Cover not available
Part of
Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond
Edited by Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 352] 2020
► pp. 215–244

Chapter 6
Paradigmatisation of the perfect and resultative in Tocharian

 | Leipzig University
In this chapter I consider a periphrastic construction based on the resultative participle and the auxiliary. The semantics are those typical of a perfect grammaticalized from a resultative construction. The combination with time adverbials as well as contextual information show that the reference time coincides with the moment of speech and is not prior to it. In addition to the inherited meaning of the resultative perfect, other meanings typical of a perfect are also found, e.g., the experiential perfect. Finally, there are no selectional input restrictions: all Vendler classes are found in this construction – a situation that may not be found with early resultatives. Even though, these properties suggest an advanced grammaticalisation degree of the construction, there are also indications for its recent development. For example, there is no evidence for a non-compositional interpretation of the auxiliary such as remote past – a meaning facet typical of pluperfects.
Keywords: Tocharian, perfect, resultative, orientation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Perfect as a cross-linguistic category
  • 3.The old perfect
  • 4.The new perfect. Morphosyntactic properties
    • 4.1The auxiliaries
    • 4.2pret.p orientation
  • 5.Functions of the pret.p construction
    • 5.1Resultative meaning
    • 5.2Perfect meaning
    • 5.3Pluperfect
      • 5.3.1Headed by the imperfect auxiliary
      • 5.3.2Headed by the preterite auxiliary
    • 5.4Preterite functioning as a perfect
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.352.06ser
References (46)
References
Adams, Douglas Q. 1978: On the development of the Tocharian verbal system. Journal of the American Oriental Society 98. 277–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. Tocharian historical phonology and Morphology (American Oriental Series 71). New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Batke, Christiane. 1999. Das Präsens und Imperfekt der Verben für “Sein” im Tocharischen. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 8. 1–74.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Taras Zakharko & Giorgio Iemmolo. 2015. Exploring diachronic universals of agreement: Alignment patterns and zero marking across person categories. In Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 287), 29–51. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breu, Walter. 1988. Resultativität, Perfekt und die Gliederung der Aspektdimension. In Jochen Raecke (ed.), Slavistische Linguistik 1987: Referate des XIII. Konstanzer Arbeitstreffens Tübingen, 22.-25.9.1987 (Slavistische Beiträge 230), 42–74. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
. 1998. Sopostavlenie slavjanskogo glagol’nogo vida i vida romanskogo tipa (aorist: imperfekt: perfekt) na osnove vzaimodejstvija s leksikoj. In Marina Ju. Čertkova (ed.), Tipologija vida. Problemy, poiski, rešenija, 88–98. Moscow: Jazyki Russkoj Kultury.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carling, Gerd, Georges-Jean Pinault & Werner Winter. 2009: Dictionary and thesaurus of Tocharian A. Volume 1: A-J. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
CEToM: A comprehensive edition of Tocharian manuscripts ed. by Melanie Malzahn, Michaël Peyrot, Hannes A. Fellner et al. URL: [URL] (Accessed May-October 2017).
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. ed. 2000. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (Eurotyp 6). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Eva Hedin. 2000. Current relevance and event reference. In Dahl (ed.), 385–401.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (Typological Studies in Language 3), 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hackstein, Olav. 2005. Archaismus oder historischer Sprachkontakt. Zur Frage westindogermanisch-tocharischer Konvergenzen. In Gerhard Meiser & Olav Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.–23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale, 169–184. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice. 1981. Georgian syntax: A study in relational grammar (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1994. Passive participles across languages. In Barbara A. Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and function (Typological Studies in Language 27), 151–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inoue, Kyoko. 1979. An analysis of the English present perfect. Linguistics 17. 561–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ji, Xianlin, Werner Winter & George-Jean Pinault. 1998. Fragments of the Tocharian A Maitreyasamiti-Nāṭaka of the Xinjiang Museum, China. Transliterated, translated and annotated by Ji Xianlin in collaboration with Werner Winter, Georges-Jean Pinault. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 113). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang & Werner Thomas. 1960. Tocharisches Elementarbuch, Band I. Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, Jouko. 2000. The perfect: aspectual, temporal and evidential. In Dahl (ed.), 365–383.Google Scholar
LIV2 = Rix, Helmut. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Malzahn, Melanie. 2007. The most archaic manuscripts of Tocharian B and the varieties of the Tocharian B language. In Melanie Malzahn (ed.), Instrumenta Tocharica, 255–297. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
. 2010. The Tocharian verbal system (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 3). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Charles J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics, 96–113. Irvington: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
MacCoard, Robert W. 1978. The English perfect: Tense-choice and pragmatic inferences (North Holland Linguistic Series 38). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2010: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9th revised and expanded edn. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Narten, Johanna. 1964. Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergej Je. Jaxontov. 1988. The typology of resultative constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions (Typological Studies in Language 12), 3–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peyrot, Michaël. 2008. Variation and change in Tocharian B (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 15). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Donald A. 1990. The Tocharian active s-preterite: A classical sigmatic aorist. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, 51. 183–242.Google Scholar
Serebrennikov, Boris A. 1974. Veroyatnostnye obosnovaniya v komparativistike [Probability explanations in linguistics]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2012. The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area. A diachronic and areal account. Lingua 122. 356–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Das Kausativ im Tocharischen (LINCOM Studies in Indo-European Linguistics 44). Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
2016. Periphrastic perfect / resultative in Tocharian. In Timur A. Maysak, Vladimir A. Plungyan, & Ksenia P. Semenova (eds.), Issledovaniya po teorii grammatiki, 7: Tipologiya perfekta [Investigations into the theory of grammar: The typology of the perfect] (Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 12.2), 237–288. Saint Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Sieg, Emil. 1944. Übersetzungen aus dem Tocharischen I (Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jg. 1943, Nr. 16.) Berlin: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
. 1952. Übersetzungen aus dem Tocharischen II. Aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben von Werner Thomas. (Abhandlungen der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, Jg. 1951, Nr. 1.) Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Sieg, Emil & Wilhelm Siegling. 1916[1908]. Tocharisch, die Sprache der Indoskythen (Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1908, Nr. 39). Berlin: Reimer. [Offprint of 1908, in: Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften 1908, Mitteilung v. 16. Juli, 915–934.]Google Scholar
Tamai, Tatsushi. 2012. Tocharian Puṇyavantajātaka. Annual report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 15. 161–187.Google Scholar
Thomas, Werner. 1954. Die Infinitive im Tocharischen. In Johannes Schubert & Ulrich Schneider (eds.), Asiatica. Festschrift Friedrich Weller, zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, 701–764. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1957. Der Gebrauch der Vergangenheitstempora im Tocharischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zenon. 1957. Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 66. 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, Werner. 1994. Zum tocharischen Verb. In Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Tocharisch. Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, September 1990 (Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, Supplementary Series 4), 284–308. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar