Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Grammaticalization of Modal Nominal Predicatesin Tatar
Chihiro Taguchi
University of Notre Dame / Kellogg Institutectaguchi@nd.edu
https://ctaguchi.github.io

August 4, 2023
21st International Conference on Turkish Linguistics
at Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

1/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Abstract
This study...
• Describes grammaticalized modal nominal predicates in Tatar;• Demonstrates that the nominal predicates are control predicates;• Provides a syntactic analysis of the constructions (synchronic account);• Proposes a possible explanation to the emergence of thegrammaticalized modal nominal predicates (diachronic account).
The slides are available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

2/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Introduction• (Kazan) Tatar < Kipchak–Bulgar < Kipchak (Northwestern) Turkic <Turkic• Four (or five) nouns can be used as modal predicates• isäp “idea, thought” > “plans to”, attitude• nijät “idea, thought” > “plans to” (more bookish), attitude• röxsät “permission” > “be allowed to”, deontic• waqït “time” > “must (now)” deontic• ?mäslixät “advice” (some speakers do not allow this construction)• Used with an infinitive verb (-(I)rGA)• Agent is marked by an oblique case
• Genitive for isäp and nijät• Dative for röxsät, waqït, and mäslixät(1) isäp “idea, thought”
Marat-nïN joqla-rGa isäb-e.
Marat-GEN sleep-INF idea-POSS .3‘Marat plans to sleep.’
Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

3/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Genitive – Infinitive – Noun: isäp, nijät

The sentences below are complete finite sentences.
(2) isäp “idea, thought”
Marat-nïN joqla-rGa isäb-e.
Marat-GEN sleep-INF idea-POSS .3‘Marat plans to sleep.’(3) nijät “idea, thought”
Marat-nïN joqla-rGa nijät-e.
Marat-GEN sleep-INF idea-POSS .3‘Marat plans to sleep.’

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

4/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Dative – Infinitive – Noun: röxsät, waqït, mäslixät
Some constructions take a dative (pseudo-)subject.
(4) röxsät “permission”
Marat-qa joqla-rGa röxsät.
Marat-DAT sleep-INF permission‘Marat is allowed to sleep.’(5) waqït “time”
Marat-qa joqla-rGa waqït.
Marat-DAT sleep-INF time
‘It is time for Marat to sleep; Marat must sleep now.’(6) ?mäslixät “advice”
Marat-qa joqla-rGa mäslixät.
Marat-DAT sleep-INF advice‘It is recommended for Marat to go to sleep.’

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

5/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Similar cases: Bashkir(7) niät “idea, thought”
unïNniät-ekit-ergä.
3 SG : GEN idea-POSS .3 leave-INF‘He plans to leave.’(8) iTäp “idea, thought”
unïNiTäb-ekit-ergä.
3 SG : GEN idea-POSS .3 leave-INF‘He plans to leave.’(9) röxsät “permission”
uGa
kit-ergä röxsät.
3 SG : DAT leave-INF permission‘He is allowed to leave.’(10) waqït “time”
uGa
kit-ergä waqït.
3 SG : DAT leave-INF time‘It’s time for him to leave.’
Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

6/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Similar cases: Non-Turkic languages
Similar constructions can be found in a number of non-Turkic languages:(11) Welshrhaid
i fi godi’ngynnar.
rhaid
i fi godi
yn gynnar
necessity to me wake_up.VN in early‘I have to wake up early.’(12) Scottish Gaelicb’àbhaist dhi
snàmh.
COP. PST custom to:her swim. VN‘She used to swim.’(13) Russianpora namby-l-ouxodi-t’time us.DAT COP - PST- N leave.IPFV- INF‘It is time for us to leave.’
IPFV : imperfective, N : neuter, VN : verbal noun
Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

7/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Peculiarities and research questions
Peculiarities• Difference from the literal translations (non-compositional)• No finite verb
• Non-nominative agents; Quirky subjects? (Sigurðsson, 1992)• Not reported in descriptive grammars (Poppe, 1961; Ersen-Rasch,
2009; Burbiel, 2018)
Questions• What is the syntactic structure of these constructions? How can thesebe finite sentences?
• These constructions are only found in Tatar and Bashkir among theTurkic languages; how did they emerge?

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

8/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

What are those nouns?

Four possibilities:• Mere canonical nouns: It is time for him to sleep.
• Grammaticalized auxiliaries: He has to sleep.
• Raising predicates: He seems to be sleeping.
• Control predicates: He tries to sleep.
This presentation shows that the control predicate hypothesis is the mostplausible.

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

9/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

The nouns are not canonical nouns

If they were canonical nouns, they would need a finite predicate:(14) Marat-nïN joqla-rGa isäb-ebar.
Marat-GEN sleep-INF idea-POSS .3 exist‘Marat has a thought to sleep.’(15) Marat-qa joqla-rGa röxsät
bir-de.
Marat-DAT sleep-INF permission give-PST.3‘S/he gave Marat permission to sleep.’
In contrast, the constructions at issue lack any finite predicate.
Also, these constructions are lexically highly selective, unlike English: It is(good/high) time to sleep.
Therefore, these nouns are not just normal nouns.

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

10/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

The nouns are not auxiliaries
Modal auxiliaries do not change the semantic role relationship of nominal
arguments; passivization is possible without affecting the semantic roles.
(16) Tom might catch Jerry in the future.
(17) Jerry might be caught by Tom in the future. (passivized)
However, the nouns at issue do seem to assign a semantic role to thegenitive/dative:• isäp and nijät: the agent of planning; planner• röxsät: the recipient of permission• waqït: the initiator / non-volitional agent of an urgent event
This observation is verified by the interpretation of the passivized sentences(next slide).

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

11/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Passivization test: isäp, nijät
isäp/nijät: The agent (planner) changes after passivization, as is evident in
the translations:(18) Dus-lar-nïN
Marat-nï
jarat-ïrGa isäb-e.
friend-PL - GEN Marat-ACC like-INF idea-POSS .3‘The friends plan to like Marat.’(19) Marat-nïN dus-lar-ïtarafïnnan jarat-ïl-ïrGa
Marat-GEN friend-PL - POSS .3 bylike-PASS - INF
isäb-e.
idea-POSS .3‘Marat plans to be liked by his friends.’ (less natural)1
Furthermore, it is unacceptable when the genitive is inanimate:(20) *šul kitap-nïN čïGar-ïl-ïrGa
isäb-ethis book-GEN publish-PASS - INF idea-POSS .3‘The book is planned to be published.’ (intended)
1 The informant preferred to say Marat jarat-ïl-ïrGa teli “Marat wants to be liked” orMarat-nïN isäb-e üz-e-n jarat-tïr-ïrGa “Marat’s idea is to make (people)likehimself.”
Slidesavailable
at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

12/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Passivization test: röxsät, waqït
Passivization with röxsät and waqït is often dispreferred by many speakers.
(21) *Marat-qa jarat-ïl-ïrGa
röxsät.
Marat-DAT like-PASS - INF permission-POSS .3‘Marat is allowed to be loved.’ (Intended)(22) ?Marat-qa jarat-ïl-ïrGawaqït.
Marat-DAT like-PASS - INF time
‘It is time for Marat to be loved.2 ’
In fact, the use of passivized verbs with these constructions (isäp, nijät,
röxsät, waqït) are rarely found in the corpus (Saykhunov et al., 2023).3
Therefore, passivization clearly affects the semantic role relationships.
Thus, the nouns are not auxiliaries.
2 The informant noted that, while this sentence might be grammatical, they had never heardof this sort of sentence and would instead use other synonymous expressions.
3 Truly passive cases were ot-ïl (defeat- PASS ) “to lose (lit. be defeated)” and ýiN-el(win-PASS) “to lose (lit. be won)”, both negativized. However, in such cases, it is almost
synonymous to win, which is agentive.
Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

13/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

The nouns are not raising predicates

Data shown so far also suggest that the nouns at issue are not raisingpredicates, either. Since raising predicates do not assign any semantic role tonominal arguments, passivization with the English raising verb seem in (24)does not affect the relationship of the agent and the patient.
(23) Tom seems to catch Jerry.
(24) Jerry seems to be caught by Tom.
However, passivization with the constructions at issue either changes thesemantic role relationship or is unacceptable as discussed in the precedingslides.
Therefore, the nouns are not raising predicates either.

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

14/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

The nouns are control predicates
So far the three hypotheses have been rejected:• Mere noun hypothesis• Grammaticalized auxiliary hypothesis• Raising predicate hypothesis• Control predicate hypothesis
Control predicates: try, plan, want, ...
• An unpronounced pronoun PRO is the subject of the infinitive• PRO is anaphorically bound by the matrix subject• In (25), Tom is the agent of try, and PRO is the agent of catch(25) Tomi tries [ PROi to catch Jerry ]CP .
(26) Jerryi tries [ PROi to be caught by Tom ]CP .

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

15/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

The nouns are control predicates
If we assume that they are control predicates, they would look like:(27) Marati -nïN [PROi joqla-rGa]CP isäb-e.
Marat-GENsleep-INF
idea-POSS .3‘Marat plans to sleep.’(28) Marati -nïN [PROi joqla-rGa]CP nijät-e.
Marat-GENsleep-INF
idea-POSS .3‘Marat plans to sleep.’(29) Marati -qa [PROi joqla-rGa]IP röxsät.
Marat-DAT
sleep-INF
permission‘Marat is allowed to sleep.’(30) Marati -qa [PROi joqla-rGa]IP waqït.
Marat-DAT
sleep-INF
time‘It is time for Marat to sleep.’

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

16/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Syntactic structure: a Minimalist accountTo delve into the structure of the constructions at issue, this section
illustrates their syntactic structures based on Minimalism.4• The (genitive) agent is generated under a phrase of a functional
category n (i.e., Spec,nP).
• This is a standard way in Minimalism to analyze the agent of a nounphrase (Adger, 2003):• English: The army’sAGENT destruction of the cityPATIENT .
• Tatar:(31) Batu-nïNAGENT BulGar-nïPATIENT ýimer-üw-e
Batu-GEN
Bolghar-ACC
destroy-VN - POSS .3‘Batu’s destruction of Bolghar’ (Wikisource)• The (genitive) agent is moved to Spec,DP, where it agrees with the
GEN itive case feature of D.
• The genitive agent is further moved to the Spec,IP position by the
Extended Projection Principle (EPP).
4 This is not necessarily to claim that Minimalism is the only framework that can account forthe constructions. See Taguchi (2022) for an account with Lexical Functional
Grammar.
Slides available
at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

17/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Syntactic structure of the genitive typeIP
AGENT i - GEN

I’

PredP
DP

Pred

⟨AGENT- GEN⟩D’
D[uGEN]

nP⟨AGENT⟩

n’

√

n

C
I’

PRO i

I

vP
⟨PRO⟩

P
√

CP
IP

I

v’

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

18/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Syntactic structure of the genitive typeAlso, the infinitival clause in the genitive type is assumed to be CP.
• Typically, the question enclitic =mI is sentence-final as shown in (32),presumably functioning as the head (C) of CP.
• In the genitive type construction, =mI is usually attached to theinfinitive as in (33), though some speakers marginally accept
sentence-final =mI in this construction as in (34).
(32) kit-äseN=me?
leave-PRS .2 SG = Q‘Are you leaving?’(33) Marat-nïN [joqla-rGa=mï]CP isäb-e?
Marat-GEN sleep-INF = Q
idea-POSS .3‘Does Marat plan to sleep?’(34) ??Marat-nïN joqla-rGa isäb-e=me?
Marat-GEN sleep-INF idea-POSS .3= Q‘Does Marat plan to sleep?’
Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

19/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountIP
I’

Marati -nïNI
[PRES]

PredP
Pred
Ø

DP
⟨Marat-nïN⟩
[GEN]

D’
D
[uGEN, 3]nP⟨Marat⟩
√

n’
P
⟨

CP

Conclusion

References• The (genitive) agent is generated at
Spec,nP• The (genitive) agent is moved toSpec,DP, where it agrees with the
GEN itive case feature of D.
• The genitive agent is further moved toSpec,IP by the Extended Projection
Principle (EPP).

isäb-e
n

√

isäp⟩

C
(=mï)

IP
I’

PRO i

I[INF]vP⟨PRO⟩⟨

Grammaticalization√v’
joqla⟩

joqla-rGav
Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

20/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Syntactic structure of the dative type
There is a difference in the semantics of the dative argument in the röxsät
and waqït-constructions:• Röxsät: the dative argument is the recipient of permission• Waqït: the dative argument is the initiator / non-volitional agent of thetemporally urgent event
Cuervo (2020): recipients and non-volitional agents are introduced byapplicative phrases (ApplP) in different positions:• Recipients: ApplP higher than vP (HApplP)• Non-volitional agents: ApplP lower than vP (LApplP)• cf. Russian impersonal construction with non-volitional agent dative:(35) Boris-u
pe-l-o-sj
Boris-DAT sing-PST- N - REFL
‘Boris felt like singing.’

Applying this to our argument:• Röxsät: the dative argument is the Specifier of LApplP under nP.
• Waqït: the dative argument is the Specifier of HApplP above nP.
Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

21/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Explaining the difference of acceptability in röxsät andwaqïtThis treatment also seems to explain why passivized waqït (✓passivization)and passivized röxsät (✗passivization) differ in acceptability:• Although they are both datives, their degree of agentivity differs.
• Röxsät requires a recipient; lower agentivity• Waqït requires an initiator / non-volitional agent; higher agentivity• The constructions with higher agentivity are semantically able to allow
passivization.5
No CP:(36) Marat-qa joqla-rGa(*=mï) röxsät(=me)/waqït(=mï)?
Marat-DAT sleep-INF(*=Qpermission(=Q)/time(=Q)‘Is Marat allowed to sleep? / Does Marat have to sleep now?’

5 An argument with “higher agentivity” in this context could be what Farkas (1988) calls

initiator, on which the realization of the infinitival event crucially depends
on. at: https://ctaguchi.github.io
Slides available

22/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Structure of the röxsät construction
IP
I’

Marati -qa

I[PRES]

PredP
Pred
Ø

nP
n’
LApplPröxsät⟨Marat-qa⟩[DAT]

LAppl’

√

⟨

IP

LAppl
[uDAT]

P√

röxsät⟩• Röxsät requires a recipient ofpermission → low applicative• The (dative) argument is introduced at
Spec,LApplP• No CPI’PRO i

I[INF]

vP
⟨PRO⟩

v’
VP

joqla-rGav⟨joqla⟩Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

23/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Structure of the waqït construction
IP
I’

Marati -qa

I[PRES]

PredP
Pred
Ø

HApplP⟨Marat-qa⟩[DAT]

HAppl’HAppl[uDAT]

nP
n’
√

P

waqït

√
⟨ waqït⟩IP• Waqït requires a non-volitional agent ofa temporally urgent event → highapplicative• The (dative) argument is introduced at
Spec,HApplP

I’

PRO i

I[INF]

vP
⟨PRO⟩

v’
VP

joqla-rGa⟨joqla+v⟩⟨joqla⟩Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

24/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Grammaticalization

These constructions are probably grammaticalized, where the main predicate
is omitted:• Marat-nïN joqla-rGa isäb-e bar.
• Marat-qa joqla-rGa röxsät bir-de.
The cline of grammaticalization (Hopper and Traugott, 2003):• Content word > grammatical word > clitic > affix
The modal nominal predicates in Tatar:• They have lost the original lexical meaning;• They retain morphologically independent status;• Therefore, they are at the stage of grammatical word.

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

25/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Grammaticalization
Four main interrelated mechanisms of grammaticalization by Heine andKuteva (2002):• Desemanticization (or semantic bleaching): loss in meaning content;• Extension (or context generalization): use in new contexts;• Decategorialization: – loss in morphosyntactic properties
characteristic of lexical or other less grammaticalized forms• Erosion (or phonetic reduction): loss in phonetic substance.
The modal nominal predicates in Tatar have undergone:• Desemanticization: loss of the nominal meaning• Extension: usage in modal semantics• Decategorialization: from nominal to functional properties• Erosion: loss of overt verbal / existential predicates

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

26/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Language contact?
What caused this grammaticalization?
• Only Kipchak–Bulgar languages (Tatar and Bashkir) have it among theTurkic languages• A pure innovation within Kipchak–Bulgar languages?
• Language contact with the surrounding non-Turkic languages?

• Volga–Kama Sprachbund: Bashkir, Chuvash, Komi, Mari, Mordvin,
Russian, Tatar, Udmurt (Johanson, 2000; Van Pareren, 2011)• At least Udmurt has a similar construction

Figure: A map of the Volga–Kama region, from BBC(https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29950844)
Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

27/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Volga–Kama Sprachbund?: Udmurt
Modal nominal predicate m1lk1d “mood” is found in Udmurt• Udmurt < Permic < Finno–Ugric < Uralic• Extensive language contact with Tatar (Edygarova, 2022)• Lexical borrowing: Ud. kijar from Tt. qïjar (cucumber)• Morphological borrowing:• Ud. -tCi < Tt. -čï/če (suffix for profession)• Ud. -l1k < Tt. -lïq/lek (suffix for forming an abstract noun)(37) Udmurt6
Ivi-len kniga pott1-n1
m1lk1d-1z
vań
Ivi-GEN book publish-INF mood-POSS .3 COP‘Ivi is considering publishing a book.’A hypothesis: The grammaticalized modal nominal predicates are results oflanguage contact in the Sprachbund?
Further cross-linguistic investigation in the Sprachbund is needed.
6 Elicited from a native speaker.

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

28/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Conclusions
This presentation has...
• Identified the syntactic properties of the grammaticalized modal
nominal predicates in Tatar: isäp, nijät, röxsät, waqït
• Normal noun, Auxiliary, Raising, Control• Provided a (Minimalist) syntactic analysis for the structure of theconstructions• Genitive argument is generated at Spec,nP (isäp, nijät)• Dative argument is generated at either Spec,HApplP (waqït) orSpec,LApplP (röxsät)• These also account for the different acceptabilities in passivization of theembedded clause• Suggested a possible hypothesis for their emergence in Tatar (andBashkir)• Volga–Kama Sprachbund? (cf. Udmurt)• More investigation needed

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

29/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. BCS-2109709.
My conference travel to attend the International Conference on Turkish
Linguistics was made possible by the Kellogg Institute’s generous support.

Also, massive thanks to my informants of Tatar, Udmurt, and Chuvash who
put up with my endless elicitation and acceptability questions!

Contact: ctaguchi@nd.edu

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

30/31

Introduction

Structure

A Minimalist accountGrammaticalization

Conclusion

References

References

Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: a Minimalist approach. Oxford University Press.
Burbiel, G. (2018). Tatar grammar: a grammar of the contemporary Tatar literary language. Institute for Bible Translation, Stockholm, Sweden.
Cuervo, M. C. (2020). Datives as applicatives. In Dative constructions in Romance and beyond. Language Science Press.
Edygarova, S. (2022). Udmurt. In Bakró-Nagy, M., Laakso, J., and Skribnik, E., editors, The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages. Oxford Academic.
Ersen-Rasch, M. I. (2009). Tatarisch: Lehrbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschittene. Harrasowitz.
Farkas, D. (1988). On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11(1).
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
Johanson, L. (2000). Linguistic convergence in the Volga area. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 28:165–178.
Poppe, N. (1961). Tatar manual: Descriptive grammar and texts with a Tatar-English glossary. Indiana University, Bloomington.
Saykhunov, M. R., Khusainov, R. R., Ibragimov, T. I., Luutonen, J., Salimzyanov, I. F., Shaydullina, G. Y., and Khusainova, A. M. (2023). Corpus ofwritten tatar.
Sigurðsson, H. A. (1992). The case of quirky subjects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 49.
Taguchi, C. (2022). Mermaid Constructions in Lexical Functional Grammar. In The Proceedings of the LFG’22 Conference.
Van Pareren, R. (2011). Areal features in the Volga-Kama region: On some non-lexical Turkic influences in Mordvin. Studies in Slavic and General
Linguistics, 38:251–265.

Slides available at: https://ctaguchi.github.io

31/31