In this paper, we analyze the clitic YUM (< ‘thing’) in Khalkha Mongolian which, in different syntactic
contexts, reinforces assertiveness or expresses different shades of presumption or presupposition. The former holds for
declaratives where the presence of YUM conveys the speaker’s strong subjective commitment. In question clauses, YUM is used to
indicate the speaker’s subjective and often strong guess, sometimes to the point that the speaker presupposes that the proposition
actually obtains. In subordinate clauses, YUM may fulfill the same function or serve as a structurally necessary nominalizer for
adjectival predicates without introducing any semantic opposition. In declaratives marked as immediately perceived, YUM conveys
inference via assumptive reasoning. We thus analyze YUM as a marker of subjective speaker conviction that within the Khalkha
Mongolian declarative system is opposed to both simple factuality and overt evidential marking.
2012The past tenses of the Mongolian verb. Leiden: Brill.
Bläsing, Uwe
1984Die finit indikativischen Verbalformen im Kalmückischen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Brosig, Benjamin
2012Bilee sul ügiin utaɢ, xereglee [The meaning and function of the particle bilee
]. Xel Zox’ool Sudlal 5(37). 10–18.
Brosig, Benjamin
2014The aspect-evidentiality system of Middle Mongol. Ural-Altaic Studies 13(2). 7–38.
Brosig, Benjamin
2015aAspect and epistemic notions in the present tense system of Khalkha Mongolian. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 11(3). 46–127.
Brosig, Benjamin
2015bNegation in Mongolic. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 951. 67–136.
Brosig, Benjamin
2018Factual vs. evidential? – The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian. In Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop & Gijs Mulder (eds.), Empirical approaches to evidentiality, 45–75. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Brosig, Benjamin
in preparation. Expressing intent, imminence and ire by attributing speech/thought in Mongolian.
Brosig, Benjamin & Elena Skribnik
2018Evidentiality in Mongolic. In Alexandra Aikhenvald (ed.), Oxford handbook of Evidentiality, 554–579. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byambasaŋ, P., C. Önörbayaŋ, B. Pürew-Očor, Ž. Sanžaa & C. Žančiwdorž
1987Orčoŋ cagiiŋ moŋɢol xelnii ügzüin baiɢuulalt [The structure of (verbal) morphology of contemporary Mongolian]. Ulaaŋbaatar: Šinžlex uxaanii akademi.
Croft, William
2001Radical Construction Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dummett, Michael
1981Frege: Philosophy of language, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldberg, Adele
1995Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[Gotō] Goto (後藤), Ksenia
2009Sistema finitnych form prošedšego vremeni v kalmyckom jazyke [The system of finite past tense forms in Kalmyk]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 5(2). 124–159.
Guntsetseg, Dolgor
2016Differential case marking in Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
[Gāo, Liánhuā] Guu, Lingqu-a (高莲花)
2013Mongγul kitad kelen-ü keterkü asaγuqu ögülebüri-yi dügümken jergecegülkü ni [A short comparison of rhetorical questions in Mongolian and Chinese]. Kele ba Orciγulγ-a 2013/3. 16–20.
Hughes, Geoffrey
1988Words in time: a social history of English vocabulary. Oxford: Blackwell.
2007Mongorugo no shūjoshi yum to nihongo no “da”, “no da” nado bunmatsu keishiki no taishō kenkyū [A contrastive study of the Mongolian sentence-final particle yum and sentence-final forms such as da and no da in Japanese]. Shigen (Tōkyō Gaikokugo Daigaku Kijū Gengogaku Ronshū) 31. 3–21.
Jīngāng Jingan
2010Mongorugo no modaritei [Modality in Mongolian]. Tōkyō: Tōkyō Gaikokugo Daigaku Unpublished doctoral thesis.
Johanson, Lars
2006Indirective sentence types. Turkic Languages 101. 73–89.
Kang, Sin
2003Hyen.tay.mong.kol.e.uy yang.thay.chem.sa.ey kwan.han yen.kwu [A study of modal particles in Modern Mongolian]. Mongkolhak 141. 21–52.
Karlsson, Anastasia Mukhanova
2003Tonal gestures in Mongolian interrogatives. Phonum (Reports from the Department of Phonetics, Umeå University) 91. 189–192.
Kullmann, Rita & Dandii-Yadamiin Tserenpil
1996Mongolian grammar. Ulaanbaatar: Admon.
Lazard, Gilbert
1999Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other?Linguistic Typology 3(1). 91–110.
Macagno, Fabrizio
2018A dialectical approach to presupposition. Intercultural Pragmatics 15(2). 291–313.
Matthews, George
1965Hidatsa syntax. The Hague or Den Haag: Mouton.
Michaelis, Laura
2001Exclamative constructions. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, vol. 21. Berlin: De Gruyter. 1038–1050.
Möŋx-Amɢalaŋ, Yumžiriiŋ
1996Moŋgol xelnii “YUM” gedeg ügiiŋ üüreg-utaɢzüiŋ onclog [The functional and semantic peculiarities of the Mongolian word “yum”]. In E. Rawdaŋ & M. Bazarragčaa (eds.), Moŋɢol yar’aanii xel, 28–52. Ulaaŋbaatar: Moŋgol Ulsiiŋ Ix Surguul’.
Mukai, Shin-Ichi (向井晋一)
2001Mongorugo no shōten chōsei keishiki = On the focus of sentence in Mongolian. Nihon Mongorugo Gakkai Kiyō = Bulletin of the Japan Association for Mongolian Studies 311. 69–90.
Nugteren, Hans
2011Mongolic Phonology and the Qinghai-Gansu Languages. Utrecht: LOT.
Pagin, Peter
2016Assertion. In Edward Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). [URL]
Palmer, Frank
2001 [1986]Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt-Radefeldt, Jürgen
1977On so-called ‘rhetorical’ questions. Journal of Pragmatics 11. 375–392.
Seesing, Olga
2013Die temporalen Infinitkonstruktionen im Kalmückischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Song, Jae-mog
1997Tense, aspect and modality in Khalkha Mongolian. London: University of London, SOAS Unpublished doctoral thesis.
Song, Jae-mog
2002Grammaticalization of the verb ge- ‘to say’ in Khalkha Mongolian. Ōsaka Keizai Hōka Daigaku Sōgō Kagaku Kenkyūsho Nenpō 31. 29–38.
Street, John C.
1963Khalkha structure. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof
1991Tense, mood and aspect in Mongolian. Lund University, Department of Linguistics, Working Papers 381. 189–204.
Tantucci, Vittorio
2017From immediate to extended intersubjectification. Language and Cognition 91. 88–120.
2013Classifications of some sentence-final modal particles in Khalkha Mongolian. Tokyo University Linguistic Papers 331. 301–318.
Wierzbicka, Anna
2003 [1991]Cross-cultural pragmatics. 2nd edn. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Corpora and primary sources
Baranova, Vlada
(created 2007–2014) Narrative corpus of Kalmyk [2 hours, transcribed, glossed and translated]. Partially published in Vlada Baranova & Sergei Say 2009 Kommmentarij k korpusu tekstov & Teksty [Note on texts & Texts]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 5(2). 710–852.
Hán, Guójūn (韩国君), Benjamin Brosig, Hasiqimeg, Hasihuu, Mandala, Udbal, Lu Man, Celger
2012/2016 (created). Corpus of spoken Khorchin Mongolian. 6,5 hours, audio and text, partially textgrid.
Östling, Robert & Benjamin Brosig
2011 (created). Corpus of Khalkha Mongolian internet texts. 34,642,000 words, text file.
Saito, Yoshio (斉藤純男)
2008The Mongolian Words in the Muqaddimat al-Adab: Romanized text and word index (as of January 2008). Tokyo. [URL]
Zolžarɢal, Baasaŋžaw & Benjamin Brosig
2012 (created). Corpus of unscripted Khalkha Mongolian TV data. 9 hours, video & text files.
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Brosig, Benjamin
2021. Expressing intent, imminence and ire by attributing speech/thought in Mongolian. Folia Linguistica 0:0
Brosig, Benjamin
2021. Expressing intent, imminence and ire by attributing speech/thought in Mongolian. Folia Linguistica 55:2 ► pp. 433 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.