Printer Friendly

Nonlocal uses of local cases in the Tsezic languages.


The Tsezic languages form a sub-branch of the Nakh-Daghestanian language family. They have up to eight location markers that can be combined with up to six orientation markers in order to form complex spatial categories. Outside the spatial domain these markers indicate temporal and metaphorical location and orientation. Their grammatical uses include among others the marking of verbal arguments, of nonfinite verb forms in adverbial clauses and the expression of possession or purpose. This paper is meant to provide a comprehensive description of the nonlocal functions in relation to the spatial functions and to reveal the structure in the distribution of nonlocal functions of the cases. The nonlocal uses are not equally distributed among the local cases. Some location and orientation markers have many nonlocal functions while others have almost only local uses. *

1. Introduction

Research on spatial cases has mainly focused on the morphological makeup and the spatial meanings of these cases. Nonlocal uses, especially grammatical functions of local cases have been neglected or only briefly mentioned (Blake 1994; Malchukov and Spencer 2009). The use of spatial cases or other spatial expressions with nonlocal meanings is of course not restricted to languages with dozens of local cases as can be found in Daghestan. Familiar languages like English use spatial prepositions like 'for' to mark arguments of verbs (recipient, addressee, experiencer) and other grammatical functions (e.g., purpose, comparison; see Rice and Kabata [2007] for a full list). The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the nonlocal functions of spatial cases in a part of the world which is famous for rich local case systems, namely Daghestan. The focus of this paper will be on the Tsezic languages (East Tsezic: Hunzib, Bezhta; West Tsezic: Khwarshi, Tsez and Hinuq), which form a subgroup of the Nakh-Daghestanian language family.

The main source for the data presented here come from texts (Bezhta, Tsez) or has been gathered in fieldwork by Zaira Xalilova (Khwarshi) and myself (Hinuq). The Bezhta texts are the memories of Seyx Ramazan, written down by himself at the end of the last century, translated and edited by Madrid Xalilov and glossed by myself. Up to now all these texts and the data are unpublished. The Tsez texts that I used are currently in press (Abdulaev 2010). Most of the Hunzib data can be found in the grammar by van den Berg (1995). In addition, the series of dictionaries of Daghestanian languages published by the Daghestan Scientific Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Xalilov 1995; Xalilov 1999; Xalilov and Isakov 2001; Xalilov and Isakov 2005) and some short descriptions (Radzabov 1999; Kibrik and Testelec 2004; Comrie 2004) provided some material.

The range of functions served by the spatial markers may be approximately classified along the following lines:

--spatial location and orientation

--temporal location and orientation

--marking of verbal arguments (addressee, (1) recipient, experiencer, arguments of derived verb forms ...)

--other constructions (e.g., purpose, standard of comparison, possession)

--nonfinite verb forms with local cases

The second and the third sections of this paper describe the morphological structure and the spatial meanings of the local case systems and we will have a brief look at their diachronic development. The subsequent sections 4 to 6 explore the various nonlocal usages and are followed by a structural analysis of the data in section 8 and a summary of the major insights. (2)

2. A building set of markers

2.1. Morphological makeup

The local case system of the Ysezic languages consists of two separately coded categories, location and orientation, which can be combined to form complex categories. The major part of the markers can be clearly identified across the languages because of their formal similarity. For a reconstruction of these markers, see Alekseev (2003) and Cysouw and Forker (2009). The appendix gives tables of the grammatical and spatial cases in all Tsezic languages.

There are five location markers found in all Tsezic languages, namely CONT, IN, AT, SUPER and SUB. In addition, each language has two or three more markers. The spatial meanings of all markers can be broadly described as follows:

--CONT ('contact'): indicates inclusion in an amorphous mass (e.g., in water, flour, or ashes) or things that could be conceptualized as a kind of mass (e.g., in an avalanche, forest, leaves). It is also used to mark geographic location (e.g., in Georgia, Daghestan). In Hunzib and Bezhta this case is used for vertical attachment (e.g., on the wall).

--IN ('in'): indicates inclusion in some kind of container (e.g., in a box, belly, or comer), and various 'in' or 'on' locations (in the village, in the river, on the way, on the field, in the 7th grade).

--AT ('at', 'on', 'to', 'in'): is used for general location and orientation, but spatial meanings are rare with this suffix. In Hunzib and Bezhta, there are no examples of this case describing spatial location with inanimate nouns.

--SUPER ('on'): indicates a location on a flat surface (e.g., on a bed, table, or square) or on the top of vertical objects (e.g., on a mountain, tree, or staircase). It is also used for locations in/on vehicles (e.g., car, bike, horse, ship).

--SUB ('under'): indicates location under any kind of object (occasionally also location behind an object).

--ALOC (Hinuq, Tsez, Bezhta, Hunzib): is used for general location and orientation 'at', 'to'. This marker occurs almost exclusively with animate nouns, mostly in combination with postpositions.

--ILOC (Hinuq, Tsez, Khwarshi): indicates general location and orientation 'at', 'on', 'to'. It is used almost exclusively with inanimate nouns.

--COMIT (Bezhta, Hunzib): is used in comitative constructions. Additionally, this marker has some minor spatial (e.g., in the mountains, near the stove) and nonspatial meanings.

--NEAR (Khwarshi, Bezhta): is used for various situations in which an object is near something.

The location markers alone can indicate not only location, but with verbs of motion also movement to a goal (O-marked Essive). If an orientation marker is added to a location marker, then only motion can be expressed. The basic orientation markers and their meanings are:

--Essive: place at and movement to a goal

--Lative: movement to a goal (3)

--Ablative: movement from or out of

In this paper only the Essive, Lative and Ablative are examined because the additional orientation markers occur only rarely outside the spatial domain. Nonetheless they should be at least briefly mentioned. A Versative is found in Khwarshi and Tsez. Its meaning is close to the Lative, but not identical because it refers to orientation towards a goal. The other three languages Bezhta, Hunzib and Hinuq have a Directional, which expresses movement in the direction of a goal or to a goal. Because the markers for the Versative and the markers for the Directional are not cognates, they are treated here as separate cases. Khwarshi, Bezhta and Hunzib also have a Translative meaning roughly 'along', 'through'. Finally, Khwarshi is the only Tsezic language that has a Terminative that expresses the meaning 'up to'.

In addition to these two parameters of spatial location and orientation, Tsez has a third parameter indicating distality, i.e., that the location in question is situated far from speaker and hearer or that the location is separated by a barrier from the speaker (see Comrie [1999] for details).

Every location marker can be combined with almost every orientation marker. Due to its unique nondistal/distal distinction, Tsez has the biggest inventory of local case combinations, at least among the Tsezic languages: 56 endings can be obtained by combining only location, orientation and distality markers. If combinations with the Equative-1 suffix are also counted, the result will be a grand total of 112 local case combinations (Comrie and Polinsky 1998: 103).

Morphologically and with regard to their spatial semantics, the spatial case combinations are quite transparent. Lative, Ablative, Directional and Translative can always or sometimes be used on their own, without any preceding location marker (see Section 2.2).

2.2. Grammaticalization

The inventory of grammatical cases of the Tsezic languages typically includes the Absolutive, the Ergative, the Instrumental and the first and second Genitive. Only Hinuq has also a Dative which does not serve any spatial functions.

However, in the Tsezic languages there is no clear-cut line between grammatical and local cases. Local cases gain more and more functions that in other languages would be covered by grammatical cases. In the course of this development the inventory of both grammatical and local cases diminishes gradually. In Tsez, Khwarshi and Bezhta usages typically associated with the Dative (e.g., experiencer, beneficiary, recipient) case are covered by the Lative. The Bezhta paradigm shows some gaps in combination with the Lative. (4) This is possible because location markers in combination with verbs of motion express movement to a goal. Hunzib has even taken a step further by completely losing the Lative case. (5) Its grammatical and spatial functions have been taken over by the IN.ESS case.

The IN suffix in Hunzib now has a wide range of functions (recipient, experiencer, addressee, goal, IN-location). Interestingly, in Tsez and Hinuq many nouns use the IN suffix (Tsez --a.', Hinuq --V) to express Ergative function. However, Hinuq has another IN marker --ma which is also the default marker for the IN-location and lacks the Ergative use.

Another instance of merger of grammatical cases with local cases is the Ablative in Hinuq, Bezhta and Hunzib. In all three languages the Ablative is identical to the Genitive. Expressing the attributive possessor in the same way as the Ablative is a phenomenon well known from Indo-European languages such as French, Catalan and German (Heine and Kuteva 2002: 34-35). Hinuq and Bezhta even distinguish between a first and second Ablative similar to the way in which they distinguish between a first and second Genitive. (6)

3. Spatial meaning

The spatial markers alone are enough to indicate location (1a) and direction of movement (1b).
(1) Tsez
    a. [??]Aliqilic-a    la-l         laga-n       esay-n
       Aliqilich-ERG (7) water-CONT   body-and     wash--CVB
       'after Aliqilich washed his body in the water,...'

    b. ze     gollu      g[??]anda-ma-l q'[??]em   l-est'-o-[??]un
       bear   be.PTCP    cave-IN-LAT    head(IV)   IV-let.out-IMP-QUOT
       'Let's put the head into the cave of a bear.'

Yet a number of markers frequently occur with postpositions which lead sometimes to a change in meaning of the whole phrase. Generally, the use of postpositions results in a more specific meaning. For instance, the ALOC suffix in example (2a) means just 'near to you', but in combination with a postposition the location is indicated more clearly (2b).
(2) Bezhta
    a. beta  do-na      O-oq 'o-s    du-doy
       then  1sG-and    I-come-PRS   2SG.OBL-ALOC
       'Then I (masc.) come to you.'

    b. du-doy         anydaa      gahiyo  tusman
       2SG.OBL-ALOC   in.front    be.PTPC enemy
       'the enemy who is in front of you'

The ILOC suffix (only in Hinuq, Ysez and Khwarshi) means 'at', 'on' or 'to' an object. In order to make its meaning more specific the marker is often found with postpositions such as 'under', 'next' or 'behind'. ILOC is always used with inanimate objects, with one exception, the concept MARRY A MAN (8) ('at a man'). This concept is expressed by various verbs, e.g., 'come', 'go', 'give', 'be', 'let' and 'meet' (3a, 3b).
(3) Khwarshi
    a. zu     isu-ho         y-ok'-i
       3SG.F  3SG.M.OBL-ILOC II-go-WPST
       'She married him.'

    b. hezzo  obu-y        haw    Mahama-ho       to[??]-o
       then   father-ERG   3SG    Mohammed-ILOC   give-PRS
       'Then the father makes her marry Mohammed.'

4. Temporal meaning

The greater part of the suffixes can be employed to convey temporal meanings. Most examples are found with the markers CONT, IN and SUPER (4a) and (4b). Occasionally postpositions like 'before' or 'after' occur with a temporal meaning (4c).
(4) Hinuq
    a. de    O-ix-o           sasaqo    ilra-[??]'o
       1SG   I-get.up-PRS     morning   six.OBL-SUPER
       'I (masc.) get up at six o'clock in the morning.'

    b. oq'el      w[??]d-i-i   diya    a[??]-a-a         O-aq'e-n   lo
       four.OBL   day-OBL-IN   BEN     village-OBL-IN    I-come-CVB be
       'After four days (he) came to the village.' (van den Berg
       1995: 191)

    c. tina   wodo-[??]a  mu[??]attaa
       five   day-NEAR    after
       'after five days'

5. Marking of verbal arguments

A number of verbs take arguments marked with spatial cases. These are verbs of speech, perception and emotion, other ditransitive verbs and verbs expressing psychological states. The following semantic roles are expressed by nouns marked with spatial cases: addressee, experiencer, recipient, beneficiary and noncanonical agents such as causee and exterior force. Experiencers are typically animate and experience a sensory perception or a psychological state. A recipient is the animate destination (receiver) of some moving object. Beneficiaries are animate participants who benefit from actions. Noncanonical agents lack agentive properties such as animacy or the ability to act deliberately. If the noncanonical agent causes an action on its own, then it is called exterior force. If it is manipulated by a real agent then it is called cause (see Section 5.5 for details and examples).

Note that in the Tsezic as well as in other Daghestanian languages typical verbs denoting perception and other psychological states such as SEE, HEAR, WANT/LIKE/LOVE, KNOW and UNDERSTAND mark the subject with the Lative or Dative and the object with the absolutive case (Comrie and van den Berg 2006; Ganenkov 2006).

5.1. Verbs of speech

Verbs of speech (TELL, TALK, SHOUT/CALL, SAY, ASK, BEG, TEACH, EXPLAIN, ORDER) require that the addressee is marked almost exclusively by AT alone (5a) or a combination of AT with Lative (5b) or Ablative or by the Lative alone. Thus, they behave similarly to the recipient-like arguments of ditransitive verbs like 'give' or 'show'.
(5) Hunzib
    a. olu-g          [??]g agas-co  zuq'u-n     lo
       3SG.F.OBL-AT   he    talk-PRS be.PST-CVB  be
       'He talked to her.'
       (van den Berg 1995: 184)

    b. izzu-qa-l    i[??]-i    ze-i ...
       3PL-AT-LAT   say-WPST   bear-ERG
       'The bear said to them ...'

Most verbs take arguments with only one fixed case marker. If one verb allows more than one marker then sometimes a difference in meaning is the reason. For instance, in ASK X A QUESTION X is marked with the AT suffix, whereas in ASK MONEY FROM X the AT.ABL suffix is used in order to mark X. Khwarshi provides us with another interesting example. In the first sentence where the addressee gets the Lative case my command is only directed to you and you have to fulfill it (6a). In the second sentence with the AT.LAT case marking of the addressee you are only the mediator of my command (6b). That is, you do not carry out my command; you pass it to somebody else.
(6) Khwarshi
    a. de        dubu-l   amru        b-i-se,     hese
       1SG.ERG   2SG-LAT  order(III)  III-do-PRS  book(III)
       'I order you to bring the book.'

    b. de         dub-qo-l     amru       b-i-se,     hese
       1SG.ERG    2SG-AT-LAT   order(III) III-do-PRS  book(III)
       'I order [someone] through you to bring the book.'

The concepts that require the same or almost the same suffix combination in all five languages (BEG, EXPLAIN, ORDER) are generally expressed by complex verbs containing loans. If the languages differ in their case assignment, this means more often than not that the stems are not related (e.g., CALL/SHOUT qa[??]e- (Hinuq), q[??]a[??]i- (Tsez) vs. i[??]e- [Hunzib, Bezhta]).

5.2. Perception verbs

Perception verbs where the subject is not an experiencer but has agentive properties (LOOK, LISTEN) behave like verbs of speech because they require combinations of AT marking (7a) for the object of perception. But suffixes with the SUPER marker are also admitted (7b). The result is a change in meaning, in the first example (7a) the verb --ezu- means roughly 'pay attention', 'watch', 'look for', whereas in the second example (7b) it means just 'look at'.
(7) Tsez
    a. mamalay      yil--qo-r         b-ezu-x       b-icin-c'ey
       rooster(III) 3SG.OBL-AT-LAT    III-look-CVB  III-be-NEG.UWPST
       durimo[??]   b-ik'i-n ...
       running      III-go-CVB
       'The rooster ran without looking at it and ...'

    b. k'et'u-[??]'o-r-no   b-ezu-n        zir-a            ?esir-no
       cat--SUPER-LAT-and   III-look-CVB   fox(III).OBL-ERG ask-UWPST
       'The fox looked at the cat and asked.'

5.3. Experiencer verbs and other psychological constructions

As already mentioned, experiencer verbs usually require the experiencer to be marked by the Lative/Dative and the object by the Absolutive case, and FIND follows this pattern. Hinuq allows the subject Of FIND (8) to be marked not only by the Dative, but also by AT.
(8) Hinuq
    hadze-qo     hago     uzi     O-asi-yo   gom
    3SG.OBL-AT   that     boy(I)  I-find-PRS be.NEG
    'They do not find the boy.'

But there is one experiencer verb that behaves more like verbs of speech or perception, namely FEAR. In all Tsezic languages with the exception of Hunzib this verb requires the theme to be marked by the AT suffix. It is in fact typical for the Nakh-Daghestanian language family to mark the theme of FEAR/BE AFRAID with a local case (Ganenkov 2006).
(9) Tsez
    nela-q     b-[??]u[??]'-no-gon       k'et'u   b-oxi-n
    3SG.OBL-AT III-be.afraid.of-CVB-CNTR cat(III) III-run.away--UWPST
    'The cat was afraid of it and run away.'

There are many examples of psychological constructions with IN ('in the heart', 'in peace') and CONY ('in the sleep', 'in the thought'), but the core suffix is SUPER. An example is the concept REMEMBER which in all Tsezic languages is expressed by a phrase like 'come on the heart', 'take on the heart' or 'bring to the heart', such as in the following example:
(10) Bezhta
     hogco-l       hino    yak'-[??]'a     y-oq 'o-yo
     2SG.M.OBL-LAT way(IV) heart.OBL-SUPER IV-come-WPST
     'He remembered the way.'

Other psychological constructions are mostly complex verbs consisting of a Tsezic verb and an Avar loan word (e.g., BELIEVE IN X, BE/BECOME CONSCIOUS, HAPPY, ANGRY, SURPRISED). Usually SUPER is used if the Tsezic verb is the copula (11 a); the SUPER.LAY suffix is only used if the verb literally expresses some kind of motion (11b).
(11) Tsez
     a. xalq 'i-n   za-[??]'     razi     b-oq-no
        people-and  boy-SUPER    content  HPL-be-UWPST
        'And the people were contented with the boy.'

     b. ssimi     m-ok'-un       obu-t'u-s        kandu-[??]'o-l
        evil(III) III-go-UWPST   father-OBL-GEN1  girl-SUPER-LAT
        'The father got angry with the girl.'

5.4. The case of GIVE

In Nakh-Daghestanian the verb GIVE often follows more than one valency pattern (see Daniel et al. [2007] for a detailed overview and many examples). In Hinuq, Tsez, Khwarshi and Bezhta it is the contrast between a temporary and a permanent transfer of the object which can be encoded by the spatial and the Dative/Lative suffix respectively. That means, in the case of a permanent transfer, the recipient is coded like a beneficiary with the Dative (in Hinuq) or the Lative (in Tsez and Khwarshi) (12a). On the other hand, in Khwarshi the recipient of a temporary transfer is marked with the NEAR.LAT suffix (12b). In Hinuq and Tsez AT and AT.LAT are employed to indicate temporary transfer (see also Section 6.1).
(12) Khwarshi
     a. ise        hese  ile-l          tu[??]-i
        3SG.M.ERG  book  3SG.F.OBL-LAT  give-WPST
        'He gave her the book.' (forever, as a gift)

     b. ise        hese  ile-yo-l            tu[??]-i
        3SG.M.ERG  book  3SG.F.OBL-NEAR-LAT  give-WPST
        'He gave her the book.' (only for a certain time)

5.5. Arguments of derived verb forms

In Nakh-Daghestanian typical agents of actions must take the Ergative case. Noncanonical agents deviate from this pattern. They are often but not always used with verbs that have undergone derivation.

5.5.1. Causative constructions from transitive verbs. The causee with causative verbs derived from transitive verbs is marked with the AT suffix in all Tsezic languages except Bezhta (where it is marked with the Instrumental).
(13) Hunzib
     maduhan-li-l      abu-g     si        b-i[??]'e-k'-er
     neighbour-OBL-ERG father-AT bear(III) III-kill-CAUS-PRET
     'The neighbour made father kill the bear.'
     (van den Berg 1995: 108)

5.5.2. Exterior force. The exterior force construction indicates that someone or something accidentally brought about a certain state of affairs. It is used with intransitive verbs, and the involuntary agent or the exterior force is again marked by the AT suffix (14).
(14) Bezhta
     q'urban     unti-la-qa      O-u[??]o-na
     Kurban(I)   disease-OBL-AT  I-die-UWPST
     'Because of the disease Kurban died.'

5.5.3. Potential construction. In clauses with the potential form of a transitive verb the AT suffix is added to the potential agent (potential forms of intransitive verbs retain a single argument in the absolutive).
(15) Hinuq
     di-qo         bu[??]e     b-u-l-o           gom
     1SG.OBL-AT    house(III)  III-make-POT-PRS  be.NEG
     'I cannot build a/the house.'

This coincides with the valency pattern of the verb CAN/BE ABLE which is composed of the Avar loan k'weze ('can', 'be able') and the copula. The subject of this verb is always marked by the AT suffix (16).
(16) Bezhta
     suk'o-qa   k'ezi   O-aq-a[??]a-s  suk'o      O-i[??]'-al
     person-AT  can     I-be-NEG-PRS   person(I)  I-kill-INF
     'A man cannot kill another man.'

Hinuq and Tsez have another verb ko[??]'e- with a similar meaning. But this verb allows its subject to be marked by either the Dative/Lative or the AT suffix.

6. Other constructions

6.1. Possession

Possession is generally expressed with the Genitive (17a). In predicative clauses temporary possession can be indicated by using the AT marker (17b), the same suffix that is also used to indicate temporary transfer (Section 6.1.4). In Bezhta the use of this suffix indicates not only temporary possession, but also responsibility for the possessed object. Hence, the sentence in (17b) expresses also that I have to take care of a big household (see Ganenkov 2005).

In talking about the name of a person or place yet another suffix is employed, namely SUPER (17c).
(17) Hinuq
     a. debe       xexbe     gol-e
        2SG.GEN1   children  be-Q
        'Do you have children?'

     Bezhta (Dialect of Tladal, Ganenkov [2005: 202])
     b. di:-qa    r-uq'o  bi[??]o-y
        1SG-AT    IV-big  house(IV)-be
        'I have a big house.'

     c. di-[??]'o      co     Muhamad  (goli)
        1SG.OBL-SUPER  name   Mohamed  be
        'My name is Mohamed.'

6.2. Object of exchange

The object of exchange, which may be money or any other thing, is expressed by means of the SUB suffix in all five Tsezic languages (18).
(18) Tsez
     [??]ora      [??][??]urusyo-[??]  te[??]-xo       q'ut'u
     three.OBL    ruble.OBL-SUB        give-IPFV.CVB   jug
     'a jug for three rubles'

6.3. Purpose

Constructions expressing purposes or goals are usually complex involving some nonfinite verb that can be case marked (Section 7.1). But in sentences such as GO FOR X purposes and goal can also be expressed by some NP. In the Tsezic languages these NPs are always marked by spatial suffixes. Each Tsezic language uses a different suffix. In Hinuq the Superessive case or the Contessive plus the postposition hezzo 'after' is used.
(19) Hinuq
     c'udaki-ya-[??]o        /  c'udaki-ya-l         hezzo O-i[??]'i-s
     raspberry-OBL-SUPER        raspberry-OBL-CONT   after I-go-WPST
     'I (masc.) went for raspberries.'

The other languages use SUPER.LAT (Tsez), ILOC (Khwarshi), IN.LAT, SUPER.LAT, and COMIT (Bezhta), and SUPER and ALOC (Hunzib).

6.4. Standard of comparison

The structure of the comparative constructions is the same for all five Tsezic languages as well as for other Daghestanian languages such as Lezgian (Haspelmath 1993: 432) or Godoberi (Sosenskaja and Tatevosov 1996: 167). It consists of the comparee, which is often but not always the subject of the clause, the standard of comparison, the parameter and a copula or some other verb. The comparee can be marked with any grammatical or spatial case, e.g., Absolutive (20d), Ergative (20c), or Dative (20c). It can be a copula subject, a subject of an intransitive or of a transitive clause (20c), an experiencer (20e) or a possessor (20a). The standard of comparison is expressed differently in every Tsezic language, usually by means of a spatial case. Only Tsez and Hunzib have dedicated cases (20d), but Tsez can also employ the SUPER.ABL (20b). To use a spatial case, especially an ablative, as marker of comparative constructions seems to be quite common crosslinguistically (Dixon 2008: 795). The parameter is an adjective or adverb with no special form. The comparee and the standard of comparison may each be clauses with shared verb and shared arguments (20c). Leaving out repeated elements does not give rise to the ambiguities that are known from languages with few or no cases like English (20e).
(20) Khwarshi
     a. diyo        masina    dublo-[??]'o-zi   cabalu  goli
        1SG.GEN1    car       2SG-SUPER-ABL     old     be
        'My car is older than yours.'

     b. haze-s         bisora-de-r        gozon  [??]asi  be[??]'  gol
        3PL.OBL-GEN1   100.OBL-ALOC-LAT   PRT    much     sheep    be
        'They have more than 100 sheep.'

     c. 2a da-[??]'-ay         r-ig       debe-q
        3SG 1SG-SUPER-ABL      IV-much    2SG-AT
        b[??]e[?]'-xo-zo-ni                 aha            esi-[??]in
        flock.of.sheep-ILOC-LNK.OBL-DEF    shepherd.ERG    tell-QUOT
        'The shepherd will tell you more about it than I.'

     d. [??]g   O-i[??]er du-waa-n         di-yaa-n          lo
        3SG.M   I-small   2SG-COMP-and     1SG-COMP-and      be(I)
        'He is smaller than both you and I.'
        (van den Berg 1995: 50)

     e. Patimatil    Ali    Zaira-l-[??]a       yi[??]'a O-at-ca
        Patimat.LAT  Ali(I) Zaira-OBL-NEAR   I-love-PRS
        'Patimat loves Ali more than (she loves) Zaira.' (9)

6.5. Comitative constructions

Stolz et al. (2006) identify three different functions of comitative constructions: (i) accompaniment situations with at least two animate protagonists, (ii) instrumental use, and (iii) adverbial modification of predicates. The Tsezic languages have spatial cases that cover only the first and the third functions to various extents, because all of them have an Instrumental case for the second function. Bezhta and Hunzib use the spatial suffix COMIT that has no cognates in the other Tsezic languages (21a). Although this marker occurs mostly in accompaniment situations, it has also spatial meaning, which is, however, not very specific (orientation to a goal or near to a goal, or through a point of reference like a forest). The remaining Tsezic languages use either the ALOC suffix (Tsez, Hinuq) or the CONT suffix (Khwarshi). For instrumental use, the Tsezic languages have a dedicated instrumental case. All markers used in accompaniment situations are also used for adverbial modification, e.g., in their spatial function or in examples such as (21b).
(21) Hunzib (van den Berg 1995: 48)
     a. oze    O-ok'aak'    zin-do         halma[??]-li-[??]ur
        boy(I) I-wander     SELF.OBL-INST  friend-OBL-COMIT
        'The boy walks with his friend.'

     b. me O-ici-yo-me            k'osili-[??]'os k'ohlo-de
        2SG I-stop-COND-NEG       play-HAB        ball(III)-ALOC
        dew-qo-s             de        b-i[??]-a       got
        2SG.OBL-AT-ABL1      1SG.ERG   III-take-INF    be
        'If you do not stop playing with the ball, I will take it away
        from you.'

7. Nonfinite verb forms with local endings

In many languages of the world local case endings can be added to nonfinite verb forms in order to form subordinate clauses. The Tsezic languages are a good example because they have both many local cases and many nonfinite verb forms (see Comrie et al. [in prep.] for a detailed account of converbal constructions in the Tsezic languages). A couple of nonfinite verb forms owe their function clearly to the spatial endings they have, and two of these verb forms will be presented in the following. All the nonfinite verb forms with local endings are case-marked participles or infinitives, and they are used in adverbial clauses. They are in the process of grammaticalization, but not yet completely frozen. This means that all these verb forms occur at least with one other case suffix or on their own. But they can no longer be productively modified by freely adding any case marker even if semantically appropriate.

7.1. Purposive converbs

Bezhta and Hinuq have a nonfinite verb form which bears the Dative/Lative suffix and expresses purpose. In Bezhta this form has been grammaticalized as an infinitive and the original spatial meaning is no longer transparent. In Hinuq the form is still partially productive because the same participle on which the purposive converb is based can also be used with all other orientation markers occurring in the language, acquiring always a meaning that is in agreement with the meaning of the orientation marker. For example, in (22b) the First Ablative is added to the participle, which therefore gets the reading 'from X'.
(22) Hinuq
     a. de    O-i[??]'i-s  t'ot'r-aya-z       kebura-l-e-r
        1SG   I-go-WPST    learn-PTCP-DAT     Bezhta-CONT-EP-LAT
        'I (masc.) went to Bezhta in order to study.'

     b. haw    coy        k'o[??]e-n b-i[??]'i-n  izez
        that   eagle(III) fly-CVB    III-go-CVB   eye.DAT
        b-ike-ya-s         b-ik 'el-no
        III-See-PTCP-ABL1  III-disappear-UWPST
        'The eagle flew away and disappeared out of sight.'

The connection between Dative/Lative, purposive and infinitive is widely attested in the languages of the world (Haspelmath 1989; Rice and Kabata 2007). Hinuq has an additional infinitive that has a broader usage than the purposive converb (21b).

The other Tsezic languages have purposive converbs, but they are not formed with the help of spatial cases.

7.2. Causal participles

Tsez, Hinuq, Bezhta and Hunzib have nonfinite verb forms denoting causal circumstances. These verb forms all end with the AT suffix which is also used in causative and external force constructions (see (13) and (14)). The suffix is always added to some participle, which also occurs on its own or before other local cases. For instance, in Hunzib the past participle used for expressing causal circumstances (23a) can also express concession or simultaneity if the suffixes with the appropriate meanings are added (23b). (10)
(23) Hunzib
     a. cixaa-r-o-g               [??]g  [?]ir[??]  O-ek-er
        be.tired-PTCP.PST-OBL-AT  he(I)  under      I-fall-PRET
        'Because he got tired, he fell down.'
        (van den Berg 1995: 93)

     b. [??]g-ra  [??]adam-la  b-u<wa>t'-er-a-a
        that-PL   person-PL    HLP-sleep<PL>PTCP.PST-OBL-IN
        'While these people sleep, they snore.'
        (van den Berg 1995: 92)

8. Bringing some structure to the data

When looking at the variation among the Tsezic languages we saw that more grammaticalized constructions such as the causative and the potential constructions are much more uniformly expressed than comitative constructions of the standard of comparison. The reason seems to be that in the former constructions it is an additional argument of a derived verb that takes a local case marker. The range of spatial cases used for the marking of verbal arguments in all Tsezic languages is restricted to AT anal occasionally SUPER and their combinations. So maybe already Proto-Tsezic used mainly AT for verbal arguments, and the languages simply inherited the valency frames together with the verbs.

The comitative construction and the standard of comparison are nonverbal constructions. Although these constructions have the same overall structure in all Tsezic languages, they differ quite radically in the spatial cases used. It seems that every language picked a spatial case at hand or even developed a completely distinct marker like the Tsez Equative suffix. For the comitative some sort of unifying principle behind the choice of the spatial case can be assumed. The meanings of the various location markers used in comitative constructions resemble each other, they could be paraphrased with 'at', 'by' or 'near'. There is no overt orientation marker added to them because Lative and Ablative would entail movement, which is not necessarily part of the comitative meaning.

8.1. From case forms to functions

Up to now, we have looked in one direction only, namely from functions to forms. But it might be just as insightful to look from forms to functions, at least for those case markers that are repeatedly used with nonspatial functions. Are the nonspatial functions of a marker related to each other and/or to its spatial function? What do the location markers and what do the orientation markers contribute to the meaning of a complex suffix?

The spatial markers that have the most nonspatial usages are CONT, SUPER and AT.

The CONT suffix is mainly used to express the inclusion in a (kind of) mass with contact between the object included and the mass. Its nonspatial usages match this function quite well. It is found with expressions like 'in sleep/ dream/thought' and lots of temporal locations ('in the year/evening', 'one time') which seem to be metaphorical extensions of the spatial function. All these temporal expressions denote time spans in which situations can be located without giving a precise reference point. Other nonspatial uses of CONT seem to exploit more the 'contact' meaning of this marker. For example, in Khwarshi CONT is used for the comitative function. The other languages use CONT with expressions such as 'meet/agree/make love/play with somebody', which all involve a kind of contact.

AT is a general location and orientation marker. Though it is infrequently found with spatial expressions there are some examples like 'in the forest', 'at the border' or 'on the street'. The AT suffix used without any overt orientation marker is clearly the suffix which has the most nonlocal uses. It is used in order to mark arguments of various kinds of verbs: (i) the addressee of verbs of speech, (ii) the object of perception, (iii) the experiencer (iv) the recipient of ditransitive verbs, (v) the causee of derived causative verbs, and (vi) and the potential agent of derived potential verbs. In addition, AT can also express possessors in predicative possession clauses. Hence, a connection between the semantic roles of experiencer, addressee, recipient, possessor and spatial meanings seems to exist. This connection is natural from a conceptual point of view. Recipients are animate endpoints (goals) of spatial transfers. After the transfer they possess the object they have received. Addressees of verbs of speech are endpoints of information transfers, i.e., they receive information. This kind of correlation is not unique to the Tsezic languages, but has been demonstrated in various typological studies (e.g., Haspelmath 1999; Ganenkov 2006; Rice and Kabata 2007).

The marking of noncanonical agents (that is causees, exterior force or potential agents) is unique to the AT suffix. Although at a first glance a cognitive relationship between adressees/experiencers/recipients on the one hand and noncanonical agents on the other is not obvious, there are two directions in which one can look to find some. First, it has been suggested to analyze some verbs of emotion that take an experiencer subject and a theme as underlyingly causative verbs of emotion whereby the theme causes the experiencer to go through the emotion denoted by the predicate (McCawley Akatsuka 1976). Likewise, causees can be interpreted as affected agents (Saksena 1980) that naturally group together with other affected roles such as recipient and experiencer. This grouping can then be extended to exterior forces that are very similar to causees but lack animacy.

Second, the identical case marking of causees and recipients is quite widespread among the languages of the world (see den Dikken [1995: 240-245]; Shibatani and Pardeshi [2002] for examples). In fact, Comrie (1976) notes that in the paradigm case of causatives derived from transitive verbs the causee should take the same case marking as indirect objects in ditransitive clauses. His explanation is syntactic in nature. Embedded subjects (e.g., causees) are demoted stepwise down the case hierarchy (subject, direct object, indirect object, other obliques). Transitive verbs have already a subject and a direct object, thus the newly added argument takes the role of the indirect object.

Somewhat less frequent bur nevertheless important for the expression of nonlocal uses is the AT.LAT suffix. However, this marker occurs only in the West Tsezic languages Tsez, Hinuq and Khwarshi. In these languages AT.LAT resembles AT in both spatial and nonspatial meanings with the only difference that AT.LAT always expresses some kind of movement. In the nonspatial domain AT.LAT can mark (i) addresses, (ii) objects of visual perception, (iii) some experiencers, (iv) recipients, and (v) in Tsez also beneficiaries. It is never used for the expression of possession or noncanonical agents.

Finally, AT.ABL, which exists in all five Tsezic languages, is found in expressions of metaphorical movement away from some abstract reference point like 'save from destiny' and 'relax from the tyranny'. Furthermore, AT.ABL occurs with verbs such as 'want/ask/take/get from X'. All nonspatial meanings involve a transfer away from some animate source due to the Ablative meaning.

The extended range of grammatical functions of AT and AT.LAT correlates with the fact that these suffixes rarely indicate spatial location and movement. In Hunzib and Bezhta the AT ending is never found with inanimate nouns. In Hinuq, Tsez and Khwarshi, where it can be used to express location and orientation, its meaning is however less specific than the meaning of the other spatial markers.

Another location marker recurrently employed with nonspatial functions is SUPER. Its use in psychological constructions like 'be happy/angry/surprised/ etc. about X' or 'believe in X' has been described in Section 5.3. In addition, it often expresses the theme of conversations ('talk about X').

The orientational counterparts of SUPER, SUPER.LAT and SUPER.ABL have a comparable, but more restrictive functional domain than SUPER alone, because they always express some motion. SUPER.LAT marks the object of visual perception in Tsez and Hinuq.

Both SUPER and AT are quite appropriate for nonspatial functions because they express the location of an object on or at another object. This can easily be extended not only to possessors and the like (for AT), but also to objects of perceptions (SUPER). In the latter case it is the gaze itself that lies on an object. A similar kind of metaphorical location lies at the heart of the psychological constructions, which are expressed with the SUPER marker. The use of spatial expressions for the encoding of emotions and thoughts, which are metaphorically located in the heart or head or other body parts and organs, is widespread among the languages of the world.

8.2. The distribution of some case markers

There is a rich of literature on the analysis of spatial expressions in various frameworks, e.g., cognitive semantics (Jackendoff 1983), the "semantictypology"-approach of Levinson and his colleagues (Levinson 2003; Levinson and Wilkins 2006), and model-theoretic approaches (Zwarts and Winter 2000; Kracht 2002). But all focus primarily on the analysis of the spatial meanings of various spatial expressions (adpositions, case markers, adverbials, nouns) without taking into account nonspatial functions.

Consequently, I will take a different approach based on the semantic map method, which captures the various nonspatial functions of the spatial cases outlined in the previous sections while mostly ignoring their spatial meanings. For polyfunctional expressions semantic maps offer a good visual display of the functions and their connections. It is easy to compare several expressions at the same time, and additionally, compare several languages by confronting their semantic maps (for a detailed discussion of the advantages of semantic maps see Haspelmath [2003]).

The analysis is based on Haspelmath's (1999) semantic map of typical dative functions, but the map has been slightly adjusted. Recipient and addressee have been separated because in Hinuq the recipient, but not the addressee can be marked with the Dative. Two functions have been added, namely location and the noncanonical agent function for causees, potential agents and exterior forces. Finally, because of the lack of an external possessor construction this function is left out. The labels refer to the functions as they have been described in the previous sections. The judicantis-functions, which has not been described before, refers to judgments according to some personal norm (Mary runs too fast for me).

The following figures show maps of some case markers in Hinuq (West-Tsezic) and Bezhta (East-Tsezic), two languages that differ rather considerably in their case marking.

In both maps the central dative functions are covered by two case markers with a somehow similar allocation (DAT and AT in Hinuq; LAT and AT in Bezhta) whereas at the periphery the markers are complementarily distributed. The distribution of case markers among the typical dative functions is much less complex in Bezhta, although both languages have the same number of cases at their disposal, because in Bezhta three out of seven cases employed serve exactly the same two functions (IN.LAT, COMIT and SUPER.LAT). (11)



The Hinuq Lative is a genuine spatial case indicating only orientation. In Bezhta, on the other hand, the Lative covers not only spatial functions, bur also the majority of the other nonspatial functions which are covered by the Dative in Hinuq. Remember that Hinuq is the only Tsezic language that has a Dative. It is hard to tell whether this Dative is inherited from Proto Avar-Andi-Tsezic or whether it is an innovation. All Andic languages have a Dative that does not serve spatial functions, but Alekseev reconstruct the Proto-Andic Dative suffix as --[??]a (Alekseev 2003: 113). The Hinuq Dative does not seem to be a cognate.

In Hinuq the AT.LAT, which is absent from the Bezhta map, has a similar, but somehow more specialized meaning than AT. All three functions covered by the AT.LAT (orientation, addressee and recipient) involve a kind of motion which is absent from the other functions covered by AT. This confirms the fact that the location markers alone express either location or motion, whereas the Lative always expresses motion.

Both languages use SUPER and SUPER.LAT, but mostly for the spatial functions of location and orientation. In Hinuq the SUPER.LAT can also mark addressees. This could be an extension of its goal marking function in psychological constructions (Section 5). Interestingly, in both languages the purpose-function is covered by some variant of SUPER.

Finally, Bezhta introduces IN.LAT and COMIT one for kind of purpose meaning. This use is hard to explain. Maybe the use of the IN.LAT it is due to influence from Hunzib, which has no Dative and preserved only minor traces of a Lative. For that reason, Hunzib uses the IN suffix to mark a range of dative-functions such as recipient, experiencer or beneficiary.

8.3. The orientation markers

When teasing apart the contributions of both location markers and orientation markers to the meaning of a spatial case it becomes clear that the location markers on their own are not specified for motion. Only the predicates to which the location markers belong entail whether the absence of motion or some motion to a goal are intended.

On the other hand, if some orientation marker combines with an overt location marker, than it is the meaning of the orientation marker which determines the kind of motion that the complex suffix conveys. That is, if the Lative is added to the location marker, than only motion to a goal can be expressed because this is the meaning contribution of the Lative. If the Ablative is added, than only motion from a source is expressed because of the meaning of the Ablative.

The other orientation markers that can be found in the Tsezic languages are in principle not employed with nonspatial meanings (with the exception of some very rare temporal expressions). This is not at all surprising since only Lative and Ablative have well established links to dative and genitive functions.

The Lative indicates spatial orientation to a goal, and can thus metaphorically extended to encode also abstract orientation of objects to beneficiaries and recipients. A further metaphorical extension from beneficiary to purpose is also coherent, since both relations can be reduced to direction of movement from one point (the benefactor or goal-achiever) to another point (the beneficiary or goal/purpose (Song 1996: 50). For this case it has been cross-linguistically attested that it frequently takes over grammatical functions. For instance, out of the list of the 33 concomitant senses that Rice and Kabata (2007) list for (Al)lative morphemes the Tsezic Lative expresses four when used on its own. These senses are: recipient, beneficiary, purpose/infinitive (Bezhta) and conceptual (12) (Tsez). If combinations of location markers with the Lative with are also counted, than some more functions can be included such as time point, addressee, perceptual target, time boundary and even comparative (only Hinuq). Similarly, Heine and Kuteva (2002: 37-41) list several grammaticalization paths from (A1)lative to various dative functions for languages from all over the world. The Lative-Dative connection is completely natural if we assume with Blake (1994: 145) that the central function of the Dative is "to encode entities that are the target of an activity or emotion."

All Tsezic languages have (at least) one Genitive with typical genitive functions such as the marking of possession, of material and of partitive phrases. Three Tsezic languages have an Ablative marker that is identical to the Genitive suffix. The development of an Ablative into a marker of possession, material and partition is also observed in a range of other languages in and outside the Caucasus (Heine and Kuteva 2002: 31-35).

9. Conclusion

The close relationship between grammatical and local cases found in the Tsezic languages does not concern just some arbitrarily selected local cases, but mainly two orientation markers (Lative, Ablative) and one location marker (AT). Both Lative and Ablative are known to have frequently dative and genitive functions. The AT suffix on its own has the widest range of nonlocal usages. It seems that this marker is just on its way to grammaticalize into a real grammatical case marker for all kinds of oblique verbal arguments such as addressees, recipients and experiencer, but also nonprototypical agents.

An explanation for this development could take into account the fact that the AT marker is probably the least specific location suffix in all Tsezic languages. It seems that the less specific the spatial meaning of a case is, the more grammatical functions it has and vice versa. If we look at the other location markers with quite specific meanings such as SUB or IN we see that they are only marginally provided with additional grammatical functions. Thus, one can suspect that the meanings of these markers seem less suitable because objects that are in or under another object are somewhat out of sight and less available. (13)

DOI 10.1515/LING.2010.035

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

Appendix. Nonlocal case endings in the Tsezic languages
Table 1. Hinuq

         Essive   Lative      Ablative1   Ablative2     Directional

CONT     -l       -l-e-r      -l-e-s      -l-e-zo       -l-e-do
IN       -V/-ma   -Vr/-ma-r   -Vs/-mas    -Vzo/-ma-zo   -Vdo/-ma-do
SUB      -y       -y-e-r      -y-e-s      -y-e-zo       -y-e-do
SUPER    -y 'o    -y'o-r      -y'o-s      -y'o-zo       -y'o-do
AT       -qo      -qo-r       -qo-s       -qo-zo        -qo-do
ALOC     -de      -de-r       -de-s       -de-zo        -de-do
ILOC     -ho      -ho-r       -ho-s       -ho-zo        -ho-do

Table 2. Tsez nondistal

         Essive     Lative    Ablative    Versative

CONT     -l         -l-er     -l-ay       -l-xo-r
IN       -a         -a-r      -ay         -a-yo-r
SUB      -y         -y-er     -y-ay       -y-xo-r
SUPER    -y '(o)    -y'o-r    -y '-ay     -y'-ayo-r/-y'-a-r
AT       -q(o)      -qo-r     -q-ay       -q-ayo-r/-q-a-r
ALOC     -de        -de-r     -d-ay       -d-ayo-r/-d-a-r
ILOC     -x(o)      -xo-r     -x-ay       -x-ayo-r/-x-a-r

Table 3. Tsez distal

             Essive    Lative        Ablative     Versative

CONT     -l-az     -l-az-a-r      -1-az-ay     -1-az-a
IN          -az       -az-a-r        -az-ay        -az-a
SUB        -y-az    -y-az-a-r     -y-az-ay     -y-az-a
SUPER    -y'-az    -y'-az-a-r    -y'-az-ay     -y'-az-a
AT          -q-az    -q-az-a-r     -q-az-ay     -q-az-a
ALOC      -d-az    -d-az-a-r     -d-az-ay     -d-az-a
ILOC       -x-az    -x-az-a-r     -x-az-ay      -x-az-a

Table 4. Khwarshi

         Essive         Lative         Ablative

CONT     -1             -1-ul          -1-zi
IN       -(m)a          -(m)a-1        -(m)a-zi
SUB      -y             -y-ul          -y-zi
SUPER    -y'o           -y'o-1         -y'o-zi
AT       -qo            -qo-l          -qo-zi
NEAR     -yo            -yo-1          -yo-zi
ILOC     -ho            -ho-1          -ho-zi

         Versative      Translative    Tenninative

CONT     -1-yu-1        -l-yu-zaz      -1-q'a
IN       -(m)a-yu-1     -(m)a-yu-zaz   -(m)a-q'a
SUB      -y-yu-1        -y-yu-zaz      -y-q'a
SUPER    -y'o-yu-l      -y'o-yu-zaz    -y'o-q'a
AT       -qo-yu-1       -qo-yu-zaz     -qo-q'a
NEAR     -yo-yu-1       -yo-yu-zaz     -yo-q'a
ILOC     -ho-yu-1       -ho-yu-zaz     -ho-q'a

All four location suffixes ending with -o
have an allomorph ending with -a.

Table 5. Bezhta

             Essive       Lative       Ablativel

CONT         -1                        -1-co
IN           -?           -?-il        -?-is
SUB          -[??]                     -[??]-co
SUPER        -[??]'a      -[??]'a-1    -[??]'a-s
AT           -qa                       -qa-s
ALOC         -doy         -doy-1       -doy-s
NEAR         -ya          -ya-1        -ya-s
COMIT        -yoy         -yoy-l       -yoy-s

             Ablative2    Directional   Translative

CONT         -1-1a        -1-da         -l-la-[??]'a
IN           -?-1a        -?-da         -?(la)-[??]'a
SUB          -[??]-la     -[??]-da      -[??]-la-[??]'a
SUPER        -[??]'a-la   -[??]'a-da    -[??]'a-la-[??]'a
AT           -qa-la       -qa-da        -qa-la-[??]'a
ALOC         -doy-la      -doy-da       -doy-la-[??]'a
NEAR         -ya-la       -ya-da        -ya-la-[??]'a
COMIT        -yoy-la      -yoy-da       -yoy-la-[??]'a

The IN.LAT and the IN.ABL have allomorphs
where the epenthetic vowels are -a, -e or -o.

Table 6. Hunzib

        Essive       Ablative     Translative     Directional

CONT    -l           -1-se        -1-[??]'i       -1-do
IN      -V           -V-s         -V-[??]'        -da-a
SUB     -[??]        (-[??]-se)
SUPER   -[??] '(0)   -[??]'o-s    -[??]'o-[??]'
AT      -g(o)        -go-s
ALOC    -der         -dar-se      -der-[??]'i     -der-do
COMIT   -yur         -yur-se      -yur-[??]'i     -yur-do

Ablative and the Translative may be also added.

Received 4 February 2009

Revised version received

31 August 2009


Abdulaev, Arsen. 2010. Cezas folklor [Tsez folklore]. Maxackala: Lotos.

Alekseev, Mixail E. 2003. Sravnitel'no-istoriceskaja morfologija avaro-andijskix jazykov [Historical-comparative morphology of the Avar-Andic languages]. Moscow: Nauka. van den Berg, Helma. 1995. A Grammar of Hunzib: With texts and lexicon. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-language similarities and divergences. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and semantics: The grammar of causative constructions, 261-312. New York: Academic Press,

Comrie, Bernard. 1999. Spatial cases in Daghestanian languages. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 52(2). 108-117.

Comrie, Bernard. 2004. Oblique-case subjects in Tsez. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol. 1, 113-127. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Comrie, Bernard & Helma van den Berg. 2006. Experiencer constructions in Daghestanian languages. In Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological, and psycholinguistic perspectives, 127-154. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Comrie, Bernard & Maria Polinsky. 1998. The great Daghestanian case hoax. In Anna Siewierska & Jae Jung Song (eds.), Case, typology and grammar, 95-114. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Comrie, Bernard, Diana Forker & Zaira Xalilova. In prep. Adverbial clauses in the Tsezic languages. In Volker Gast & Holger Diessel (eds.), Clause combining in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cysouw, Michael & Diana Forker. 2009. Reconstruction of morphosyntactic function: Nonspatial usage of spatial case marking in Tsezic. Language 85(3). 588-617.

Daniel, Michael, Zaira Xalilova & Zarina Molochieva. 2007. Ditransitives in Nakh-Daghestanian. Paper presented at the Conference on Ditransitive Constructions, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, 23-25 November.

den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dixon, Robert M. W. 2008. Comparative constructions: A cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language 32(4). 787-817.

Ganenkov, Dmitry. 2005. Kontaktnve lokalizacii v naxsko-dagestanskix jazykax [Contact locations in the Nakh-Daghestanian languages]. Moscow: Moscow State University dissertation.

Ganenkov, Dmitry. 2006. Experiencer coding in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valencv and transitivity, 179-202. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive: A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10. 287-310.

Haspelmath, Martin. I993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. External possession in a European areal perspective. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession, 109-135. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In MichaeI Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, vol. 2, 211-242. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: M1T Press.

Kibrik, Aleksandr E. & Jakov G. Testelec. 2004. Bezhta. In Mochael Job (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus, 217-298. New York: Caravan Books.

Kracht, Marcus. 2002. On the semantics of locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(2). 157-232.

Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, Stephen C. & David Wilkins (eds.). 2006. Grammars of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malchukov, Andrej & Andrew Spencer (eds.). 2009. The handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCawley, Noriko Akatsuka. 1976. On experiencer causatives. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and semantics: The grammar of causative constructions, 181-203. New York: Academic Press.

Radzabov, Ramazan. 1999. Sintaksis cezkogo jazyka [Syntax of the Tsez language]. Moscow: Moscow State University.

Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the ALLATIVE. Linguistic Typology 11(3). 451-514.

Saksena, Anuradha. 1980. The affected agent. Language 56(4). 812-826.

Shibatani, Masayoshi & Prashant Pardeshi. 2002. The causative continuum. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, 85-126. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Song, Jae Jung. 1996. Causatives and causation: A universal-typological perspective. London: Longman.

Sosenskaja, Tat'jana & Sergej Tatevosov. 1996. Comparative construction. In Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), Godoberi, 167-169. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2006. On comitatives and related categories: A typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Xalilov, Madzid S. 1995. Beztinsko-russkij slovar' [Bezhta-Russian dictionary]. Maxackala: IJaLl DNC RAN.

Xalilov, Madzid S. 1999. Cezko-russkij slovar' [Tsez-Russian dictionary]. Maxackala: IJaLI DNC RAN.

Xalilov, Madzid S. & I. A. Isakov. 2001. Gunzibsko-russkij slovar' [Hunzib-Russian dictionary]. Maxackala: IJaLI DNC RAN.

Xalilov, Madzid S. & I. A. Isakov. 2005. Ginuxsko-russkij slovar' [Hinuq-Russian dictionary]. Maxackala: IJaLI DNC RAN.

Zwarts, Joost & Yoad Winter. 2000. Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9(2). 171-213.


* I thank Bernard Comrie, Martin Haspelmath, Sander Lestrade, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on suggestions. My greatest debt is also to my informants as well as to my colleagues Bernard Comrie and Zaira Xalilova, who shared their data and knowledge with me. Correspondence address: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany. E-mail:

(1.) For a short definition of these notions see Section 5.

(2.) A table with all nonlocal functions and the respective spatial cases used with them in all five Tsezic languages is given in Cysouw and Forker (2009).

(3.) Exceptions: Hunzib has no Lative at all; Bezhta seems to lack some combinations with Lative (see Section 2.2.).

(4.) The missing suffixes are listened in Xalilov (1995), but are absent from my Bezhta corpus of about 10.000 clauses. I tried to elicit them, but my informant could not construct sentences with these suffixes, so they are missing in the Bezhta table in the appendix.

(5.) The terminative converb in Hunzib ends in -r. All the other Tsezic languages have terminative converbs ending with the Lative, therefore maybe this -r is a trace of the lost Lative.

(6.) The first Genitive is used when the modified noun is in the Absolutive case, the second Genitive otherwise. Hunzib has also lost its second Genitive and consequently it does not have a second Ablative. The second Genitive function is now served by the Instrumental. The first Ablative is used in adverbial function to indicated movement from or out of a place (ia). If the noun marked with the Ablative functions as a modifier of another noun which is marked by an oblique case, then the modifying noun must take the second Ablative (ib).
(i) Hinuq
    a. hadu y-i[??]'i-s     zoro-[??]-e-s
       3SG.F II-go-WPST barn-SUB-EP-ABL1
       'She went into the barn.'

    b. zoro-[??]-e-zo       ked-i      kiki-s      ywero
       barn-SUB-EP-ABL2     girl-ERG   feed-WPST   cow
       'The girl from in the barn fed the cow.'

(7.) The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: I-V genders ABL Ablative, BEN benefactive, CAUS causative, CNTR contrastive, COND conditional, CVB converb, DAT Dative, EP epenthetic, ERG Ergative, ESS Essive, F feminine, GEN1 first Genitive, HAB habitual, HPL human plural, INF infinitive, IMP imperative, IPFV imperfective, LAT Lative, LNK linker morpheme, M masculine, NEG negation, OBL oblique, POT potential, PRET preterite, PRS present, PST past, PTCP participle, SG singular, QUOT quotative, UW unwitnessed, W witnessed.

(8.) Small caps are used for indicating semantic concepts. These concepts are often but not always expressed with cognate verbs in all or a part of the Tsezic languages. However, all verbs have been identified first of all by their semantics/usages.

(9.) In English this sentences has two interpretations: Patimat loves Ali more than she loves Zaira and Patimat loves Ali more than Zaira loves Ali. In case-marking languages like Bezhta such ambiguities are often ruled out (Dixon 2008: 810).

(10.) In Hunzib the IN suffix is frequently employed to refer to rime points and time spans. For examples with nouns see van den Berg (1995: 156) or van den Berg (1995: 191).

(11.) For the functions of location and orientation both languages have of course some more cases, but since those additional cases do not include other dative meanings than orientation they are left out.

(12.) Rice and Kabata (2007: 471) give THINK ABOUT X as an example for the conceptual sense of the Lative.

(13.) But it seems that the bias against having SUB and IN markers and their combinations in grammatical function is just an arbitrary fact of the Tsezic languages. In another Nakh-Daghestanian language, namely Lezgian, IN and SUB have many nonspatial uses (Haspelmath 1993).
COPYRIGHT 2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Forker, Diana
Publication:Linguistics: an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:4EUGE
Date:Sep 1, 2010
Previous Article:The syntactic structure of locations, goals, and sources.
Next Article:Locative expressions in signed languages: a view from Turkish Sign Language (TID).

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters