Cover not available
Part of
Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles
Edited by Pierre-Yves Modicom and Olivier Duplâtre
[Studies in Language Companion Series 213] 2020
► pp. 71–110

Chapter 3
Kazakh particle ğoj as an existential operator

| University of Surrey
This paper is devoted to the Kazakh particle ğoj, its syntactic distribution, pragmatic contribution and semantics. Two syntactically distinct types of ğoj are distinguished: a post-nominal copula-type ğoj and a post-predicative particle ğoj. The speaker using either particle in her utterance indicates to her hearer that (some of) the information she provides has been previously shared, or should be treated as such. In post-predicative position, ğoj is never obligatory and can follow any type of predicate – verbal or nominal – as long as it is either narrowly focused, or is a part of a wider focus phrase. Both types of ğoj contribute similar pragmatic effects of contrastivity and givenness (or pragmatic presupposition). Especially, the proposition p followed by post-predicative ğoj is assumed to belong to the Common Ground, whether it had been explicitly added there during the preceding exchange or not. Drawing on the comparison with Russian že and Tundra Yukaghir particle mə(r)=, it is shown that ğoj should be treated as an existential operator stating the existence of p inside of the Common Ground.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Kazakh language
    • 2.1Socio-economic background of the Kazakh language
    • 2.2General features of Kazakh
    • 2.3Kazakh data
  • 3.Previous research on ğoj
  • 4.Ğoj in imperative clauses
  • 5.Syntactic distribution of ğoj
    • 5.1Post-predicative ğoj
    • 5.2Post-nominal ğoj
  • 6.Pragmatic contribution of ğoj
    • 6.1Pragmatic contribution of post-predicative ğoj
    • 6.2Pragmatic contribution of the post-nominal ğoj
  • 7.Semantics of ğoj
    • 7.1Russian že
    • 7.2Tundra Yukaghir particle mə(r)=
    • 7.3Ğoj as an existential operator
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 4 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.213.03chr
References (52)
References
Abish, Aynur. 2014. Modality in Kazakh as Spoken in China. PhD dissertation, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Balakaev, Maulen Balakayuly, Baskakov, N. A., & Kenesbaev, S. K. 1962. Sovremennïj Kazakhskij Jazïk (Contemporary Kazakh Language). Alma-Ata: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk Kazakhskoi SSR (The Kazakh SSR Academy of Science Publishing).Google Scholar
Bizakov, Seidin. 2014. Kazakhskij Jazïk: Prosto o Složnom (The Kazakh Language: Simply about the Difficult). Almaty: Eltanïm.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bol’shoj Kazahsko-Russkij Slovar’ (Big Kazak-Russian Dictionary). 1998. Almaty: Slovar’.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The Logic of Decision and Action, Nicholas Rescher (ed.), 81–95. Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts, and Pseudo-Clefts. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demirci, K. 2006. Kazakh Verbal Structures and Descriptive Verbs. Maryland: Dunwoody Press.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel & O’Neill, Teresa. 2017. Copular constructions in syntax. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics [online]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Anna. 2001. Discourse markers – Accessing ‘hearer-old’ information: The case of Russian že. The LACUS Forum 27: 187–201.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1996. Grammaticalized focus in Yukagir: Is it really grammaticalised and is it really focus? In Content, Expression and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 29], Elisabet Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder, Lars Heltoft, Lisbet Falster Jakobsen (eds), 17–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila. 2007. Predication and equation in copular sentences. Russian vs. English. In Existence: Syntax and Semantics, Ilana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds), 79–105. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Gibson, Hannah Cameron. 2012. Auxiliary Placement in Rangi: A Dynamic Syntax Perspective. PhD dissertation, SOAS, University of London.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2007. Types of focus in English. In Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation, Chungmin Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds), 83–100. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Veenstra, Tonjes. 2013. Introduction. In Hartmann & Veenstra (eds), 1–32.Google Scholar
(eds). 2013. Cleft Structures [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 208]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In: Haspelmath, M. & König, E. (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–55.Google Scholar
Hedberg, N. 2013. Multiple Focus and Cleft Sentences. In: Hartmann, K. & Veenstra, T. (eds.), Cleft structures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 227–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy & Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2015. Predication, specification and information structure in Kinande. Poster presented at Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW 38), April 15–18, 2015. <[URL]> (25 July 2019).
Higgins, Francis Roger. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isaev, M. I. 1970. O Sovetskom Opyte Razreshenija Jazykovoi Problemy v Mnogonacionalnom Gosudarstve [About Soviet Experience of Solving the Language Issue in a Multilingual State]. In: Nikolskij, L. B. (ed.), Problemy Izuchenija Jazykovoj Situaicii i Jazykovoi Vorpos v Stranah Azii i Severnoi Afriki [Issues in Studying Language Situation and Question of Language in countries of Asia and North Africa]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kirchner, M. 1998. Kazakh and Karakalpak. In: Johanson, L. & Csató, É. (eds.), The Turkic languages. London and New York: Routledge, 318–332.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krejnovič, Eruxim A. 1958. Jukagirskij Jazyk. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Working Papers of the SFB 632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure, Vol. 6, Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–36. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Kurilov, Gavril. 2006. Sovremennyj Jukagirskij Jazyk. Jakutsk: Ministerstvo obrazovanija RS(Ja)/IPMNS.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003. Tundra Yukaghir. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Mathew, Rosmin. 2013. Recursion of FocP in Malayalam. In Hartmann & Veenstra (eds), 251–268.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. Realis mood, focus, and existential closure in Tundra Yukaghir. Lingua 150: 202–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCoy, S. 2003. Connecting Information Structure and Discourse Structure through “Kontrast”: The Case of Colloquial Russian Particles -TO, ŽE, and VED'. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12, 319–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin & Huber, Magnus. 2013. The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages, Vol. 1. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 85]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Copular clauses. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 2, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 1805–1829. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Muhamedowa, R. 2016. Kazakh: A Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007. Introduction. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 1–22. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2012. Unpacking finiteness. In Canonical Morphology and Syntax, Greville Corbett, Dunstan Brown & Marina Chumakina (eds), 99–122. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rando, Emily. 1980. Intonation in discourse. In The Melody of Language, Linda Waugh, Cornelis van Schooneveld & Dwight Bolinger (eds), 243–278. Baltimore MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Reese, Brian & Asher, Nicholas. 2006. Prosody and the interpretation of tag questions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Estela Puig Waldmüller (ed.), 448–462. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Romanenko, Yelena. 2011. Kazakhskaja Grammaticka dlja Russkojazichnih (Kazakh Grammar for Russian Speakers). Almaty: A-level.Google Scholar
. 2015. Sovremennij Kazakhskij (Modern Kazakh). Almaty: Kazbooka.Google Scholar
Rozental, Dietmar & Telenkova, Margarita. 1985. Slovar’ trudnostei russkogo jazyka. Moskow: Russkii Jazik.Google Scholar
Smailov, A. A. 2011. Results of the 2009 National population census of the Republic of Kazakhstan [analytical report]. Astana: Agency of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan.Google Scholar
Straughn, Christopher. 2011. Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh. PhD dissertation, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Simons, G. F. & Fennig, C. D., (eds.). 2018. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Twenty-first edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. [online] Available at: [URL]
Torrence, Harold. 2013. The morphosyntax of Wolof clefts. In Hartmann & Tonjies Veenstra (eds), 187–223.Google Scholar
Valjajeva, Tatiana. 2018. Kazakhskij Jazïk (Kazakh Language). <[URL]>
Vallduví, Enric & Vilkuna, Maria. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In Syntax and Semantics 29: The Limits of Syntax, Peter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 79–108. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, Anna Nikolaeva. 1972. Particles in Colloquial Russian: Manual for English-Speaking Students of Russian. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 2011. The Conceptual-procedural Distinction: Past, present and future. In: Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. & Ahern, A. (eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Bingley: Emerald, 3–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu Cho, Young-Mee. 1990. Syntax and phrasing in Korean. In The Phonology-Syntax Connection, Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec (eds), 47–62. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar