Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective
Edited by Alessandra Barotto and Simone Mattiola
[Studies in Language Companion Series 227] 2023
► pp. 93–133

Chapter 5
From an adverb/postposition ‘behind’ to a discourse marker

The particle reχu in Andi

| Institute of Linguistic, Russian Academy of Sciences | HSE University (Moscow, Russia)
The paper describes two uses of the discourse particle reχu in Andi (Nakh-Daghestanian, Avar-Andic), namely the consecutive, or sequential, use found in the non-final clauses of multiclausal sentences and reinforcing the idea of temporal sequence (‘and then’), and the pragmatic use with retrospective contrastive meaning, predominantly found in imperatives and questions. A diachronic scenario is proposed for the development of the particle: first from spatial adverb/postposition ‘behind’ to temporal adverb/postposition ‘after’, then from clause-initial ‘then’ to clause-final sequential marker, then from longer to shorter sequential marker and, finally, from enclitic sequential marker to enclitic pragmatic particle. This evolution is accompanied by semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological changes typical of grammaticalization, and is supported by both intragenetic evidence and cross-linguistic parallels.
Keywords: discourse particle, adverb, postposition, consecutive, sequential, retrospective contrastive, grammaticalization, Nakh-Daghestanian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Andi language: Basic information
  • 3.Two uses of the particle reχu: Consecutive and discourse-pragmatic
    • 3.1reχu as a consecutive marker
    • 3.2reχu as a discourse-pragmatic marker
      • Questions
      • Imperatives
      • Exclamatives
      • Declaratives
    • 3.3Ambiguous cases: reχu in multiclausal imperatives and speech reports
  • 4.Looking for the grammaticalization source
    • 4.1reχudu as a final sequential connective
    • 4.2reχudu as a clause-initial sequential connective ‘then’
    • 4.3reχudu as a temporal postposition ‘after’
    • 4.4cl-eχudu as a spatial adverb/postposition ‘behind’
  • 5.Discussion: From an adverb/postposition to a particle
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.227.05mai
References (48)
Sources
Tales. 2010. – Magomedova, P. A. (ed) & M. A. Alisultanova (transl.), Dunjalla baxunnirssi xalɢilʟol ɢvanab mic’c’illassol muxal (World fairy tales in Andi). Makhachkala: ID Nurul’ iršad.Google Scholar
Luke. 2015. – Lukašdi bosam rerhanoɬɬi xabar (The good news according to Luke). Moscow: Institut perevoda Biblii.Google Scholar
Agul Text Corpus. 2004–2008. – A corpus of spontaneous oral texts in the Huppuq’ dialect of Agul, recorded during the Agul Documentation Project by Dmitry Ganenkov, Timur Maisak and Solmaz Merdanova.Google Scholar
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Alekseev, Mixail E. 1985. Voprosy sravnitel´no-istoričeskoj grammatiki lezginskix jazykov. Morfologija. Sintaksis (Problems of the comparative-historical reconstruction of the grammar of Lezgic languages: Morphology. Syntax). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1988. Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja morfologija avaro-andijskix jazykov (A comparative-historical grammar of Avar-Andic languages). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Alekseev, Mixail E., Ataev, Boris M., Magomedov, Magomed A., Magomedov, Magomed I., Madieva, Guldžaxan I., Saidova, Patimat A. & Samedov, Džalil S. 2012. Sovremennyj avarskij yazyk (Modern Avar). Makhachkala: DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Cercvadze, Ilia I. 1965. Andiuri ena: Gramat’ikuli analizi tek’st’ebit (Andi language: Grammatical analysis with texts). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Conathan, Lisa & Good, Jeff. 2000. Morphosyntactic reduplication in Chechen and Ingush. In The Prooceedings from the Panels of the Chicago Linguistic Society’s Thirty-Six Meeting 36–2, Arika Okerent & John Boyle (eds), 49–61. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis, Dimmendaal, Gerrit J., Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & König, Christa. 2008. Africa as a morphosyntactic area. In A Linguistic Geography of Africa, Bernd Heine & ‎Derek Nurse (eds), 86–150. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dirr, Adolf M. 1906. Kratkij grammatičeskij očerk andijskogo jazyka (Short grammatical sketch of Andi). Sbornik materialov dlja opisanija mestnostej i plemën Kavkaza 36. Section 4: 1–200.Google Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina, Koryakov, Yury & Daniel, Mikhail. 2020. Atlas of multilingualism in Daghestan: A case study in diachronic sociolinguistics. Languages of the Caucasus 4: 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina, Staferova, Daria & Belokon, Alexander (eds). 2017. Atlas of Multilingualism in Dagestan Online. Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, HSE. [URL] (16 April 2021).
Forker, Diana. 2016. Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua 180: 69–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2009. An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics 1(2): 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Mauri, Caterina. 2011. The grammaticalization of final particles. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 656–667. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14): 3603–3623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language and Communication 32(3): 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences 54: 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbs in the World’s Languages. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Kalinina, Elena. 2011. Exclamative clauses in the languages of the North Caucasus and the problem of finiteness. In Tense, Aspect, Modality and Finiteness in East-Caucasian Languages, Gilles Authier & Timur Maisak (eds), 161–201. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001. Deepričastnye konstrukcii (Converb constructions). In Bagvalinskij jazyk: Grammatika. Teksty. Slovari (Bagwalal: Grammar, texts, dictionaries), Aleksandr E. Kibrik, Konstantin I. Kazenin, Ekaterina A. Ljutikova & Sergej G. Tatevosov (eds), 554–594. Moscow: IMLI RAN.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. (ed). 1996. Godoberi. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko & Rhee, Seongha. 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67(3): 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Apprehensional epistemics. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 32], Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds), 293–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magomеdova, Patimat T. 1999. Čamalinsko-russkij slovar’ (Chamalal–Russian dictionary). Makhachkala: DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Magomedova, Patimat T. 2003. Tindinsko-russkij slovar’ (Tindi–Russian dictionary). Makhachkala: DNC RAN.Google Scholar
2012. Tindinskij jazyk (The Tindi language). Makhachkala: DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Maisak, Timur. 2020. Vybor klitiki v zavisimosti ot vido-vremennoj formy predikata: Dannye andijskogo jazyka (The choice of a clitic can be driven by the tense-aspect form of the predicate: Evidence from Andi). Tipologiya Morfosintaksicheskikh Parametrov 3(1): 77–94.Google Scholar
. 2021. Endoclitics in Andi. Folia Linguistica 55(1): 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, Caterina. 2008. Coordination Relations in the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulder, Jean & Thompson, Sandra A. 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions [Typological Studies in Language 80], Ritva Laury (ed), 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd. 2021. Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna & Peterson, David A. 2010. Contact-induced spread of the rare Type 5 clitic. LSA Archives, Vol 1: LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts 2010 8: 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolayev, Sergei L. & Starostin, Sergei A. 1994. A North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary. Moscow: Asterisk.Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko. 2011. The grammaticalization of discourse markers. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 614–624. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Panov, Vladimir. 2020. The marking of uncontroversial information in Europe: Presenting the enimitive. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52(1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saidova, Patimat A. 2006. Godobеrinsko-russkij slovar’ (Godoberi–Russian dictionary). Makhachkala: DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Saidova, Patimat A. & Abusov, Magomed G. 2012. Botlixsko-russkij slovar’ (Botlikh–Russian dictionary). Makhachkala: DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Salimov, Xangerej S. 2010. Gagatlinskij govor andijskogo jazyka (The Gagatli dialect of the Andi language). Makhachkala: DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sulejmanov, Jakub G. 1957. Grammatičeskij očerk andijskogo jazyka (po dannym govora s. Rikvani) (Grammatical sketch of Andi: Based on the variant spoken in Rikvani). Moscow: Institut jazykoznanija AN SSSR dissertation.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Suzuki, Ryoko. 2011. The grammaticalization of final particles. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 668–680. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1): 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation in Language, Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds), 31–54. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17(1): 26–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhees, Samira. 2019. General converbs in Andi. Studies in Language 43(1): 195–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar