Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 43:4 (2019) ► pp. 896–940

Assertion, presumption and presupposition

An account of the erstwhile nominalizer YUM in Khalkha Mongolian

| Hong Kong Polytechnic University | Academia Sinica
| Hong Kong Polytechnic University | Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
| Hong Kong Polytechnic University
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.
Keywords: assertion, presumption, presupposition, inference, evidentiality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data, methods and conventions
  • 3.Uses of yum: An overview
  • 4.The morphological status of yum
  • 5.Referential uses
  • 6.Sentence-final YUM
    • 6.1Sentence-final YUM in declaratives
    • 6.2Sentence-final YUM in questions
  • 7.YUM in connectors
    • 7.1YUM in conditionals
    • 7.2YUM in similative complements
  • 8.The presumptive reasoning construction YUM + copula
  • 9.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Glosses
  • References
  • Corpora and primary sources
Published online: 23 January 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18050.bro
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra & R. M. W. Dixon
(eds.) 2014 The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent & Robert Harnish
1979 Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2011 The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua 121(1). 60–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayancoγtu
2002 Qorcin aman ayalγun-u sudulul [A study of the Khorchin dialect]. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli-yin keblel-ün qoriy-a.Google Scholar
Behrens, Leila
2012 Evidentiality, modality, focus and other puzzles. In Andrea Schalley (ed.), Practical theories and empirical practice: A linguistic perspective, 185–244. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Binnick, Robert
2012 The past tenses of the Mongolian verb. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bläsing, Uwe
1984 Die finit indikativischen Verbalformen im Kalmückischen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Brosig, Benjamin
2012  Bilee sul ügiin utaɢ, xereglee [The meaning and function of the particle bilee ]. Xel Zox’ool Sudlal 5(37). 10–18.Google Scholar
2014 The aspect-evidentiality system of Middle Mongol. Ural-Altaic Studies 13(2). 7–38.Google Scholar
2015a Aspect and epistemic notions in the present tense system of Khalkha Mongolian. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 11(3). 46–127.Google Scholar
2015b Negation in Mongolic. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 951. 67–136.Google Scholar
2018 Factual 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.Google Scholar
in preparation. Expressing intent, imminence and ire by attributing speech/thought in Mongolian.
Brosig, Benjamin & Elena Skribnik
2018 Evidentiality in Mongolic. In Alexandra Aikhenvald (ed.), Oxford handbook of Evidentiality, 554–579. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Byambasaŋ, P., C. Önörbayaŋ, B. Pürew-Očor, Ž. Sanžaa & C. Žančiwdorž
1987 Orčoŋ cagiiŋ moŋɢol xelnii ügzüin baiɢuulalt [The structure of (verbal) morphology of contemporary Mongolian]. Ulaaŋbaatar: Šinžlex uxaanii akademi.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, Michael
1981 Frege: Philosophy of language, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
[Gotō] Goto (後藤), Ksenia
2009 Sistema finitnych form prošedšego vremeni v kalmyckom jazyke [The system of finite past tense forms in Kalmyk]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 5(2). 124–159.Google Scholar
Guntsetseg, Dolgor
2016 Differential case marking in Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[Gāo, Liánhuā] Guu, Lingqu-a (高莲花)
2013 Mongγul 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.Google Scholar
Hughes, Geoffrey
1988 Words in time: a social history of English vocabulary. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha
2012 Mongolian. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jary, Mark
2010 Assertion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[Jīngāng] Jingan (金罡)
2007 Mongorugo 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.Google Scholar
Jīngāng Jingan
2010 Mongorugo no modaritei [Modality in Mongolian]. Tōkyō: Tōkyō Gaikokugo Daigaku Unpublished doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars
2006 Indirective sentence types. Turkic Languages 101. 73–89.Google Scholar
Kang, Sin
2003 Hyen.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.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Anastasia Mukhanova
2003 Tonal gestures in Mongolian interrogatives. Phonum (Reports from the Department of Phonetics, Umeå University) 91. 189–192.Google Scholar
Kullmann, Rita & Dandii-Yadamiin Tserenpil
1996 Mongolian grammar. Ulaanbaatar: Admon.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1999 Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3(1). 91–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio
2018 A dialectical approach to presupposition. Intercultural Pragmatics 15(2). 291–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, George
1965 Hidatsa syntax. The Hague or Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura
2001 Exclamative constructions. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, vol. 21. Berlin: De Gruyter. 1038–1050.Google Scholar
Möŋx-Amɢalaŋ, Yumžiriiŋ
1996 Moŋgol 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’.Google Scholar
Mukai, Shin-Ichi (向井晋一)
2001 Mongorugo 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.Google Scholar
Nugteren, Hans
2011 Mongolic Phonology and the Qinghai-Gansu Languages. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Pagin, Peter
2016 Assertion. In Edward Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). https://​plato​.stanford​.edu​/archives​/win2016​/entries​/assertion
Palmer, Frank
2001 [1986] Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt-Radefeldt, Jürgen
1977 On so-called ‘rhetorical’ questions. Journal of Pragmatics 11. 375–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seesing, Olga
2013 Die temporalen Infinitkonstruktionen im Kalmückischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Song, Jae-mog
1997 Tense, aspect and modality in Khalkha Mongolian. London: University of London, SOAS Unpublished doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
2002 Grammaticalization of the verb ge- ‘to say’ in Khalkha Mongolian. Ōsaka Keizai Hōka Daigaku Sōgō Kagaku Kenkyūsho Nenpō 31. 29–38.Google Scholar
Street, John C.
1963 Khalkha structure. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof
1991 Tense, mood and aspect in Mongolian. Lund University, Department of Linguistics, Working Papers 381. 189–204.Google Scholar
Tantucci, Vittorio
2017 From immediate to extended intersubjectification. Language and Cognition 91. 88–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & LaPolla, Randy
2014 Towards a new approach to evidentiality. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2). 240–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Umetani, Hiroyuki (梅谷博之)
2013 Classifications of some sentence-final modal particles in Khalkha Mongolian. Tokyo University Linguistic Papers 331. 301–318.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
2003 [1991] Cross-cultural pragmatics. 2nd edn. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Östling, Robert & Benjamin Brosig
2011 (created). Corpus of Khalkha Mongolian internet texts. 34,642,000 words, text file.Google Scholar
Saito, Yoshio (斉藤純男)
2008 The Mongolian Words in the Muqaddimat al-Adab: Romanized text and word index (as of January 2008). Tokyo. http://​www​.u​-gakugei​.ac​.jp​/%7Esaito​/Text%20and%20Index​.pdf
Zolžarɢal, Baasaŋžaw & Benjamin Brosig
2012 (created). Corpus of unscripted Khalkha Mongolian TV data. 9 hours, video & text files.Google Scholar
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 Crossref logo
Brosig, Benjamin
2021. Expressing intent, imminence and ire by attributing speech/thought in Mongolian. Folia Linguistica 55:2 ► pp. 433 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 april 2022. 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.