Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:3 (2020) ► pp.606–658

Possessive and non-identity relations in Turkic switch-reference

ORCID logo | Leiden University
 | SOAS University of London
This paper provides an overview of non-canonical patterns of switch-reference involving the converb in -(V)p in selected Turkic languages. This converb is usually described as a same-subject converb, but we show that it can conform to McKenzie’s (2012) extended definition of “same-subject” as expressing the identity of topic situations, rather than subject referents. In addition to tracking cross-clausal subject identity, -(V)p can be used when the possessor of the subject of one clause corefers with the subject of another clause and when the events expressed by the two clauses are in a close temporal and/or causal relationship. Based on Stirling (1993) and Bárány & Nikolaeva (2019), we argue that the role of possessors in Turkic switch-reference is captured by lexically specified conditions licensing the use of -(V)p when two subjects are in a possessive relation. Finally, we suggest that both types of non-canonical switch-reference can be seen as ensuring discourse continuity.
Keywords: possessive constructions, switch-reference, discourse continuity, Turkic, non-canonical switch-reference
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Converbial structures
  • 3.Same-subject constructions
    • 3.1Old Turkic
    • 3.2Eastern Turkic
    • 3.3Western Turkic
  • 4.Different-subject constructions
    • 4.1Different-subject constructions and clausal linking
    • 4.2Languages with marginal different-subject constructions
    • 4.3Possessive relations between different subjects
  • 5.Licensing conditions of Turkic switch-reference
    • 5.1Licensing conditions
    • 5.2Part-whole relations and action continuity
    • 5.3Alienable possession as participant continuity
  • 6.Summary and other issues
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 19 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19061.bar
References (108)
References
Ackerman, Farrell & Irina Nikolaeva. 2013. Descriptive typology and linguistic theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2004. Auxiliary verb constructions in Old Turkic and Altai-Sayan Turkic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Anetshofer, Helga. 2005. Temporale Satzverbindungen in altosmanischen Prosatexten. Mit einer Teiledition aus Behcetü’l-Hada’iq (1303 und 1429), Muqaddime-i Qutbed din (1433) und Ferec ba’de ş-şidde (1451) (Turcologica 57). Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.Google Scholar
Aydemir, İbrahim Ahmet. 2009. Konverbien im Tuwinischen: Eine Untersuchung unter Berücksichtigung des Altai-Dialekts. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.Google Scholar
Bárány, András & Irina Nikolaeva. 2019. Possessors in switch-reference. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 4(1), 81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2011. Possessives and relational nouns. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol.21, 1109–1130. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berta, Árpád. 1996. Deverbale Wortbildung im Mittelkiptschakisch-Türkischen. Wies baden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bodrogligeti, András. 2003. Academic reference grammar of Modern Literary Uzbek. 21 vols. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Bošković, Zeljko & Serkan Şener. 2014. The Turkish NP. In Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), Crosslinguistic studies on noun phrase structure and reference, 102–140. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brendemoen, Bernt & Éva Ágnes Csató. 1987. A syntactic analysis of Turkish gerundial clauses with subject control. In Hendrik E. Boeschoten & Ludo Th. Verhoeven (eds.), Studies on Modern Turkish: Proceedings of the third conference on Turkish linguistics, 121–135. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George Aaron. 1997. Binding theory and switch-reference. In Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds.), Atomism and binding, 31–49. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
. 2006. Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Buğday, Korkut. 1999. Osmanisch: Einführung in die Grundlagen der Literatursprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & William McGregor. 1996. Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. In Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation, 3–30. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1983. Switch-reference in Huichol: A typological study. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 17–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 141. 265–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csató, Éva Ágnes & Lars Johanson. 1992. On gerundial syntax in Turkic. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 46(2/3). 133–141.Google Scholar
de Sousa, Hilário. 2016. Some non-canonical switch reference systems and the fundamental functions of switch reference. In Rik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 55–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3). 391–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drimba, Vladimir. 1973. Syntaxe comane. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1986. Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 195–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erdal, Marcel. 1998. Old Turkic. In Lars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 138–157. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2004. A grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser. 1986. Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. In Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ermolaeva, M. B. 2016. Podležaščee v raznosub″ektnyx konstrukcijax s deepričastiem na -p v kirgizskom jazyke i mišarskom dialekte tatarskogo jazyka. [Subjects in constructions with the p-converb in Kyrghyz and Mišar Tatar]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 12(1). 417–427.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Wiebke Ramm. 2008. Editor’s introduction: Subordination and coordination from different perspectives. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text, 1–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friederich, Michael. 2012. Uyghurisch Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Gadžieva, Ninel’ Z. & Boris Aleksandrovič Serebrennikov. 1986. Sravnitelʹno-istoričeskaja grammatika Tjurkskix jazuikov: Sintaksis. [Comparative grammar of the Turkic languages: Syntax]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch reference. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 51–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Balkız Öztürk. 2019. Conditions on prominent internal possessors in Turkish. In András Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 163–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graščenkov, Pavel V. 2015. Tjurkskie konverby i serializacija: Sintaksis, semantika, grammatikalizacija. [Turkic converbs and serialization: Syntax, semantics, grammaticalization]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoj kulʹtury.Google Scholar
Graščenkov, Pavel V. & Marina B. Ermolaeva. 2015. O dvojstvennoj prirode tjurkskix kon verbov. [On the dual nature of Turkic converbs]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta 91. 42–56.Google Scholar
Haiman, John & Pamela Munro. 1983. Introduction. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, ix–xv. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 1–55. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hazai, György. 1973. Das Osmanisch-Türkische im XVII. Jahrhundert: Untersuchungen an den Transkriptionstexten von Jakab Nagy de Harsány. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hebert, Raymond J. & Nicholas Poppe. 1963. Kirghiz manual. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Imart, Guy. 1981. Le kirghiz (Turk d’Asie Centrale Soviétique): Description d’une langue de littérisation recente. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Irmer, Matthias. 2011. Bridging inferences: Constraining and resolving underspecification in discourse interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isxakov, Fazyl G. & Aleksandr A. Pal′mbax. 1961. Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka: Fonetika I morfologija [Grammar of Tuvan: Phonetics and morphology]. Moscow: Izdatel′stovo vostočnij literatury.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 1992. Periodische Kettensätze im Türkischen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 821. 201–211.Google Scholar
. 1995. On Turkic converb clauses. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 313–347. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1998. The history of Turkic. In Lars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 81–125. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kahle, David & Hadley Wickham. 2013. Ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal 5(1). 144–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keine, Stefan. 2013. Deconstructing switch-reference. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(3). 767–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerslake, Celia. 1998. Ottoman Turkish. In Lars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 179–202. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2017. Possession and partitives. In Hans Burkhardt, Johanna Seibt, Guido Imaguire & Stamatios Gerogiorgakis (eds.), Handbook of mereology, 440–444. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kreutel, Richard F. 1965. Osmanisch-Türkische Chrestomathie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Krueger, John R. 1961. Chuvash manual: Introduction, grammar, reader and vocabulary. Vol.71 (Uralic and Altaic Series). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice & Nicole Delbecque. 1998. The possessive dative in Romance and Germanic languages. In Willy Van Langendonck & William Van Belle (eds.), The dative: Volume 2: Theoretical and contrastive studies, 29–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 2011. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28(3). 279–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2003. Event-internal modifiers: Semantic underspecification and conceptual interpretation. In Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying adjuncts, 475–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James Robert. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mawkanuli, Talant. 2005. Jungar Tuvan texts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Research Bloomington Institute for Inner Asian Studies.Google Scholar
McKenzie, Andrew. 2007. Non-canonical switch-reference and situation semantics. In Amy Rose Deal (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 4: Semantics of under-represented languages in the Americas, 159–170. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
. 2010. Subject domain restriction and reference-tracking. Proceedings of SALT 201. 269–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The role of contextual restriction in reference-tracking. University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Menges, Karl H. 1995. The Turkic languages and peoples: An introduction to Turkic studies. 2nd, revised edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1993. ‘‘Switch-reference”: Clause combining in Central Pomo. International Journal of American Linguistics 59(2). 119–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, Pamela. 2016. Chickasaw switch-reference revisited. In Rik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 377–424. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nariyama, Shigeko. 2003. Ellipsis and reference tracking in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1995. Some typological parameters of converbs. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 97–136. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nevskaja, Irina. 1988. Deepričastie na -p kak komponent osložnennogo i složnogo predloženija v šorskom jazyke. [Converbs in -p in simple and complex sentences in Shor]. In Maiia I. Čeremisina, Elena K. Shamina & L′udmila A. Shamina (eds.), Komponenty predloženija (na materiale jazykov raznyx sistem). [Sentence components (based on the languages of different structure)], 154–169. Novosibirsk: IIFiF SOAN.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina. 1998. Subject valency of Shor gerunds. In Lars Johanson (ed.), The Mainz meeting: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, August 3–6, 1994, 234–243. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2008. Depictive secondary predicates in South Siberian Turkic. In Christoph Schroeder, Gerd Hentschel & Winfried Boeder (eds.), Secondary predicates in Eastern European languages and beyond, 275–294. Oldenburg: BIS.Google Scholar
. 2010. Converbs as depictive secondary predicates in South Siberian Turkic. In Hendrik Boeschoten & Julian Rentzsch (eds.), Turcology in Mainz, 191–200. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1983. Switch-reference in the Northeast Caucasus. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 245–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina, András Bárány & Oliver Bond. 2019. Towards a typology of prominent internal possessors. In András Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 1–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina & Andrew Spencer. 2019. Mixed categories: The morphosyntax of nominal modification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, Albert. 2018. Connecting the typology and semantics of nominal possession: Alienability splits and the morphology-semantics interface. Morphology 281. 99–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ótott-Kovács, Eszter. 2015. The syntax of non-finite clauses in Kazakh. Szeged: University of Szeged PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkız & Eser Erguvanlı Taylan. 2016. Possessive constructions in Turkish. Lingua 1821. 88–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2007. Contact in the prehistory of the Sakha (Yakuts): Linguistic and genetic perspectives. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1997. Genitives: A case study. In Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, 464–470. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Vladimir Borschev. 2003. Genitives, relational nouns and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying adjuncts, 67–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pazelʹskaja, Anna G. & Andrej B. Šluinskij. 2007. Obstojatelʹstvennye predloženija. [Adverbial clauses]. In Ekaterina A. Lyutikova, Konstantin I. Kazenin, Sergej G. Tatevosov & V. D. Solovjev (eds.), Mišarskij dialekt tatarzkogo jazyka: Očerki po sintaks isu i semantike. [The Mišar dialect of Tatar: Essays on syntax and semantics], 38–83. Kazan: Magarif.Google Scholar
Petrova, Tujana. 2008. Kratkij rusko-jakutskij slovarʹ. [A concise Russian-Yakut dictionary]. Yakutsk: Bičik, Republic of Sakha.Google Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2013. Switch-reference or coordination?: A quantitative approach to clause linkage in Lakota. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(2). 153–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Róna-Tas, András. 1991. An introduction to Turkology. Szeged: Attila József University.Google Scholar
Say, Sergey. 2019. Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir. In András Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 198–227. Oxford: Ox ford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Christoph. 2004. Depiktive im Sprachvergleich Deutsch-Türkisch: Eine kontrastivtypologische Analyse. Osnabrück: Universität Osnabrück Habilitation thesis.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(4). 356–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1994. An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and adversative passives. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 201. 461–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte. 2015. The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: Revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 107–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Lesley. 1993. Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tekin, Talat. 1968. A grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive linguistics 18(4). 523–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turan, Fikret. 1996. Old Anatolian Turkish syntactic structure. Cambridge: Harvard University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1998. Converbs in Old Anatolian Turkish: Amorpho-syntactic approach. Folia Orientalia 341. 175–181.Google Scholar
. 2000. Adverbs and adverbial constructions in Old Anatolian Turkish. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ubrjatova, Elizaveta I. & Feliks A. Litvin (eds.). 1986. Strukturnye tipy sintetičeskix polipredikat ivnyx konstrukcij v jazykax raznyx sistem. [Structural types of polypredicative sen tences with synthetic verbal form in languages of different typology]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 1998. Defining converbs. In Leonid Kulikov & Heinz Vater (eds.), Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday, 273–282. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gijn, Rik. 2016. Switch reference: An overview. In Rik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 1–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Carl & Per Anker Jensen. 2002. A semantic analysis of the English genitive: Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56(2). 191–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Gabain, Annemarie. 1974. Alttürkische Grammatik. 3rd edn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Weisser, Philipp. 2015. Derived coordination: A minimalist perspective on clause chains, converbs and asymmetric coordination. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David. 1988. Switch-reference in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Form, function and problems of identity. In Peter Austin (ed.), Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages, 141–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi. 2003. Defining non-finites: Action nominals, converbs and infinitives. SKY Journal of Linguistics 161. 185–237.Google Scholar
Zieme, Peter. 1999/2000. Review of Alttürkische Handschriften by Dieter Maue. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 161. 294–297.Google Scholar