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 (47)
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