Delineating Turkic non-finite forms by syntactic function Jonathan North Washington ([email protected]), Francis M. Tyers ([email protected]) In this paper, we argue that there are four main types of non-finite verb in Turkic based on their syn- tactic patterning. The traditional division in the Turkology literature (Убрятова et al. 1982) of “” (причастие in Russian Turkology literature) and “” (деепричастие) conflates several discrete phenomena. This distinction does not take into account important syntactic observations, nor is it inter- nally coherent as a morphological distinction. Based on work on the morphology of a wide range of Turkic languages, we propose that the morphology and of many Turkic languages present a clear distinc- tion between verbal , verbal , verbal , and . These non-finite forms are all inflected verb forms which maintain their argument structure but do not function independently asthe of a . Verbal nouns, adjectives, and adverbs behave morphologically and syntactically (within other ) as their eponymous category, while infinitives are used exclusively as predicates that require a finite . Besides allowing for more cross-linguistic consistency in nomenclature, we believe that this approach yields more concise generalisations about the morphosyntactic interplay of these suffixes. The traditional dichotomy between participle and converb seems to have arisen mainly due to the fact that the suffixes used to create non-finite verb forms in Turkic languages cluster roughly inthisway. Specifically, many suffixes in a given language used to create verbal adjectives are also used tocreate verbal nouns (e.g., Turkish -/mIş/, Kazakh -/GAn/); these suffixes are often referred to as participle-forming suffixes. Likewise, many of the suffixes used to create verbal adverbs are also used to create infinitives (e.g., Tatar -/(I)p/, Kyrgyz -/GAnI/); these suffixes are often referred to as converb-forming suffixes. Examples demonstrating potentially ambiguous suffixes of the former (1) and latter (2) types are provided below. (1) a. Маған кітапханаға барған ұнайды. (Kazakh) mɑʁɑn kɘtɑpχɑnɑʁɑ bɑrʁɑn ʊnɑjdə. mɑʁɑn kɘtɑpχɑnɑ-GA bɑr-GAn ʊnɑ-E-DI. I.dat library-dat go-vn be.liked-npst-3 ‘I like going to the library.’ (“participle” = verbal ) b. Маған кітапханаға барған кісі ұнайды. (Kazakh) mɑʁɑn kɘtɑpχɑnɑʁɑ bɑrʁɑn kɘsɘ ʊnɑjdə. mɑʁɑn kɘtɑpχɑnɑ-GA bɑr-GAn kɘsɘ ʊnɑ-E-DI. I.dat library-dat go-vadj person be.liked-npst-3 ‘I like the/a person who went to the library.’ (“participle” = verbal ) (2) a. Досум китепти китепканага тапшырганы турат. (Kyrgyz) dosum kitepti kitepqɑnɑʁɑ tɑpʃɯrʁɑnɯ turɑt. dosum kitep-NI kitepqɑnɑ-GA tɑpʃɯr-GAnI tur-E-t. friend-poss.1sg book-acc library-dat turn.in-inf stand-npst-3 ‘My friend is getting ready to return the book to the library.’ (“converb” = ) b. Досум китепти китепканага тапшырганы кезекте турат. (Kyrgyz) dosum kitepti kitepqɑnɑʁɑ tɑpʃɯrʁɑnɯ kezekte turɑt. dosum kitep-NI kitepqɑnɑ-GA tɑpʃɯr-GAnI kezek-DA tur-E-t. friend-poss.1sg book-acc library-dat turn.in-vadv line-loc stand-npst-3 ‘My friend is standing in line in order to return the book to the library.’(“converb” = vbl. ) The second sentence of each group differs from the first only in the addition of a single nounform. In (1), the noun replaces the as the , and the original verb is now dependent on this noun as a head. In (2), the addition of the adjunct forces verb form турат to be read as a (“stand”) and not an auxiliary, which in turn forces the reading of тапшырганы as a verbal adverb (“in order to return”) and not an infinitive (“getting ready to return”).

1 To complicate matters, verbal adjectives may be substantivised (perhaps syntactically via an empty noun slot), as shown in (3), where it is not possible to parse the form as a verbal noun. Truly ambiguous examples are difficult to identify. (3) Кітапханаға барғандарды ұнатамын. (Kazakh) kɘtɑpχɑnɑʁɑ bɑrʁɑndɑrdə ʊnɑtɑmən. kɘtɑpχɑnɑ-GA bɑr-GAn-LAr-NI ʊnɑ-t-E-MIn. library-dat go-vadj-pl-acc be.liked-caus-npst-1sg *‘I like goings to the library.’ (verbal noun reading) ‘I like [the ones] who go to the library.’ (verbal adjective reading) Because of the conflation of categories both by Turkologists and the similarity of the sets ofmor- phemes used for the conflated categories throughout the morphology of Turkic languages,1 there has been much written on the so-called ambiguity of V+V sequences in Turkic languages (most recently Danka 2018; Karakoç 2018; Nevskaya et al. 2018). Understanding these ambiguities and how they pat- tern cross-linguistically is key to understanding sentence and predicate structure. For example, in Sakha, аһаан барда can mean either ‘S/he started to eat.’ or ‘S/he ate and left.’ (Popova 2018). Once the category of converb is split into the categories of infinitives and verbal adverbs (4), the reason for this ambiguity between one- and two-predicate readings becomes obvious. This also requires recognising that one use of the verb бар ‘go’ is as an auxiliary that conveys inchoative aspect. (4) a. Аһаан барда. b. Аһаан барда. (Sakha) ɑhɑːn bɑrdɑ. ɑhɑːn bɑrdɑ. ɑhɑː-(A)n bɑr-TA. ɑhɑː-(A)n bɑr-TA. eat-inf go-pst.3sg eat-vadv go-pst.3sg ‘S/he started to eat’. ‘S/he ate and left’. It turns out, though, that not all non-finite-verb-forming suffixes can be used to create non-finite verb forms of more than one functional category: to give some [unrelated] examples, Turkish -/(j)Iʃ/ appears to only be able to form verbal nouns and not verbal adjectives, Kyrgyz -/GIs/ can only be used to form verbal adjectives and not verbal nouns, and Tuvan -/GAlA/ can only be used to form verbal adverbs and not infinitives. This type of observation serves as further evidence for the division of these categories based on syntactic function. Also, not all non-finite-verb-forming suffixes pattern in the traditional groupings; e.g., Tuvan -/GIʒe/ forms verbal adverbs and verbal nouns. A systematic study of the full range of non- finite-verb-forming suffixes in Tuvan is presented in Washington etal.(2016), and similar studies have been conducted for previous work (Washington et al. 2014; Washington et al. 2012) and ongoing work (e.g., for Sakha). Johanson (1998) delineates three types of non-finite (action nouns, , and ), and further distinguishes several classes of converbs (Johanson 1995). While Zúñiga (1998) argues against the general premise of the volume the latter source is included in—that converbs comprise a single co- herent category in the world’s languages—we believe that the delineation of these “types” of converb by Johanson (1995) demonstrates independently that the category is not fully coherent among Turkic lan- guages. Johanson’s “levels” 1 and 2 can be understood as verbal adverbs, differing primarily in whether the verbal adverb has a distinct from the main (level 1) or not (level 2), and possibly in syntactic configuration. Level 4 corresponds exactly to infinitives. (5) Мен кітапты мектепке алып бардым. (Kazakh) miɘn kɘtɑptə miɘktiɘpkiɘ ɑɫəp bɑrdəm. miɘn kɘtɑp-NI miɘktiɘp-GA ɑl-(I)p bɑr-DI-m. I book-acc school-dat take-vadv? go-pst-1sg ‘I brought the book to school.’

1While some authors (Ross 2016; Ylikoski 2003) use the term “converb” to refer solely to our “verbal adverbs” and the term “participle” to refer to our “verbal adjective”, the Turkology literature additionally includes infinitives under the term “converb” and often includes verbal nouns under the term “participle” (e.g., Erdal 2004, §3.28, who calls all verbal noun forms either “par- ticiples” or “infinitives”).

2 It is unclear how Johanson’s (1995) “level 3” converbs fit into our typology; these are the subordinate verb in serial verb constructions where both verbs appear to contribute to valency and, per Johanson, comprise individual “cores” of the predicate. (5) presents an example discussed by Tyers et al. (2017). In this sentence, the adjunct ‘to school’ appears subordinate to ‘go’, whereas the argument ‘book’ is subordinate to ‘take’. It cannot be said that алып is an infinitive form, since бар is not otherwise an auxiliary in Kazakh, and instead contributes lexical meaning to the sentence. It is also difficult to assume that алып is a verbal adverb, since it does not form a contiguous constituent with its кітапты. An alternative analysis of such constructions may be as lexicalised verbs, where алып бар is a single verb stem. There are also peripheral affixes, which create forms not enitrely like other non-finite formsinthe same category. An example of this is the volitional suffix (/-GI/ in Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Karakalpak, and Bashqort, -/GU/ in Uyghur, -/gɨ/ in Uzbek, -/(A)sI/ in Tatar), which appears to create verbal nouns because they take (-like) morphology and function as subjects of verbs like /kel/- ‘come’ (Kyrgyz, etc.) or adjectival predicates (via a ) like /bɑɾ/ ‘present’ or /joq/ ‘absent’ (Uyghur, etc.). However, volitional forms are limited to nominative case with mandatory possessive morphology, making them much less versatile than other verbal noun forms. A further open question is how to deal with single predicates that appear to be formed from verbal nouns or adjectives followed by copula forms, such as Kazakh барған едім /bɑr-GAn iɘ-DI-m/ ‘go-vn? cop-pst-1sg = I had gone’. If we say that the copula is an auxiliary, then we must say that -/GAn/ forms infinitives, in addition to verbal nouns and adjectives as described above. If we say that the construction is simply a verbal adjective or noun predicated by a copula headed by the subject of the sentence, then we take a purely etymological stance on the matter, and may end up declaring many other finite verb forms in Turkic languages to be copula constructions with non-finite verb forms—perhaps attempting to draw a line to exclude forms which are not easily recognisable as containing a non-finite verb form without diachronic data to support such an analysis. Despite these open questions, we expect that delineating non-finite forms in Turkic languages based on their syntactic functions allows for additional clarity and consistency in cross-linguistic terminology. This framework, in fact, should be a point of departure for any analyses of these open questions, and likewise should jump-start new investigations of phenomena involving these verb forms. We further believe that this approach has the potential to lead to more straightforward analyses of other phenomena of interest that involve non-finite verb forms, such as clause chaining (Dooley 2010) and suspended affixation (Hankamer 2014).

Danka, Balázs (2018). “Ambiguous [V+V] sequences in a 17th century Turkic variety”. In: 19th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics: Collection of Abstracts, p. 18. url: https://sites.google.com/site/ictl19astana/program/ICTL-19%20Abstracts_FIL.pdf. Dooley, Robert A. (Feb. 2010). “Exploring Clause Chaining”. In: SIL Electronic Working Papers 2010-001. Erdal, Marcel (2004). A grammar of Old Tukic. Ledien: Brill. Hankamer, Jorge (2014). “Turkish Suspended Affixation”. Presentation handout. Bloomington, Indiana. Johanson, Lars (1995). “On Turkic converb ”. In: Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, . Ed. by Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König. Vol. 13. Empirical approaches to language typology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 313–347. — (1998). “The Structure of Turkic”. In: The Turkic Languages. Routledge. Chap. 3. doi: 10.4324/9780203066102.ch3. Karakoç, Birsel (2018). Ambiguity in Noghay multiverbal predications. url: https://sites.google.com/site/ictl19astana/program/ICTL-19%20Abstracts_FIL.pdf. Nevskaya, Irina, Uldanay Jumabai, and Saule Tazhibayeva (2018). “Ambiguities in [V+V] sequences in Kazakh in comparison with South Siberian Turkic”. In: 19th Inter- national Conference on Turkish Linguistics: Collection of Abstracts. url: https://sites.google.com/site/ictl19astana/program/ICTL-19%20Abstracts_FIL.pdf. Popova, Natalya (2018). “Ambiguous VSs in Yakut”. In: 19th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics: Collection of Abstracts, pp. 29–30. url: https://sites.google. com/site/ictl19astana/program/ICTL-19%20Abstracts_FIL.pdf. Ross, Daniel (Aug. 2016). “Expressing adverbial relations in clause linkage with converbs: definitional and typological considerations”. Syntax of the World’s Languages 7, Workshop on Adverbial relations and clause linkages. url: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/91641/Ross%20Converbs%20SWL7.pdf. Tyers, Francis M., Jonathan Washington, Çağrı Çöltekin, and Aibek Makazhanov (2017). “An assessment of Universal Dependency annotation guidelines for Turkic languages”. In: Proceedings of the Vth International Conference on Computer Processing of Turkic Languages (TurkLang 2017) I, pp. 277–297. url: http : / / www . turklang.tatar/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/%D0%A2.1.pdf. Washington, J. N., A. Bayyr-ool, A. Salchak, and F. M. Tyers (Nov. 2016). “Development of a finite-state model for morphological processing of Tuvan”. In: Родной Язык 1.4, pp. 156–187. url: http://rodyaz.ru/pdf/no.4_2016/Washington%20J.,%20Bayyr-ool%20A.,%20Salchak%20A.,%20Tyers%20F.%20Development%20of%20a% 20finite-state%20model%20for%20morphological%20processing%20of%20Tuvan.pdf. Washington, Jonathan North, Ilnar Salimzyanov, and Francis M. Tyers (May 2014). “Finite-state morphological transducers for three Kypchak languages”. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), pp. 3378–3385. url: http://www.lrec- conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/ summaries/1207.html. Washington, Jonathan, Mirlan Ipasov, and Francis Tyers (May 2012). “A finite-state morphological transducer for Kyrgyz”. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). Ed. by Nicoletta Calzolari et al. İstanbul, Turkey: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 934–940. isbn: 978-2-9517408-7-7. url: http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/summaries/1077.html. Ylikoski, Jussi (2003). “Defining Non-finites: Action Nominals, Converbs and Infinitives”. In: Suomen kielitieteellinen yhdistys Journal of Linguistics 16, pp. 185–237. Zúñiga, Fernando (1998). “Nomina sunt odiosa: A critique of the converb as a cross-linguistically valid category”. Manuscript. University of Zürich. url: http://zuniga. unibe.ch/down/Zuniga-converbs-1998.pdf. Убрятова, Е. И., Е. И. Коркина, Л. Н. Харитонов, and Н. Е. Петров (1982). Грамматика современного якутского литературного языка. Vol. I: фонетика и морфология. Москва: Наука.

3