement markers Direct/inverse markers Spatial deixis Adverbials Deictic verbs Temporal deixis (adverbials) 4. Basic properties of the ible-constructions 4.1. Mood The ible-complements allow all non-indicative modalities including imperative and optative, which is often treated as a feature of direct speech. Imperative: (7) umra-li rasul-li-cːe neighbour-ERG Rasul-OBL-INTER tiladi-b-arq’-ib ask-N-do:PF-PRET [[sun-na sːakːa-se qali če-b-až-aq-a] ible] self:OBL-GEN new-ATR house(ABS) ON-N-see:PF-CAUS-IMP CIT ‘The neighbouri asked Rasulj to show himi hisi/j/k new house.’ Optative: (8) tːatːi-li ʡaˁχʷl-a-cːe [[ʕaˁšːib xːun-be ʡaˁχ father-ERG guest-OBL.PL-INTER you.PL:DAT road-PL(ABS) good ‘The father wished the guests a happy journey.’ d-iχʷ-ab] ible] ib NPL-become:PF-OPT CIT say:PF:PRET 4.2. Person of the predicate and its controller Most TMA-paradigms of Dargwa express person – either by a verbal suffix or by a clitic. Person agreement control: in the intransitive clauses, person is controlled by the S-argument; in the transitive clauses, person can be controlled by any of the core arguments, following the hierarchies 1, 2 > 3 and P > A. (9) a. b. c. d. dali hit uc-ib=da I:ERG that catch:PF-PRET=1 ‘I caught him’ (the verb in the 1st person). ʕaˁli hit uc-ib=de you.SG:ERG that catch:PF-PRET=2SG ‘You caught him’ (the verb in the 2nd person). rasul-li du uc-ib=da you.SG-ERG I catch:PF-PRET=1 ‘Rasul caught you’ (the verb in the 2nd person). rasul-li ʕuˁ uc-ib=de you.SG-ERG you.SG catch:PF-PRET=2SG ‘Rasul caught you’ (the verb in the 2nd person). 3 Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 e. f. g. ʕaˁli du uc-ib=da you.SG:ERG I catch:PF-PRET=1 ‘You caught me.’ dali ʕuˁ uc-ib=de I:ERG you.SG catch:PF-PRET=2SG ‘I caught you.’ rasul-li murad uc-ib you.SG-ERG you.SG catch:PF-PRET ‘Rasul caught you’ (the verb unmarked for person > 3rd person). Person in the ible-constructions: • The person of the dependent predicate can be chosen both with respect to the current speaker and to the reported speaker (10a vs. 10bc). • The person of the controlling NP in the dependent clause can also be chosen both with respect to the current speaker and to the reported speaker (10ab vs. 10c). (10) a. b. c. tːatːi w-ič’-u [[du lager-le-ħe q’-aˁ-d] father(ABS) M-say:IPF-PRS I(ABS) camp-OBL-IN go-TH-1 (i) ‘The fatheri said that Ij would go to the camp.’ (ii) ‘The fatheri said that hei would go to the camp.’ tːatːi w-ič’-u [[du lager-le-ħe father(ABS) M-say:IPF-PRS I(ABS) camp-OBL-IN (i) ‘The fatheri said that Ij would go to the camp.’ q’-aˁn] go-TH(3) tːatːi w-ič’-u [[sa-j lager-le-ħe father(ABS) M-say:IPF-PRS self-M(ABS) camp-OBL-IN (i) ‘The fatheri said that Ij would go to the camp.’ (ii) ‘The fatheri said that hej would go to the camp.’ ible] CIT ible] CIT q’-aˁn] go-TH(3) ible] CIT Translation (i) of the sentences (10abc) illustrates the basic options of choosing person (person of the predicate + person of the controlling NP): • both are chosen with respect to the current speech situation • both are chosen with respect to the reported speech situation • the person of the predicate is chosen with respect to the reported speech situation, whereas the pronoun reflects the current situation, as shown in (10’) and in Table 2 below. (10’) ‘The fatheri said [that Ij would go to the camp].’ 10a: (i) 10b: (i) 10c: (i) S-arg: current speaker S-arg: current speaker S-arg: current speaker current speaker’s view 1 1 1 reported speaker’s view 3 3 3 NP 1 1 3 verb 1 3 3 Note that “mixed” sentences like (10b) are the only unambiguous type of the ible-constructions. (11) rasul-li [[ʕuˤ beʡlara duχːu=jil=sa-j klas-le-ħe-w] Rasul-ERG you.SG(ABS) most smart=CONTR=COP-M class-OBL-IN-M ‘Rasuli said that youj are the smartest person in the class.’ (11) S-arg: current addressee current speaker’s view 2 4 ible] CIT reported speaker’s view 3 ib say:PF:PRET NP 2 verb 3 Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 (12) murad-li rasul-li-cːe [[sun-ni Murad-ERG Rasul-OBL-INTER self-ERG ‘Muradi said that hei praised himj.’ current speaker’s view 3 3 (12) A-arg: ‘Muradi’ P-arg: ‘hej’ (13) hit gap-w-arq’-ib=da] that(ABS) praise-M-do:PF-PRET=1 S-arg: current addressee current speaker’s view 2 ib say:PF:PRET CIT reported speaker’s view 1 3 ʕaˁli dam-cːe [[ʕuˤ lager-le-ħe q’-aˁ-d] you:ERG I:OBL-INTER you.SG(ABS) camp-OBL-IN go-TH-1 ‘Youi told me that youi would go to the camp.’ (13) ible] ible] CIT NP 3 3 verb 1 ib say:IF-PRET reported speaker’s view 1 NP 2 verb 1 With plural pronouns: (14) a. rasul-li murad-li-cːe [[ʕuˤxːa kinu-li-ja q’-aˁ-tː-a] ible] ib Rasul-ERG Murad-OBL-INTER you.PL(ABS) cinema-OBL-SUPER go-TH-2-PL CIT say:PF:PRET (i) ‘Rasuli told Muradj that youk (PL) would go to the cinema.’ (ii) ‘Rasuli told Muradj that they (Muradj and others) would go to the cinema.’ b. rasul-li murad-li-cːe [[ʕuˤxːa kinu-li-ja q’-aˁn] ible] ib Rasul-ERG Murad-OBL-INTER you.PL(ABS) cinema-OBL-SUPER go-TH(3) CIT say: PF:PRET ‘Rasuli told Muradj that they (Muradj and others) would go to the cinema.’ (mixed pattern) Examples (10b), (11)-(12) and (14b) show a very strange case of “agreement” where the persons of the “controller” and the predicate are different. A similar phenomenon is attested in non-indicative ible-clauses. For example, the imperative, although it does not bear a 2nd person marker, always refers to the second person of the A/S-argument. In the ible-construction, the pronouns are chosen exactly as with the 2nd person indicative forms (i.e. as in the “direct speech” or “mixed” construction), cf. (15). (15) rasul-li tuχtur-li-cːe [[ʕu qːalaba-le ara-w-arq’-a] ible] Rasul-ERG doctor-OBL-IN you.SG(ABS) soon-ADV healthy-M-do:PF-IMP CIT ‘Rasul asked the doctor to cure you as soon as possible.’ (lit. ‘cure you quickly’) current speaker’s view 2 3 (15) P-arg: current addressee A-arg: ‘doctor’ reported speaker’s view 3 2 tiladi-b-arq’-ib ask-N-do:PF-PRET pronoun 2 – verb imperative (2) Our preliminary conclusion is that there are three basic types of ible-constructions: Table 2. Person of the predicate and the controlling NP in the ible-constructions current speaker’s view reported speaker’s view person of the controlling NP person of the predicate x x x y y y y x x y y x direct speech (?) mixed pattern (?) indirect speech (?) z z z z neutral construction LIMITATION 1: If the verb is in the 2nd person, the controlling pronoun is also 2nd person (combinations of 1st/3rd person pronoun + 2nd person verb are avoided): 5 Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 *tːatːi-li dam-cːe [[du lager-le-ħe q’-aˁ-t] ible] ib father I:OBL-INTER I(ABS) camp-OBL-IN go-TH-2 CIT say:PF:PRET (intended translation:) ‘The fatheri told mej that Ij would go to the camp.’ (16) (16) current speaker’s view 1 (*) S-arg: current addressee reported speaker’s view 2 NP 1 verb 2 Below, we look at some other varying features of the ible-constructions and figure out whether they correlate with the person of the predicate, with the person of the controlling NP or with neither of them. 5. More on verbal forms in the ible-constructions 5.1. Tense Dargwa has no sequence of tenses in the reported speech. Normally, the tense in the dependent clause is chosen from the position of the reported interlocutors, cf. examples (10)-(14) above. 5.2. Optative vs. imperative In Dargwa, there is only 2nd person imperative. To express a command with a 1st person patient, speakers have to use the 1st person optative: če-w-aχː-ab-a ON-M-feed:PF-OPT-1 ‘Feed me!’ (17) du! I(ABS) This pattern is retained in the ible-constructions: if the dependent clause is a command with a 1st person patient (from the reported speaker’s perspective), the speaker can use an optative form, even if the patient is expressed by the reflexive pronoun saj: for the reported speaker, this is a 1st person patient (18); otherwise, the speaker uses an imperative form (19). (18) a. rasul-li tuχtur-li-cːe [[du qːalaba-le ara-w-arq’-ab-a] ible] tiladi-b-arq’-ib Rasul-ERG doctor-OBL-IN I(ABS) soon-ADV healthy-M-do:PF-OPT-1 CIT ask-N-do:PF-PRET b. rasul-li tuχtur-li-cːe [[sa-j qːalaba-le ara-w-arq’-ab-a] ible] tiladi-b-arq’-ib Rasul-ERG doctor-OBL-IN self-M(ABS) soon-ADV healthy-M-do:PF-OPT-1 CIT ask-N-do:PF-PRET ‘Rasuli asked the doctorj to cure himi as soon as possible.’ rasul-li tuχtur-li-cːe [[sa-j qːalaba-le ara-w-arq’-a] ible] Rasul-ERG doctor-OBL-IN self-M(ABS) soon-ADV healthy-M-do:PF-IMP CIT ‘Rasuli asked the doctorj to cure himk as soon as possible.’ (19) tiladi-b-arq’-ib ask-N-do:PF-PRET 5.3. Thematic elements in the verb form (direct/inverse) Dargwa has several TAM-forms (future, prohibitive, conditional), which, in addition to the person suffixes, contain a so-called “thematic” element” (TE). This is a suffix placed immediately before the person marker. Its choice depends on the persons of the core arguments and on the transitivity of the verb, cf. Table 3. Table 3. Thematic elements in Tanti Dargwa. P A 1 1 -i-: -u-: 2 3 -u- -i- 2 -u- -i- 3 -u- -u- -u- S 1 -u- 2 -u- 3 -ar/-an A>P ¬(A > P) 6 Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 (-ar-/-an-: 3 person intransitive) In the ible-constructions, the choice of the thematic elements correlates with the choice of the verbal person, cf. examples (20)–(22). (20) rasul-li [dali sa-j it-i-d] Rasul-ERG I:ERG self-M(ABS) beat:PF-TH-1 (i) ‘Rasuli said that hei would beat himk.’ (20): (i) A-arg: Rasul P-arg: somebody current speaker’s view 3 3 ible CIT ib say:PF:PRET reported speaker’s view 1 3 pronoun 1 3 verb 1 TE -iA>P reported speaker’s view 3 3 pronoun 1 3 verb 1 TE -iA>P (ii) ‘Rasuli said that Ij would beat himk.’ (20): (ii) current speaker’s view A-arg: current speaker 1 P-arg: somebody 3 (21) rasul-li [sunni du it-u-d] ible Rasul-ERG self:ERG I(ABS) beat:PF-TH-1 CIT (i) ‘Rasuli said that hei would beat mek.’ (21): (i) A-arg: Rasul P-arg: speaker current speaker’s view 3 1 ib say:PF:PRET reported speaker’s view 1 3 pronoun 3 1 verb 1 TE -u¬(A > P) reported speaker’s view 3 3 pronoun 3 1 verb 1 TE -u¬(A > P) (ii) ‘Rasuli said that hej would beat mek.’ (21): (ii) A-arg: somebody P-arg: speaker (22) current speaker’s view 3 1 rasul-li [dali sa-j it-u-d] Rasul-ERG I:ERG self-M(ABS) beat:PF-TH-1 ‘Rasuli said that Ij would beat himi.’ ible CIT ib say:PF:PRET (22) current speaker’s view reported speaker’s view pronoun verb TE A-arg: current speaker 1 3 1 1 -u¬(A > P) P-arg: Rasul 3 1 3 5.4. Deictic component in the lexical meaning of the verb Some verbs express elements of spatial deixis (‘go there – come here’). These verbs tend to be chosen from the reported speaker’s perspective, as in (23). (23) а. neš-li [[dam daršː-al qːuruš d-ikː-a] ible] ib mother-ERG I:DAT hundred-CARD rouble NPL-give.away:PF-IMP CIT say:PF:PRET ‘The motheri told (him) to give mej 100 roubles.’ (23a) A-arg: P-arg: 100 roubles Ben: current speaker current speaker’s view 3 3 1 reported speaker’s view 2 3 3 7 pronoun – 3 1 verb IMPERATIVE (2) meaning of the verb ‘give away’ (from the speaker to a 3rd person) Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 b. neš-li dam [[daršː-al qːuruš mother-ERG I:DAT hundred-CARD rouble ‘The motheri told (him) to give heri 100 roubles.’ (23b) A-arg: P-arg: 100 roubles Ben: ‘mother’ current speaker’s view 3 3 3 reported speaker’s view 2 3 1 d-iqː-a] ible] NPL-give:PF-IMP CIT ib say:PF:PRET pronoun verb – 3 1 imp (2) meaning of the verb ‘give here’ (to the speaker) 5.5. Verb: conclusions Table 4. Morphosyntactic features of the predicates in the ible-constructions FEATURE Person marker Thematic element (direct/inverse marker) Imperative vs. optative Tense and mood Spatial deixis expressed by the verbal stem VIEWPOINT Reported speaker or current speaker Reported speaker or current speaker Reported speaker Reported speaker Reported speaker or current speaker COMMENTS Shift together free variation (?) 6. More on pronouns in the ible-constructions 6.1. Demonstrative and reflexive pronouns Dargwa has two types of 3rd person pronouns that are relevant for this study: (1) demonstrative pronouns and (2) the so-called “simple reflexive” pronoun sa-j (inflects for gender); in fact, this is a free pronoun that can be used to track coreference between two NPs in different configurations (both within a clause, within a sentence and in different sentences). Generally, in Dargwa, the reflexive pronoun is used to mark coreference between two 3rd person NPs (24a). If the coreferential NPs are 1st or 2nd person, only personal pronouns are possible, cf. (25)–(26). (24) a. c. če-w-až-ib rasul-li-ž sa-j muher-li-cːe-w Rasul-OBL-DAT self-M(ABS) dream-OBL-INTER-M ‘Rasuli saw himselfi/himj in a dream.’ ON-M-see:PF-PRET rasul-li-ž hit muher-li-cːe-w Rasul-OBL-DAT that(ABS) dream-OBL-INTER-M ‘Rasuli saw himj in a dream.’ ON-M-see:PF-PRET če-w-až-ib če-w-až-ib=da ON-M-see:PF-PRET=1 (25) dam du muher-li-cːe-w I:DAT I(ABS) dream-OBL-INTER-M ‘I saw myself in a dream.’ (26) ʕaˁt ʕuˤ muher-li-cːe-w you.SG:DAT you.SG(ABS) dream-OBL-INTER-M ‘You saw yourself in a dream.’ če-w-až-ib=de ON-M-see:PF-PRET=2SG In the ible-constructions, a speaker deals with two communicative situations: the current and the reported one. In this situation, many NPs are 1st or 2nd person from one point of view and 3rd person from the other one, cf. Table 5. To establish reference of such NPs, the speaker is allowed any of the two theoretically possible strategies: • to use a personal pronoun; • to track coreference with the help of the simple reflexive pronoun saj. 8 Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 Using one of these options is strictly obligatory, even if the relevant NP is coreferential to the current speaker or addressee. Demonstrative pronouns are only possible with the NPs that are not coreferential with the speaker and addressee of both current and reported communicative situation: (27) a. b. zaˁʡip-la=da] ill-ADV=1 murad-li rasul-li-cːe [[sa-j Murad-ERG Rasil-OBL-IN self-M(ABS) ‘Muradi told Rasul that hei was ill.’ murad-li rasul-li-cːe [[hit Murad-ERG Rasul-OBL-IN that(ABS) ‘Muradi told Rasulj that hek was ill.’ zaˁʡip-le=saj] ill-ADV=COP-M ible] ib say:PF:PRET CIT ible] ib say:PF:PRET CIT Table 5. Third person NPs in the ible-constructions Current speaker’s view 1 2 3 Reported speaker’s view 3 3 1 Meaning Coreference Possible pronouns x said (to y) that I … x said (to y) that you … x said (to y) that x… current speaker current addressee S/A-argument of the main clause = reported speaker argument of the main clause = reported addressee any NP (≠ CS, CA, RS, RA) 1 or 3 (saj) 2 or 3 (saj) 1 or 3 (saj) 3 2 x said to y that y… 3 3 x said (to y) that z… 2 or 3 (saj) 3 (saj) or 3(DEM) 6.2. Multiple pronouns If the dependent clause contains several pronouns, we expect them to be chosen from the same point of view (Switch Together constraint, [Anand and Nevins 2004: 24]). This is true for the “indirect speech” constructions where the person of the predicate reflects the current speaker’s perspective: (28) rasul-li Rasul-ERG ʡaˁbdullah-li-cːe Abdullah-OBL-IN [[ʕaˁt sun-ni dis peškeš-b-irq’-u] you.SG:DAT self-ERG(ABS) knife(ABS) present-N-do:IPF-TH(3) ‘Rasuli told Abdullahj that hei would present youk a knife.’ ible] CIT ib say:PF:PRET (28) current speaker’s view reported speaker’s view pronoun verb A-arg: ‘Rasul’ 3 1 3 3 Beneficiary: current addressee 2 3 2 However, this is not the case for “direct speech” and “mixed” constructions (including the sentences with nonindicative verb forms): (29) rasul-li Rasul-ERG ʡaˁbdullah-li-cːe Abdullah-OBL-IN [[ʕaˁt dali dis peškeš-b-irq’-i-d] you.SG:DAT I:ERG knife(ABS) present-N-do:IPF-TH-1 (i) ‘Rasuli told Abdullahj that hei would present himj a knife.’ (29): (i) A-arg: ‘Rasul’ Beneficiary: ‘Abdullah’ current speaker’s view 3 3 ible] CIT ib say:PF:PRET reported speaker’s view 1 2 pronoun 1 2 verb 1 pronoun verb (ii) ‘Rasuli told Abdullahj that hei would present youk a knife.’ (29): (ii) current speaker’s view 9 reported speaker’s view Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 A-arg: ‘Rasul’ Beneficiary: current addressee (30) 3 2 1 3 current speaker’s view 3 3 3 3 (30) A-arg: ‘Rasul’ Beneficiary: ‘Abdulla’ Possessor: ‘Rasul’/’Abdullah’ Possessor: ‘hek’ rasulli Rasul-ERG 1 ʡaˁbdullah-li-cːe Abdullah-OBL-IN rasul-li Rasul-ERG [ʕaˁt dali sun-na dis peškeš-b-irq’-i-d] you.SG:DAT I:ERG self-GEN knife(ABS) present-N-do:IPF-TH-1 ‘Rasuli told Abdullahj that hei would present himj hisi/j/k knife.’ (31) 1 2 ible ib say:PF:PRET CIT reported speaker’s view 1 2 1/2 3 pronoun 1 2 3 3 verb 1 ʡaˁbdullah-li-cːe Abdullah-OBL-IN [ʕaˁt sun-ni dis peškeš-b-irq’-i-d] you.SG:DAT self-ERG knife(ABS) present-N-do:IPF-TH-1 (i) ‘Rasuli told Abdullahj that hei would present himj a knife.’ (31): (i) A-arg: ‘Rasul’ Beneficiary: ‘Abdulla’ current speaker’s view 3 3 ible CIT ib say:PF:PRET reported speaker’s view 1 2 pronoun 3 2 verb 1 (ii) ‘Rasuli told Abdullahj that hei would present youk a knife.’ (31): (ii) A-arg: ‘Rasul’ Beneficiary: current addressee (32) rasulli Rasul-ERG current speaker’s view 3 2 reported speaker’s view 1 3 pronoun 3 2 verb 1 ʡaˁbdullah-li-cːe Abdullah-OBL-IN [sun-ni-ž dali dis peškeš-b-irq’-i-d] self-OBL-DAT I:ERG knife(ABS) present-N-do:IPF-TH-1 (i) ‘Rasuli told Abdullahj that hei would present himj a knife.’ (32): (i) A-arg: ‘Rasul’ Beneficiary: ‘Abdullah’ current speaker’s view 3 3 ible CIT ib say:PF:PRET reported speaker’s view 1 2 pronoun 1 3 verb 1 pronoun 1 3 verb 1 (ii) ‘Rasuli told Abdullahj that hei would present himk a knife.’ (32): (ii) A-arg: ‘Rasul’ Beneficiary: ‘hek’ current speaker’s view 3 3 reported speaker’s view 1 3 In (29)–(32), the choice of the pronouns is not determined by a common rule: each pronoun is free to choose any of the two possible viewpoints. The choice of the pronouns does not depend on their syntactic position or on their person value (except the limitation formulated above). This means that the “direct” and “mixed” types of the ible-construction are in fact the same type: in this construction, the form of the predicate reflects the reported speaker’s perspective whereas the NPs are free to choose one of the two options: 10 Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 Table 6. The predicate and the NPs in the ible-constructions Current speaker’s view Reported speaker’s view Person of the NPs in the reported speech Form of the predicate x x y y x y/x x y Construction indirect speech “direct” speech LIMITATION 2: identical pronouns cannot be used for different referents. (33) rasul-li murad-li-cːe [sun-ni Rasul-ERG Murad-OBL-INTER self-ERG ‘Rasuli said that hei praised himselfi.’ sa-j self-M(ABS) gap-w-arq’-ib=da] praise-M-do:PF-PRET=1 ible CIT ib say:PF:PRET 7. Deictic adverbials in the dependent clause The interpretation of deictic adverbials could be a good test for direct vs. indirect speech. However, in Dargwa, both temporal and spatial deictic adverbials can be chosen from both the current speaker’s and reported speaker’s perspective, with no obvious correlation with other feature of the construction (34). More than that, the interpretation of deictic adverbials fluctuates between two theoretically possible viewpoints even in the non-finite indirect speech constructions (as in (35b)). (34) (Murad is in Makhachkala, the speaker and the hearer are in Tanti) a. b. (35) murad w-ič’-u [hištːu-b arʁ ʡaˁχ-le=sa-b Murad(ABS) M-say:IPF-TH near.the.speaker-N weather(ABS) good-ADV=COP-N ‘Murad says that the weather here (in Makhachkala/in Tanti) is good.’ murad w-ič’-u [hiltːu-b arʁ ʡaˁχ-le=sa-b Murad(ABS) M-say:IPF-TH near.the.hearer-N weather(ABS) good-ADV=COP-N > ‘Murad says that the weather here (in Makhachkala/ in Tanti) is good.’ ible CIT ible CIT a. direktur-li dam-cːe [[čuʡaˁl w-ač’-e] ible] qar-b-arq’-ib director-ERG I:OBL-IN tomorrow M-come:PF-IMP CIT ask-N-do:PF-PRET ‘The director told me to come tomorrow’: if the director was speaking on Friday, and the current sentence is pronounced on Sunday, then ‘tomorrow’ may refer to Saturday or Monday. b. direktur-li dam-cːe [čuʡaˁl w-ač’-aq-iž] qar-b-arq’-ib director-ERG I:OBL-IN tomorrow M-come:PF-CAUS-INF ask-N-do:PF-PRET (the same meaning with the same interpretations of ‘tomorrow’) 8. Discussion 8.1. Preliminary generalizations and problems There are only two types of ible-constructions: • “indirect speech”: all pronouns and the verb form are chosen from the current speaker’s viewpoint; • “direct predicate” construction: o the form of the predicate is chosen from the reported speaker’s perspective, o elements expressing personal deixis within the predicate (person agreement markers and thematic elements) correlate with each other, o the NPs have two options: reported speakers’ vs current speaker’s point of view, o the NPs do not obligatorily correlate with each other. Two problems: 1. What happens to personal agreement in the “direct predicate” constructions? 2. How can we explain the behaviour of the pronouns? 11 Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 8.2. Lack of personal agreement? It has been shown that agreement in Dargwa is of the “referential” type [Dahl 2000]: this means that the choice of the agreement marker is determined by the properties of the referent of the controlling NP (Lander 2015; Sumbatova 2017; Sumbatova to appear). As a result, Dargwa shows many cases when the agreement marker contradicts the formal properties of the controller, cf. examples (36)–(37). (36) a. b. d-ikː-u-se dila gul-e! 1/2PL-love-PRS-ATR I:GEN child-PL(ABS) ‘My dearest children!’ (addressing the children) [b-ikː-u-se dila gul-e] b-ačʼ-ib I:GEN child-PL(ABS) HPL-come:PF-PRET ‘My dearest children came.’ HPL-love-PRS-ATR (37) xːun-r-a-li d-aqal ħaˁnči d-irq’-u-l=da woman-PL-OBL.PL-ERG NPL-much work(ABS) NPL-do:IPF-PRS-CONV=1/2PL ‘We women work hard’ / ‘You women work hard.’ The same phenomenon is observed in the reported speech. Examples like (38) show that the predicate of the reported speech is chosen from the “inner” perspective (reported speech situation) and interprets the referents of the potential controllers also from the same perspective. (38) murad-li rasul-li-cːe [[sa-j zaˁʡip-la=da] Murad-ERG Rasul-OBL-IN self-M(ABS) ill-ADV=1 ‘Muradi told Rasul that hei was ill.’ current speaker’s view 3 (38) S-argument: ‘Murad’ ible] CIT ib say:PF:PRET reported speaker’s view 1 NP 3 verb 1 A superficial lack of agreement is possible in many different situations and can be explained by the referential nature of agreement in Dargwa. 8.3. Choice of the pronouns In many syntactic works on reported speech (e.g. [Podobryaev 2014]; [Shklovsky, Sudo 2014]; [Jaroshevich 2017] on Tabassaran), the opposition of direct vs. indirect type elements of reported speech construction is explained by the presence of a “monster” operator, which delimits the reported speech from the influence of the current speech situation and converts it into a kind of direct speech (= indexical shift): (39) [Matrix Clause [CP [{must shift} Embedded Clause]]] (Jaroshevich 2017) In some cases, the position of the monster can explain the difference of the perspective for certain elements of the reported speech. However, this is not the case in Dargwa – first, because there is free variation of pronouns and, second, because the person of the predicate is higher in the syntactic tree than the NPs: (40) [CP (MAIN CLAUSE) [? [CP [TP [PREDICATION] (=da/=de)] (=j/=a)] ible] ] person/tense interrogativity Two types of ible-constructions (cf. [Polinsky 2015]): • in the “indirect speech” construction, ible functions as a complementizer that marks the reported speech as a usual dependent clause. As in all other dependent clauses, the form of the dependent predicate and all the NPs are chosen as in the current speech situation; • in the “direct speech” construction, ible marks the dependent clause as a reported, but still separate speech situation with its own interlocutors and other elements: 12 Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 [MAIN CLAUSE [DIR SPEECH (41) [CP [TP [PREDICATION] (=da/=de)] (=j/=a)] ible] ] person/tense interrogativity “reportedness” speaker: s/addressee: a The form of the predicate of the reported speech is determined by local conditions: tense, person, space of the reported speech situation. The features that are determined by the arguments of the predicate are chosen with respect to the properties of their referents. As far as the NPs are concerned, there is a universal way to choose them: in both constructions, the NPs can be chosen from the “external” point of view: the 1st and 2nd person pronouns refer to the participants of the current speech situation, the reflexive pronoun saj marks coreference with the overt 3rd person pronouns of the main clause or with zero pronouns. At the same time, the “direct speech” construction provides an additional option: since the dependent clause has its own, reported, interlocutors now, the pronouns inside the reported speech can be chosen with respect to them. In this latter case we observe standard agreement between the verb and its argument(s). [MAIN CLAUSE NPs … [DIR SPEECH (42) [CP [TP [… NPs … ] (=da/=de)] (=j/=a)] ible] ] reported speaker: s In Section (2), I listed syntactic strategies of expressing speech content: • • • finite clauses without any marking (parenthesis): (syntactically independent) direct speech finite complements introduced by the indirect question marker =anne and non-finite complements: indirect speech finite complements introduced by the quotative particle ible: dependent direct speech 8.4. Comparison Phenomena observed in other East Caucasian languages: Table 7. Reported speech constructions in some East Caucasian languages. person pronouns imperative question spatial temporal verbal agreement deixis deixis tense Tanti RS RS/CS yes yes CS/RS CS/RS RS Jaroshevich 2017 Tabassaran RS CS yes Polinsky 2015 Tsez *** RS/CS yes yes CS CS Maisak 2010 Agul *** CS yes no CS CS RS An important feature of many systems are the asymmetries between 1st and 2nd person. They have been observed in different Dargic dialects [Ganenkov 2010], Akhvakh [Creissels 2010], Tabassaran [Jaroshevich 2017]. These asymmetries need further research. Abbreviations 1, 2, 3 – 1st, 2nd, 3rd person, ADD – additive particle, adv – adverb, ATR – atributive, BEHIND – preverb ‘behind’; CARD – cardinal numeral, CAUS – causative, CIT – citative particle, CONTR – contrastive particle, CONV – converb, COP – identificational copula, DAT – dative, EL – elative; ERG – ergative, ESS – essive, EXST – existential copula, F – feminine gender, GEN – genitive, HPL – human plural gender, IMP – imperative; IN – localization ‘in a hollow space’; INTER – localization ‘in a solid substance’; INDEF – indefinite; INF – infinitive, IPF – imperfective, IQ – indirect question; LAT – lative, LOC – locative, LV – «light verb» (verbal stem within a compound verb), M – masculine gender, N – non-human singular gender, NEG –negative, NPL – non-human plural gender, OBL – oblique stem, OPT – optative; OUT – preverb ‘outside’; PF – perfective, PL – plural, POT – potential; PRET – preterite, PRS – present, PST – past; SG – singular; SUPER – localization ‘on’, TH – thematic element; UP – preverb ‘up’. Nouns without a case marker are in the absolutive case. 13 Surrey Linguistic Circle, 30.10.2018 References Anand, P., and A. Nevins. 2004. Shifty operators in changing context. In: Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14, ed. K. Watanabe and R. D. Young, 20-37. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University. Creissels, Denis. 2010. Person deixis in Northern Akhvakh reported speech. Talk presented at the workshop ‘Reported speech in East Caucasian languages’. Lyon, September 22, 2010. Dahl, Östen. 2000. Animacy and the notion of semantic gender. In: Unterbeck, Barbara (ed.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition. I: Approaches to Gender. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 99–116. Evans, Nicholas. 2013. Some problems in the typology of quotation: A canonical approach. In: Dunstan Brown, Dunstan, Marina Chumakina and Greville G. Corbett (eds.). Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: OUP, pp. 66–98. Ganenkov, Dima. 2010. Reported Speech in Dargwa: an overview. Talk presented at the workshop ‘Reported speech in East Caucasian languages’. Lyon, September 22, 2010. Jaroshevich, Sofija. 2017. Indeksal’nyj sdvig v tabasaranskom jazyke. Doklad na konferencii “Tipologija morfosintaksicheskox parametrov”. Moscow, October 25, 2017. Lander, Jurij. 2015. Ob otsutstvii imennooj klassifikacii d tantynskom darginskom. Doklad na konferencii po vostochnym jazykam, Institut vostokovedenija RAN. Moscow, January 27, 2015. Maisak, Timur. 2017. Tense and aspect among the factors conditioning the distribution of quotatives: data from Andi. Talk presented at the 12th Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology (ALT), Workshop “Reported speech as a syntactic domain” Canberra, 15 December 2017. Maisak, Timur, and Solmaz Merdanova. 2010. Reported speech and “semi-directness” in Agul. Talk presented at the workshop “Reported Speech in East Caucasian languages”. Lyon, September 22, 2010. Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012. Personal deixis and reported discourse: Towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic typology V. 16, Iss. 2, pp. 233–263. Podobryaev, Aleksandr. 2014. Persons, Imposters, and Monsters. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Polinsky, Maria. 2015. Embedded finite complements, indexical shift, and binding in Tsez. Languages of the Caucasus, 1(1). Shklovsky, K., and Y. Sudo. 2014. The Syntax of Monsters. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 3: 381–402. Sumbatova, Nina, and Jurij Lander. 2014. Darginskij govor selenija Tanti. Grammaticheskij ocherk. Voprosy sintaksisa. [The Dargwa dialect of Tanti. A grammar sketch. Problems of syntax.] Mpscpw: Jazykli russkoj kul’tury. 752 pp. Sumbatova, Nina. Referential, Radical Alliterative and Other Uncommon Instances of Gender Agreement. Talk at the colloquium of the Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT. Cambridge, Mass., December 1, 2017. Sumbatova, Nina. To appear. Osnovanija imennyx klassifikacij: ot semantiki do fonologii. To be published in: Voprosy jazykoznanija 2018 (6). 14