MIRATIVE MEANINGS OF PREDICATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN LATVIAN

Andra Kalnača, Ilze Lokmane Department of Latvian and Baltic Studies University of Latvia, Riga

53rd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea 26 August – 1 September 2020 The structure of presentation:

1) Introduction 2) Evidential constructions 3) Modal infinitive constructions 4) To sum up Language material The examples used in this study come from a variety of sources – the Balanced Corpus of Modern Latvian (LVK2018) (available at: http://www.korpuss.lv/id/LVK2018), the parliamentary session transcript corpus (Saeima)(available at: http://www.korpuss.lv/id/Saeima), fiction, and the media. 1. Introduction

Mirativity is a semantic category employed to mark the fact that some information is new and surprising for the speaker.

As Aikhenvald (2004, 2012) states, mirativity subsumes sudden discovery, surprise, and unpreparedness of the mind of the speaker (or the addressee), or, to put it in other words, a sudden transition of one information stage to another (Lau, Rooryck 2017).

Thus, mirativity as a semantic category expresses the speaker’s attitude toward the proposition, not some objectively perceivable aspect of it (DeLancey 2001, 2012). Languages employ various grammatical and lexical means for expression of mirative meanings.

While in speech mirativity is expressed mainly through a specific intonation contour with the rising tone of the voice, in writing there are a number of ways for expressing the construal of surprise (Mocini 2014, 136–137). Among them are: • Explicit mirative lexemes – surprise, amazing, stunning, unexpected etc. (Mocini 2014) • Lexical expressions – I can’t believe …! (Simeonova 2015) • Complex predicates (Aikhenvald 2012) • Interjections • Pronouns (Aikhenvald 2012) • Dedicated and non-dedicated particles, e.g., sentence-final evaluative particles (DeLancey 2012, Simeonova 2015) • Exclamatory sentences • Conventionalized grammatical constructions – (It) turns out (that) S (DeLancey 2012) • Numerous verbal categories can acquire overtones of surprise and unexpectedness (tense, aspect, manner, mood, person) (Aikhenvald 2012) Thus, besides explicit lexicalization, mirativity can also be parasitic of other linguistic resources (Mocini 2014, 147).

It has been argued that mirativity has close links with other semantic categories, namely, modality and evidentiality (on mirativity and its interaction with evidential and modal meanings see, mentioning just a few, Lazard 1999; DeLancey 2001; Aikhenvald 2012; Rett, Murray 2013; Simeonova 2015).

Unexpectedness characteristic to mirativity may be associated with both positive and negative evaluation as well. While Latvian does not mark mirativity morphologically, there are several syntactic constructions where mirative meanings are present as either primary or secondary meanings and where the link between mirativity and modality becomes apparent.

As DeLancey (2012) states, we also see it [mirativity] manifested in certain uses of other grammatical constructions.

The question for typologists is, to what extent do we find this semantic category expressed in languages by dedicated grammatical constructions? (DeLancey 2012, 534) In this presentation we will consider two types of predicative syntactic constructions which express mirativity in Latvian (in this study, a predicative construction means a clause expressing primary predicativity):

1) evidential constructions, example (1), 2) modal infinitive constructions, example (2). (1) Un tās esot draudzenes… and that.NOM.PL be.COP.OBL.PRS friend.NOM.PL [Kuras izsaka dažādas aizskarošas piezīmes.] Pati brīnos, kā tik garus gadus esmu spējusi viņas izturēt. ‘Are those friends? [Who make various insulting remarks.] I myself wonder how I could stand them for so many years.’ (M. Zīle) (2) Viss ir normāli, tā bija [vīriešu mode 20. gs. 70. gados]!! Un kas tur ko smieties? and what.NOM there what.ACC laugh.INF ‘It’s alright, that how it was [men’s fashion in the 1970ies!! No laughing matter!’ (www.nra.lv) These constructions are partly lexicalized in that they involve specific grammatical forms of the verb and specific lexemes, mostly, pronouns and adverbs:

1) demonstrative pronouns tas ‘this/that’, tāds ‘such’, 2) indefinite / interrogative pronoun kas ‘who/what’, 3) deictic adverbs tur ‘there’, kur ‘where’ (etymologically related to pronouns tas ‘this/that’, kas ‘who/what’). While these constructions have been discussed in Latvian grammars before (e.g., Nītiņa, Grigorjevs 2013) they have never been analyzed as a complex of mirative meanings with its own place in the universal typological system of mirativity. 2. Evidential constructions

Aikhenvald (2012, 436): “In many languages, expressions of mirativity have no grammatical connection to evidential systems. Markers with “mirative” meanings co-occur with evidentials, they occupy different positions in verb structure, and differ in their interrelations with other categories (such as negation, or counterexpectation). In other languages, evidentials may acquire mirative meanings in some contexts, and thus can be considered “mirative strategies ”.

This is also the case in Latvian. Latvian has a special reportive evidential marker – the oblique form of the verb (e.g., Nītiņa, Grigorjevs 2013).

In Latvian, oblique forms are marked by means of the suffix -ot (non- reflexive verbs), or -oties (reflexive verbs), expressing either present or future tense meanings depending on the kind of verbal stem (present or future) they are added to (e.g., Nītiņa, Grigorjevs 2013, 483–484; Kalnača 2013, 84; 2014, 123–124). They can be synthetic or analytical (periphrastic). The compound oblique forms are formed by combing auxiliary es-ot ‘reportedly am/is/are’ vai būš-ot ‘reportedly will be’ with the past active participle (op. cit.). Since the oblique mood lacks person forms, person meanings are derived from clause subjects. Tense Synthetic form Analytical (periphrastic) form PRS las-ot es-ot lasījis,-usi, -uši, -ušas ‘I, you, he/she, etc. ‘I, you, he, she etc. reportedly read’ reportedly had read’ FUT lasīš-ot būš-ot lasījis,-usi, -uši, -ušas ‘I, you, he/she, etc. ‘I, you, he, she, etc. reportedly will read’ reportedly will have read’

Table 1. The paradigm of oblique forms (adapted from Kalnača 2013, 84) Oblique forms are used to indicate that the author of a text is not the source of the information contained in that text (e.g., Endzelīns 1951, 902; Holvoet 2007, 81–82; Nītiņa, Grigorjevs 2013, 495; Kalnača 2014, 122).

Oblique is used whenever the speaker wants to refer to an utterance of another person, i.e., to express reportive evidentiality. (3) Viens no kandidātiem premjera one.NOM.SG of candidate.DAT.PL prime_minister.GEN.SG biroja vadītāja postenim office.GEN.SGhead.GEN.SG position.DAT.SG esot bijušais veselības ministrs. be.OBL.PRS fomer.PTCP.NOM.SG health.GEN.SG minister.NOM.SG ‘Reportedly, one of the candidates for the position of the head of the prime minister’s office is the ex-minister for health.’ (LVK2018) Example (3) states that the speaker has obtained information from someone else, although no specific source has been identified.

Thus the oblique form is undoubtedly an evidential, as it can be the only marker of the source of information, and evidentials have the indication of evidence as their core meaning rather than pragmatic inference. Evidential markers can develop epistemic overtones.

As Holvoet (2018) states, “[i]t is well known that the use of an evidential marker may be a device allowing the speaker to distance her/himself from a claim and thus indirectly to express an epistemic stance”. Epistemic overtones occur mainly when the content of the reported utterance is likely to be questionable. Thus, a speaker can use the oblique mood to express doubts about the truthfulness of the narrated content, to voice his or her disbelief in it, and also to distance him-/ herself from any credibility assessment. The choice of the oblique form in indirect speech may be a signal of certain doubt about the veracity of the utterance, often combined with critical examination and irony. This mainly depends on discourse factors – shared knowledge, type of discourse, the topic discussed etc.

For instance, weather forecasts are often not taken at their face value, especially if the weather forecast refers to a more remote future, because such forecasts often fail to be true (example (4)). (4) Šogad būšot ļoti silta vasara, this_year be.OBL.FUT very warm.NOM.SG summer.NOM.SG prognozē sinoptiķi. say.PRS.3 meteorologist.NOM.PL ‘This year a very warm summer is to be expected, the meteorologists say.’ (Kas Jauns) Evidential markers may develop an epistemic overtone ‘contrary to what somebody has said’ (see Holvoet 2018 about Lithuanian hearsay marker esą ‘as if’). In this case, a negative opinion of another person or their utterance is expressed, namely, the content of the reported information is clearly not to be believed.

The negation of the content is usually due to pragmatic factors – to the context or to general knowledge, such as the fact that the much predicted end of the world does not come, see example (5). (5) Pareģo kārtējo pasaules galu – prophesy.PRS.3 another.ACC.SG world.GEN.SG end.ACC.SG tas būšot klāt jau rīt. it.NOM.SG be.OBL.FUT present already tomorrow ‘Yet another end of the world is being foretold, it would, they say, arrive tomorrow.’ (www.tvnet.lv) With regard to Latvian, the view that evidentiality and epistemic modality are distinct but overlapping categories (cf. among others van der Auwera, Plungian 1998) seemed more appropriate (see also de Haan 1999; Mushin 2001; Cornillie 2009). As pointed out by Aikhenvald (2012), “the non-firsthand evidential may acquire a mirative connotation if something happens contrary to the speaker’s expectation and much to their regret.” (see also Rett, Murray 2013)

“Surprise”, “lack of previous awareness”, and speaker’s “unprepared mind” can result from many kinds of information source, including visual, non-visual, inference, and speech report (Aikhenvald 2012, 38). The polysemantic periphery of evidentiality includes exclamative utterances that are linked to mirativity and epistemicity. This is also the case in Latvian (e.g., Kalviša 2018, 62–63).

In Latvian, this happens in exclamative sentences involving the verb būt ‘be’ in the simple present oblique as a copula to a nominal predicate, i.e. esot, and a subject expressed by the demonstrative pronoun tas ‘this/that’ (6) vai tāds ‘such’ (7), referring to a previously mentioned contextual item. (6) Un grīda! and floor.NOM.SG Tas esot parkets! this.NOM.SG be.COP.OBL.PRS parquet_floor.NOM.SG Melns kā darva! ‘And the floor. Is this “parquet floor”? Pitch black, it is.’ (A. Eglītis) Sentences of this type express defeated expectations of sorts, with an added negative evaluation. Namely, everybody knows what a parquet floor looks like, and the speaker has made an unexpected discovery that the floor is not as it should be. The oblique form in this sentence expresses both reference to some general knowledge (evidential overtone) and disbelief and irony, and also surprise (mirativity). As Aikhenvald (2004, 9) states, “[a]n unexpected evidentiality choice may acquire additional stylistic overtones of sarcasm, irony, or indignation.”

(7) Un tāda esot juriste! and that.NOM.SG be.COP.OBL.PRS lawyer.NOM.SG Viņai bija jāizsaka nosodījums korupcijas atbalstītājiem un viss! [Bet viņa to nedarīja.] ‘That’s a lawyer, you say! She had to condemn the supporters of corruption, that’s all.’ [But she did not.] (www.pietiek.com) It must be emphasized that in mirative evidential constructions the subject can be just the demonstrative pronoun tas ‘this/that’, tāds ‘such’. Thus the construction may be considered as partly lexicalized and represents a lexico-grammatical pattern of expressing mirative meanings. Elliptic constructions with an omitted pronoun are also possible, but the subject might be inferred from the context.

(8) Muti kā smagais ormanis brūķē! Meitene [tā] esot! girl.NOM.SG [this.NOM.SG] be.OBL.PRS ‘Speaks like a true cabman! Calling herself a girl!’ (V. Belševica) (9) Pirms gadiem desmit viss pārvērtās, sāka braukāt visādi ļaudis, meklēja kaut kādas vecās robežas. Īpašnieki [tie] esot! Izsmiekls. owner.NOM.PL [this.NOM.PL]be.OBL.PRS ridicule.NOM.SG ‘About ten years ago everything changed, all kinds of people started coming, looking for the old borders. They call themselves “owners”. How ridiculous!’ (A. Žīgure) Thus, it is possible to speak of three concurrent meanings here – evidentiality (somewhat weakened), epistemicity (disbelief, irony) and mirativity (surprise, mostly an unpleasant one):

Mirativity

Epistemicity

Evidentiality In addition, these meanings can be considered to have developed gradually.

Evidentiality Epistemicity Mirativity Therefore, one can consider that evidentiality in such cases has been partially abstracted, i.e. linked to shared knowledge, thus the meaning of mirativity (and epistemic modality) here becomes more salient. 3. Modal infinitive constructions

Rhetorical questions beginning with the lexicalized construction kas tur ko ‘what’s the point to’, ‘what’s the big deal in/about’ express the modal meaning of lack of necessity and, simultaneously, surprise and contrariness to what is expected. In sentences of this type, mirativity is an overtone to deontic modality, see example (10). (10) Kas tur ko laipot? what.NOM there what.ACC maneuver.INF ‘Why be roundabout?’ (LVK2018)

The context of this phrase is such that a person that has been mentioned before is maneuvering and the speaker deems this unnecessary [and, according to the speaker, it is patent] (modal meaning) and he or she is also surprised by this fact (mirative meaning). (11) Kas tur ko sarežģīt? what.NOM there what.ACC complicate.INF ‘What’s there to complicate matters about?’ (LVK2018)

(12) Kas tur ko brīnīties? what.NOM there what.ACC wonder.INF ‘What’s there to wonder about?’ (LVK2018) Sentences of this type are interesting in that they always are copulaless and introduced by lexicalized constructions consisting of desemanticized deictic words – pronouns and adverbs (about the tendency towards lexicalization of infinitival clauses see Holvoet 2000).

The verbal lexemes in this construction can be changed at ease but the pattern is stable (both in the affirmative (10-12) and the negative (13- 14). The predicate can be negated, in this case the modal meaning is one of possibility: (13) Kas tur ko vienu nakti what.NOM there what.ACC one.ACC.SG night.ACC.SG neizturēt, not_survive. INF guļot guļammaisā kuģa kāpņu telpā? ‘What’s the big deal about surviving a night in a sleeping bag in the hold of a ship?’ (LVK2018) The context is such that someone thinks (or believes) that is is not bearable, the speaker thinks otherwise or holds views to the contrary and is surprised that someone might hold different views.

The constructions with the negated verb, too, point to the obvious nature of the content of the proposition while the speaker is surprised that someone should doubt it. Rhetorical questions in essence are exclamatory sentences because they express emphasized statement or its negation and have strong emotional overtones: (14) Kādi vēl padomi, kas tur ko nezināt! what.NOM there what.ACC not_know.INF [Kā kopt matus.] ‘What kind of advice, what’ s there one wouldn’t know?’ [About haircare.] (www.apollo.lv)

The context – it is known by everyone, the one who does not know is a weirdo. It is possible that the desemanticized adverb tur ‘there’ (which stems from the demonstrative pronoun tas ‘this/that’) refers to the purportedly existing “general knowledge”.

Thus these sentences may also be considered as lexico-grammatical patterns expressing mirativity. In this case, too, it is possible to talk about the simultaneous realization of two meanings – modality (lack of necessity, possibility) and mirativity.

Mirativity

Modality Successive development of both meanings:

Modality Mirativity 4. To sum up

1. In conclusion, mirativity in Latvian occurs as an overtone of conventionalized and partly lexicalized evidential and modal predicative constructions, expressed as exclamative and interrogative (rhetorical) utterances. Both constructions have strong emotional overtones and express defeated expectation and negative evaluation. 2. In evidential constructions, epistemic and mirative meanings are superimposed, as it were, on the evidential ones – the evidential meaning serves as a basis to which the author adds additional epistemic overtones and indications of counterexpectation and negative surprise. The evidential meaning itself is somewhat weakened and linked to shared knowledge.

3. The constructions represent a special lexico-grammatical pattern, as they contain the oblique form of the verb in the function of copula and demonstrative pronouns tas ‘ this/that’ or tāds ‘such’ in the subject position. 4. Modal infinitive constructions express lack of necessity or possibility (depending on polarity), thus mirativity is an overtone of modality. Mirative meanings of counterexpectation, surprise and negative evaluation stem from contrariness to some general opinion about possibility or necessity of the action named by the predicate.

5. The constructions are partly lexicalized including indefinite / interrogative pronoun kas ‘who/what’, as well as deictic adverbs of place tur ‘there’, kur ‘where’ which stem from pronouns tas, kas. References

1. Aikhenvald, Aleksandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2. Aikhenvald, Aleksandra Y. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology. 16, 435–485. 3. Auwera, Johan van der, Plungian, Valdimir. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology. 2, 79–124. 4. Cornillie, Bert. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: on the close relationship of two different categories. Functions of Language. 16 (1), 44–62. 5. DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidenciality. Journal of Pragmatics. 33, 369–382. 6. DeLancey, Scott. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology. 16, 529–564. 7. Enzdelīns, Jānis. 1951. Latviešu valodas gramatika. [A grammar of Latvian.] Rīga: Latvijas Valsts izdevniecība. 8. Haan, Ferdinand de. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics. 18, 83–101. 9. Holvoet, Axel. 2000. Infinitival relative clauses in Latvian: Their structure, development and tendency toward lexicalisation. Linguistica Lettica. 7. Rīga: Latviešu valodas institūts, 99–116. 10. Holvoet, Axel. 2007. Mood and Modality in Baltic. Kraków: Wydawnictwo universitetu Jagiellońskiego. 11. Holvoet, Axel. 2018. Epistemic modality, evidentiality, quotativity and echoic use. Epistemic Modalities and Evidentiality in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Guentchéva, Zlatka (ed.). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 242–258. 12. Kalnača, Andra. 2013. Morfoloģija. Latviešu valoda. [Morphology. The Latvian language.] Veisbergs, Andrejs (ed.). Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 45–108. 13. Kalnača, Andra. 2014. A Typological Perspective on Latvian Grammar. Warsaw/Berlin: De Gruyter Open. 14. Kalviša, Liene. 2018. Evidencialitāte latviešu valodā. [Evidentiality in Latvian.] Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds. 15. Lau, Monica, Rooryck Johan. 2017. Aspect, evidentiality, and mirativity. Lingua Special Issue Essays on Evidentiality. Lau, Monica, Adelaar, Willem (eds.). Lingua 186–187, 110– 119. 16. Mocini, Renzo. 2014. Expressing Surprise. A Cross-Linguistic Description of Mirativity. Altre Modernità. 11, 136–156. 17. Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 18. Nītiņa, Daina, Grigorjevs, Juris. 2013. Latviešu valodas gramatika. [A grammar of Latvian.] Rīga: Latvijas Universitātes Latviešu valodas institūts. 19. Rett, Jessica, Murray, Sarah E. 2013. A semantic account of mirative evidentials. Proceedings of SALT. 23, 453–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2687. 20. Simeonova, Vesela. 2015. On the semantics of mirativity. Proceedings of the 2015 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Ottawa: University of Ottawa; available at: http://cla-acl.ca/wp-content/uploads/Simeonova-2015.pdf.