Symmetric and Retrospective Temporal Mobility in the Andic Languages
DOI: 10.23951/2307-6119-2025-4-75-86
The article examines the typology of temporal mobility, defined as the ability of verbal forms to exhibit temporal opposition. Using data from several Andic languages (forms are equally marked, standing in equipollent opposition. In contrast, retrospective mobility assumes that verbal forms are in a privative opposition: a form referring to the past must have an overt temporal marker, while the basic form is temporally unmarked and its temporal reference is secondary to its aspectual properties. A verbal system may combine both techniques of temporal opposition, allowing systems to be classified according to the predominant type of mobility. Retrospective mobility is similar to the retrospective shift. However, data from the Andic languages suggest that this is not entirely accurate, and the marker of retrospective shift can only be postulated if the retrospective type of mobility predominates in the system. Additionally, several hypotheses can be proposed regarding the origins of retrospective mobility. From a diachronic perspective, systems with predominant retrospective mobility appear to arise from the loss of the present-tense copula in all basic forms. Sporadic retrospective mobility is much more difficult to analyze diachronically, as it remains unclear whether the local loss of the copula in individual forms should be assumed. Based on data from the Karata and Bagvalal languages, it can be suggested that this type of retrospective mobility characterizes the oldest forms in the system. The example of the Karata verbal system also demonstrates that, with the grammaticalization of new analytical forms, the relationships between forms of mobility are renewed: this idiom exhibits a diachronically intermediate “hybrid” type of mobility.
Keywords: temporal mobility, tense oppositions, retrospective shift, plusquamperfect, Andic languages, Nakh-Daghestanian languages
References:
1. Binnick R.I. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. New York; Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991. 554 p.
2. Heine B. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York; Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993. 162 p.
3. Bybee J.L. The Semantic Development of Past Tense Modals in English. In: Modality in Grammar and Discourse: eds. J.L. Bybee, S. Fleischman. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995, pp. 503–518.
4. Maysak T.A. Glagol’nyye sistemy lezginskikh yazykov: struktura, semantika i puti razvitiya perfektivnykh form [Verbal systems in Lezgic languages: structure, semantics and paths of development of perfective forms]. Vestnik Instituta yazyka, literatury i iskusstva im. G. Tsadasa – Bulletin of the Institute of Language, Literature and Art named after G. Tsadasa, 2014, no. 6, pp. 26–42 (in Russian).
5. Plungyan V.A. K opisaniyu armyanskoy glagol’noy paradigmy: “temporal’naya podvizhnost’” i perfektiv [Towards the description of the Armenian verbal paradigm: “temporal mobility” and the perfective]. Armyanskiy gumanitarnyy vestnik – Armenian Humanities Bulletin, 2006, vol. 1, pp. 7–20 (in Russian).
6. Plungian V. Notes on Eastern Armenian verbal paradigms: “temporal mobility” and perfective stems. In: Aspects of Linguistic Variation: Studies in honor of Johan van der Auwera: eds. D. van Olmen, T. Mortelmans, F. Brisard. Berlin, De Gruyter, 2018, pp. 233–246.
7. Plungian V. Temporal mobility and imperfective forms. Paper presented at the Workshop “Imperfective Modalities in the Caucasus and Beyond”. Paris, 2023. 19 p.
8. Plungian V. ‘Temporal mobility’ and what it can tell us about the typology of tense marking. A talk presented at the University of Pavia on 18 November 2024. Pavia, 2024. 36 p.
9. Alekseyev M.E. Sravnitel’no-istoricheskaya morfologiya avaro-andiyskikh yazykov [Comparative-historical morphology of the Avar-Andic languages]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1988. 223 p. (in Russian).
10. Bagvalinskiy yazyk. Grammatika. Teksty. Slovari [The Bagvalal language: Grammar. Texts. Dictionary]: eds. A.E. Kibrika, et al. Moscow, Naslediye Publ., 2001. 930 p. (in Russian).
11. Kaye S., Moroz G., Rochant N., Verhees S., Zakirova A. Andi (Zilo dialect). In: Handbook of Caucasian Languages. Nakh-Daghestanian: eds. Yu.B. Koryakov, T.A. Maysak. Berlin; New York, De Gruyter Mouton, forthcoming.
12. Koval’ A.I., Nyalybuli B.A. Glagol fula v tipologicheskom osveshchenii [The verb of Fula: a typological overview]. Moscow, Russkiye slovari Publ., 1997. 253 p. (in Russian).
13. Plungyan V.A. Antirezul’tativ: do i posle rezul’tata [Antiresultative: before and after the result]. Issledovaniya po teorii grammatiki. Glagol’nyye kategorii – Studies in Grammatical Theory. Verbal Categories. Moscow, Russkiye slovari Publ., 2001, pp. 50–88 (in Russian).
14. Sichinava D.V. Tipologiya plyuskvamperfekta. Slavyanskiy plyuskvamperfekt [The typology of the pluperfect. Slavic pluperfect]. Moscow, AST-PRESS Publ., 2013. 384 p. (in Russian).
15. Plungyan V.A., Urmanchiyeva A.Yu. Kontrastivnoye proshedsheye v enetskom yazyke: unikal’nyy «plyuskvamperfekt» i yego ekspansiya v glagol’noy sisteme [Contrastive past in Enets: a unique pluperfect and its expansion in the verbal system]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Trudy Instituta lingvisticheskikh issledovaniy – Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Proceedings of the Institute for Linguistic Studies, 2015, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 431–468 (in Russian).
16. Maysak T.A. Glagol’naya sistema rikvaninskogo govora andiyskogo yazyka: formoobrazovaniye [The verbal system of the Rikvani dialect of Andi: word formation]. Manuscript, Moscow, 2016. 4 p. (in Russian).
17. Tsertsvadze I.I. Andiyskiy yazyk (grammaticheskiy analiz s tekstami) [The Andi language (grammatical analysis with texts)]. Tbilisi, Mecniereba Publ., 1965. 392 p. (in Russian).
18. Maysak T.A. Glagol’naya sistema rikvaninskogo govora andiyskogo yazyka: sistema indikativa [The verbal system of the Rikvani dialect of Andi: indicative system]. Manuscript, Moscow, 2016. 2 p. (in Russian).
19. Dahl Ö., Bybee J.L. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language, 1989, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 51–103.
20. L’Hermitt R. La phrase nominale en russe. Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne, 1978. 320 p.
21. Evans N. Insubordination and its uses. In: Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations: ed. I. Nikolaev. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 366–431.
22. Magomedbekova Z.M. Karatinskiy yazyk: grammaticheskiy analiz, teksty, slovar’ [The Karata language: grammatical analysis, texts, dictionary]. Tbilisi, Mecnierebi Publ., 1971. 290 p. (in Russian).
23. Dahl Ö. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 2004. 333 p.
24. Bybee J.L., Perkins R.D., Pagliuca W. The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1994. 398 p.
25. Urmanchiyeva A.Yu. Kak grammaticheskaya sistema upravlyayet semanticheskoy evolyutsiyey pokazateley [How the grammatical system governs the semantic evolution of markers]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya – Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2015, vol. 6, pp. 54–77 (in Russian).
26. Narrog H., Heine B. Grammaticalization. Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press, 2021. 408 p.
( 803.95 kB ) 
( 790.38 kB )
Issue: 4, 2025
Series of issue: Issue 4
Rubric: LINGUISTICS
Pages: 75 — 86
Downloads: 53