Cover not available
Part of
The Perfect Volume: Papers on the perfect
Edited by Kristin Melum Eide and Marc Fryd
[Studies in Language Companion Series 217] 2021
► pp. 87–116

Chapter 4
Structural and functional variations of the perfect in the Lezgic languages

| Institute of Linguistics RAS | HSE UniversityMoscow
The paper presents a study of the morphological and semantic properties of the perfects in nine Lezgic languages, the southern branch of the East Caucasian (Nakh-Daghestanian) language family. Morphologically, the perfects belong to the perfective subsystem. They are usually periphrastic, with a tendency to become synthetic due to auxiliary loss or merger. The functions of the perfects vary among the languages of the group, but mostly include the ‘current relevance’ perfect proper and the resultative (stative). The experiential meaning is associated with the perfect only in a few languages. In two languages (Agul and Archi), the perfect has further evolved into an indirective evidential past, although the diachronically earlier perfect and resultative functions are still retained. Throughout the paper, I compare the perfects to the aorists, which are the most frequent perfective past tenses of the Lezgic languages. The aorists are much less polyfunctional than the perfects and are mostly synthetic, although periphrastic source models are also attested for them.
Keywords: East Caucasian languages, perfect, resultative, indirect evidential, aorist, tense and aspect systems, grammaticalization
Article outline
  • 1.The Lezgic languages: General profile
  • 2.The Lezgic tense and aspect systems: An overview
    • 2.1Aspectual stems
    • 2.2Periphrastic forms
    • 2.3The place of aorists and perfects in the paradigm
  • 3.Variations in the structure of the aorists and the perfects
    • 3.1The aorists
    • 3.2The perfects
  • 4.Variations in the functions of aorists
  • 5.Variations in the functions of the perfects
    • 5.1Perfect proper (‘current relevance’) meaning
    • 5.2Resultative meaning
    • 5.3Experiential meaning
    • 5.4Indirective evidential meanings
  • 6.Towards the diachronic account of the Lezgic perfects
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.217.04mai
References (43)
References
Alekseev, Mikhail E. 1985. Voprosy sravnitel’no-istoričeskoj grammatiki lezginskix jazykov. Morfologija. Sintaksis (The problems of comparative-historical grammar of the Lezgic languages: Morphology. Syntax). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Alekseev, M. E. 1994a. Rutul. In The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Vol. 3: North East Caucasian Languages, Part 2, Rieks Smeets (ed.), 213–258. Delmar NY: Caravan.Google Scholar
1994b. Budukh. In The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Vol. 3: North East Caucasian Languages, Part 2, Rieks Smeets (ed.), 259–296. Delmar NY: Caravan.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter & Maisak, Timur. 2018. Grammaticalization in the North Caucasian languages. In Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 116–145. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Authier, Gilles. 2009. Grammaire Kryz (Langue caucasique d’Azerbaïdjan, dialecte d’Alik). Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Babaliyeva, Ayten. 2007. Présentation du dialecte lezgi de Yargun (Azerbaïdjan): Grammaire, textes glosés et traduits. Mémoire principal de Master II. Paris: École Pratique des Hautes Études.Google Scholar
Bogomolova, N. K. 2013. Prefiksal’nyj perfekt v tabasaranskom jazyke (The prefixal Perfect in Tabasaran). In Problemy jazyka: Sbornik naučnyx statej po materialam Vtoroj konferencii-školy ‘Problemy jazyka: vzgljad molodyx učenyx’, 40–54. Moscow: Institut jazykoznanija RAN.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–6]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Michael. 2018. Aspectual stems in three East Caucasian languages. In The Semantics of Verbal Categories in Nakh-Daghestanian Languages: Tense, Aspect, Evidentiality, Mood/Modality, Diana Forker & Timur Maisak (eds), 247–266. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Dobrushina, N. R. 2006. Grammatičeskie formy i konstrukcii so značeniem opasenija i predosterezhenija (Grammatical forms and constructions with apprehensional and precautionary meaning). Voprosy jazykoznanija 2: 28–67.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum & Fryd, Marc. 2021. Introduction. In The Perfect Volume: Papers on the Perfect [Studies in Language Companion Series 217]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitry & Maisak, Timur. 2020. Nakh-Dagestanian languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Languages of the Caucasus, Maria Polinsky (ed.), 87–145. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gippert, Jost, Schulze, Wolfgang, Aleksidze, Zaza & Mahé, Jean-Pierre. 2008. The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mount Sinai, 2 Vols. Turnhout: Brépols.Google Scholar
Greed, Teija. 2017. Evidential coding in Lezgi. Languages of the Caucasus 2: 1–33. <[URL]> (10 October 2020).
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1977a. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka, T. 2: Taksonomičeskaja grammatika (A structural description of the Archi language, Vol. 2: Taxonomic grammar). Moscow: Moscow State University.Google Scholar
1977b. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka, T. 3: Dinamičeskaja grammatika (A structural description of the Archi language, Vol. 3: Dynamic grammar). Moscow: Moscow State University.Google Scholar
1994. Archi. In The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Vol. 3: North East Caucasian Languages. Part 2, Rieks Smeets (ed.), 297–365. Delmar NY: Caravan.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. & Testelec, Jakov G. (eds). 1999. Elementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii (Aspects of Tsakhur from a typological perspective). Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, Jouko. 2000. The perfect – Aspectual, temporal and evidential. In Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–6], Östen Dahl (ed.), 365–384. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Magometov, Aleksandr A. 1965. Tabasaranskij jazyk: Issledovanie i teksty (The Tabasaran language: Description and texts). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
1970. Agul’skij jazyk: Issledovanija i teksty (The Agul language: Description and texts). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Maisak [Majsak], Timur A. 2008. Glagol’naja paradigma udinskogo jazyka (nidžskij dialekt) (Verbal paradimh of Udi, the Nizh dialect). In Udinskij sbornik: grammatika, leksika, istorija jazyka, Mikhail E. Alekseev, Timur A. Majsak, Dmitry S. Ganenkov & Yury A. Lander (eds), 96–161. Moscow: Academia.Google Scholar
Maisak, Тimur. 2011. The present and the future within the Lezgic tense and aspect systems. In Tense, Aspect, Modality and Finiteness in East Caucasian Languages, Gilles Authier & Timur A. Maisak (eds), 25–66. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Maisak [Majsak], Timur A. 2012. Pričastnye formy v vido-vremennoj sisteme agul’skogo jazyka (Participle-based forms in the tense-aspect system of Agul). In Acta Linguistica Petropolitana VIII(2). Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki. Vyp. VI: Tipologija aspektual’nyx sistem i kategorij, 228–289.Google Scholar
2016. Perfekt i Aorist v nidžskom dialekte udinskogo jazyka (Perfect and Aorist in the Nizh dialect of Udi). In Acta Linguistica Petropolitana XII(2). Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki. Vyp. VII: Tipologija perfekta, 315–378.Google Scholar
Maisak, Timur. 2018. The aorist/perfect distinction in Nizh Udi. In The Semantics of Verbal Categories in Nakh-Daghestanian Languages: Tense, Aspect, Evidentiality, Mood/Modality, Diana Forker & Timur Maisak (eds), 120–165. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2020. Grammaticalization in Lezgic (East Caucasian). In Grammaticalization Scenarios: Cross-linguistic Variation and Universal Tendencies, Vol. 1: Grammaticalization Scenarios from Europe and Asia, Walter Bisang & Andrej Malchukov (eds), 309–360. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maisak [Majsak], Timur A. & Merdanova, Solmaz R. 2016. Perfekt i smežnye značenija v agul’skom jazyke (Perfect and related meanings in Agul). In Acta Linguistica Petropolitana XII(2). Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki. Vyp. VII: Tipologija perfekta, 379–422.Google Scholar
Maisak, Timur & Tatevosov, Sergei. 2007. Beyond evidentiality and mirativity: Evidence from Tsakhur. In L’Énonciation médiatisée, II: Le traitement épistémologique de l’information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes, Zlatka Guentchéva & Jon Landaburu (eds), 377–406. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Makhmudova [Maxmudova], Svetlana M. 2001. Morfologija rutul’skogo jazyka (Morphology of the Rutul language). Moscow: IYaz RAN. Google Scholar
Maslov, Jurij S. 1988. Resultative, perfect, and aspect. In Typology of Resultative Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 12], Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), 63–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Nedjalkov P. & Jaxontov, Sergej Je. 1988. The typology of resultative constructions. In Typology of Resultative Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 12], Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), 3–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paperno, Denis. 2006. On the uses of so-called evidential form in Archi. Ms. <[URL]> (10 October 2020).
Plungian, Vladimir A. & van der Auwera, Johan. 2006. Towards a typology of discontinuous past marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59: 317–349.Google Scholar
Sulejmanov, Nadir D. 1993. Sravnitel’no-istoričeskoe issledovanie dialektov agul’skogo jazyka (A comparative-historical study of Agul dialects). Makhachkala: IJaLI DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Talibov, Bukar B. 2007. Buduxskij jazyk (The Budugh language). Moscow: Academia.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2001. From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, Helma. 2005. The East Caucasian language family. Lingua 115: 147–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xanmagomedov, Bejdullax G.-K. & Šalbuzov, Kim T. 2001. Tabasaransko-russkij slovar’ [Tabasaran-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Verhees, Samira
2019. General converbs in Andi. Studies in Language 43:1 ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 september 2024. 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.