Article published In:
Studies in Language: Online-First Articles

The ventive and the deictic shift

The case of Old Assyrian

ORCID logo | National Research University Higher School of Economics, HSE | Russian Academy of Sciences
| National Research University Higher School of Economics, HSE

The Old Assyrian language is a branch of East Semitic. East Semitic has been extinct since around 400 BCE. The Old Assyrian texts used in this study were produced by Assyrian merchants between 1890 and 1860 BCE in Northern Mesopotamia and Central Anatolia. Old Assyrian, as well as most other East Semitic varieties, had a ventive (or cislocative) marker hosted on motion verbs. This marker obligatorily encoded motion either toward the speaker or the interlocutor (the addressee of a written message). By way of a deictic shift, the ventive sometimes also came to point to a future location of the speaker and even to the whereabouts of non-speech act participants. The ventive marker had three allomorphs which are also allomorphs of the 1st person singular indirect object pronoun ‘to/for me’. The cislocative and personal pronoun meanings of the marker evolved in the course of a complex interaction which we trace in the etymological part of the study.

Keywords: verbs of translocation, cislocative markers, deictic shift, imagination-oriented deixis, Old Assyrian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research history, methodology, and the corpus
  • 3.Etymology of the East Semitic ventive and its early life
  • 4.Non-motion usages of the ventive in OA
    • 4.1The ventive as a part of the 1st person singular object pronoun
    • 4.2The ventive as a “spacer”
  • 5.The ventive and dative pronouns on caused motion verbs
    • 5.1The ventive pointing to the addressee
    • 5.2The ventive pointing to the speaker
    • 5.3The ventive pointing to the speaker’s ‘us’
    • 5.4The ventive pointing to a non-SAP
  • 6.The ventive agreement
  • 7.Some ventive statistics for our OA corpus
  • 8.The ventive points to the writer’s future location
  • 9.The ventive points to a non-SAP location
  • 10.Discussion and conclusions
    • 10.1The two deictic shifts of the ventive
    • 10.2The ventive and personal object pronouns
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Bibliographical abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 30 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23050.kov
References
Albayrak, İrfan & Hakan Erol
2016 Kültepe tabletleri IX-a [Tablets from Kültepe IX-a]. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter
2020 Non-canonical inverse in Circassian. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 73(1). 81–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barjamovic, Goiko
2011 A historical geography of Anatolia in the Old Assyrian colony period. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Walter K. L. & Johann J. Stamm
2000 The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bonvillain, Nancy
1973 A grammar of Akwesasne Mohawk. Ottawa: National Museum of Man, National Museums of Canada.Google Scholar
Bourdin, Philippe
2005 The marking of directional deixis in Somali: How typologically idiosyncratic is it? In Voeltz, Erhard & Karl Friedrich (eds.), Studies in African linguistic typology (Typological Studies in Language 64), 13–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl
1965 [1934] Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache [Theory of Language. The representational function of language]. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Clay, Albert T.
1927 Letters and transactions from Cappadocia. Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies 4. New Haven: Yale University Press; Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2013 The history of postverbal agreement in Kuki-Chin. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 61. 1–17.Google Scholar
Dombrowsky-Hahn, Klaudia
2012 Grammaticalization of the deictic verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’ in Syer (Senufo, Gur). In Mietzner, Angelika & Ulrike Claudi (eds.), Directionality in grammar and discourse: Case studies from Africa, 91–114. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Donbaz, Veysel
1989 Keilschrifttexte in den Antiken-Museen zu Istanbul 2 [Cuneiform texts in the Istanbul Archaeology Museums]. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Ferris, Stephens J.
1944 Old Assyrian letters and business documents. Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies 6. New Haven: Yale University Press; Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1997 Lectures on deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
2012 A grammar of Wandala. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guillaume, Antoine & Harold Koch
(eds.) 2021 Associated motion. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gwaltney, Walter C.
1983 The Pennsylvania Old Assyrian texts. Hebrew Union College Annual Supplements. 3. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoad, Terry F.
(ed.) 2003 The concise Oxford dictionary of English etymology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hrozny, Bedrich
1952 Inscriptions cunéiformes de Kültepe 1 [Cuneiform inscriptions from Kültepe 1]. Prague: Státní Pedagogické Nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Kienast, Burkhart
1960 Die altassyrischen Texte des Orientalischen Seminars der Universität Heidelberg und der Sammlung Erlenmayer-Basel [The Old Assyrian texts of the Oriental seminar of the University of Heidelberg and the Erlenmayer-Basel collection]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Koga, Hiroaki & Toshio Ohori
2008 Reintroducing inverse constructions in Japanese: The deictic verb kuru ‘to come’ in the paradigms of argument encoding. In Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface, 37–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kogan, Leonid
2015 Genealogical classification of Semitic. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kouwenberg, Norbert J. C.
2002 Ventive, dative and allative in Old Babylonian. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 921. 200–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 A grammar of Old Assyrian. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landsberger, Benno
1924 Der “Ventiv” des Akkadischen [The “ventive” of Akkadian]. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 351. 113–123.Google Scholar
Larsen, Mogens Trolle
2010 Kültepe tabletleri VI-a. The archive of the Šalim-Aššur family I1. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.Google Scholar
2013 Kültepe tabletleri VI-b. The archive of the Šalim-Aššur family II1. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.Google Scholar
2014 Kültepe tabletleri VI-c. The archive of the Šalim-Aššur family III1. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.Google Scholar
Lewy, Julius
1929 Die Kultepetexte der Sammlung Rudolf Blanckertz, Berlin [Kültepe texts of the collection of Rudolf Blanckertz]. Berlin: Heintze und Blanckertz.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek
1991 Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 671. 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Vol 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Margetts, Anna, Katharina Haude, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Dagmar Jung, Sonja Riesberg, Stefan Schnell, Frank Seifart, Harriet Sheppard & Claudia Wegener
2022 Cross-linguistic patterns in the lexicalisation of BRING and TAKE. Studies in Language 461. 934–993. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, Cécile & Paul Garelli
1997 Tablettes paléo-assyriennes de Kültepe [Old Assyrian tablets of Kültepe]. Paris: De Boccard.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
1996 New directions in referentiality. In Fox, Barbara (ed.), Studies in anaphora (Typological studies in language 33), 413–435. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild & Even Hovdhaugen
2011 A grammar of Vaeakau-Taumako. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nöldeke, Theodor
2001 Compendious Syriac grammar. Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers.Google Scholar
Oshima, David Y.
2006 Perspectives in reported discourse. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Rind, Lindsey W. & Kate L. Lindsey
2021 “Now the story’s turning around”: Associated motion and directionality in Ende, a language of Papua New Guinea. In Guillaume, Antoine & Harold Koch (eds.), Associated motion, 357–384. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Franz
1995 Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
de Ridder, Jacob J.
2018 Descriptive grammar of Middle Assyrian. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Rude, Noel
1997 Dative shifting and double objects in Sahaptin. In Givón, Talmy (ed.), Grammatical relations: a functionalist perspective, 323–349. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sokoloff, Michael
2009 A Syriac lexicon. Winona Lake, Piscataway: Eisenbrauns, Gorgias.Google Scholar
Veenhof, Klaas R.
2017 Kültepe tabletleri 8: the archive of Elamma, son of Iddin-Suen, and his family. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.Google Scholar
Watkins, Laurel & Gathercole, Ginny
1977 A study of the comings and goings of the speakers of four languages: Spanish, Japanese, English, and Turkish. Kansas Working Paper in Lingustics 21. 61–94.Google Scholar
Wehr, Hans
1961 A dictionary of modern written Arabic. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David P. & Hill, Deborah
1995 When ˝go˝ means ˝come˝: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 61. 209–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar