+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

Date post: 03-Jan-2017
Category:
Upload: vankhanh
View: 219 times
Download: 3 times
Share this document with a friend
24
chapter8 Experiencer coding in Nakh-Daghestanian DmitryGanenkov MoscowStateUniversity ispaperaddressesargumentmarkingpatternsofexperiencerverbsinNakh-Dagh- estanian languages. Examination of valency patterns of 20 experiential verbs in 18 Daghestanian languages has revealed selective similarities between individual types whichcanbecapturedintheformofasemanticmap.ethreemain‘clusters’ofex- periencerverbswhicharedistinguished,onbothformalandsemanticgrounds,are: experiencersofperceptionpredicates,ofemotionpredicateswhichoſtenpatternwith recipients,andexperiencersencodedasinvoluntaryagents.FurtherIprovideadia- chronicinterpretationofthesemanticmap,suggestingapreliminaryreconstruction ofthesemanticevolutionofexperiencermarkers.Itisarguedthatthetwomaindia- chronictendenciesinthisdomainarerecruitmentofspatialcasesforexperientialen- coding,andassimilationofnon-canonicalexperiencerargumentstocanonically(er- gatively)markedtransitivesubjects. 1. Introduction Experiencerverbsareusuallydefinedasverbswhoseargumentperceivesavisualim- ageorsound,hasaparticularphysical,mentaloremotionalstate,orreceivesorpos- sessessomeinformation.Typicalexamplesofexperiencerpredicatesare‘see’,‘hear’,‘be cold’,‘know’,‘love’,‘want’,and‘remember’. Itiswellknownthatinmanylanguagesthesyntacticbehaviourofatleastsomeex- periencerverbsdiffersfromthestandardtransitivepattern,whichisusedwithbivalent predicates(seee.g.Feuillet1998).eexperiencerisoſtenmarkednotbyoneofthe corecases,butbyaperipheralcase(mostoſtendative)oranadposition.Someother experiencerverbsmaybetransitivelyaligned,withtheexperiencermarkedeitheras AorasP.us,intermsoftheexpressionoftheexperiencerargument,threemain classesofverbscanbedistinguishedinthelanguagesoftheworld,shownintheRus- sianexamplesbelow:subject-likeexperiencer(1),object-likeexperiencer(2),and‘non- canonically’markedexperiencer,usuallydative(3): (1) Ja bojus’ sobak. I.nombe.afraid.1sgdog.gen.pl ‘Iamafraidofdogs.’
Transcript
Page 1: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

chapter�8

Experiencer coding in Nakh­Daghestanian

Dmitry�GanenkovMoscow�State�University

This�paper�addresses�argument�marking�patterns�of�experiencer�verbs�in�Nakh-Dagh-estanian� languages.� Examination� of� valency� patterns� of� 20� experiential� verbs� in� 18�Daghestanian� languages�has�revealed�selective�similarities�between� individual� types�which�can�be�captured�in�the�form�of�a�semantic�map.�The�three�main�‘clusters’�of�ex-periencer�verbs�which�are�distinguished,�on�both�formal�and�semantic�grounds,�are:�experiencers�of�perception�predicates,�of�emotion�predicates�which�often�pattern�with�recipients,�and�experiencers�encoded�as� involuntary�agents.�Further�I�provide�a�dia-chronic�interpretation�of�the�semantic�map,�suggesting�a�preliminary�reconstruction�of�the�semantic�evolution�of�experiencer�markers.�It�is�argued�that�the�two�main�dia-chronic�tendencies�in�this�domain�are�recruitment�of�spatial�cases�for�experiential�en-coding,�and�assimilation�of�non-canonical�experiencer�arguments�to�canonically�(er-gatively)�marked�transitive�subjects.

1.� Introduction

Experiencer�verbs�are�usually�defined�as�verbs�whose�argument�perceives�a�visual�im-age�or�sound,�has�a�particular�physical,�mental�or�emotional�state,�or�receives�or�pos-sesses�some�information.�Typical�examples�of�experiencer�predicates�are�‘see’,�‘hear’,�‘be�cold’,�‘know’,�‘love’,�‘want’,�and�‘remember’.� It�is�well�known�that�in�many�languages�the�syntactic�behaviour�of�at�least�some�ex-periencer�verbs�differs�from�the�standard�transitive�pattern,�which�is�used�with�bivalent�predicates�(see�e.g.�Feuillet�1998).�The�experiencer�is�often�marked�not�by�one�of�the�core�cases,�but�by�a�peripheral�case�(most�often�dative)�or�an�adposition.�Some�other�experiencer�verbs�may�be�transitively�aligned,�with�the�experiencer�marked�either�as�A�or�as�P.�Thus,�in�terms�of�the�expression�of�the�experiencer�argument,�three�main�classes�of�verbs�can�be�distinguished�in�the�languages�of�the�world,�shown�in�the�Rus-sian�examples�below:�subject-like�experiencer�(1),�object-like�experiencer�(2),�and�‘non-canonically’�marked�experiencer,�usually�dative�(3):

� (1)� Ja bojus’ sobak.I.nom�be.afraid.1sg�dog.gen.pl‘I�am�afraid�of�dogs.’

Page 2: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

1�0 Dmitry�Ganenkov

� (2)� On rasserdi-l svoj-ego otc-a.he.nom�make.angry-pst.M�self-acc�father-acc.sg‘He�annoyed�his�father.’

� (3)� Mne xolodno.I.dat�cold.impers‘I�am�cold.’

Experiencer�verbs�have�been�the�subject�of�several�studies,�mostly�focusing�on�the�syn-tactic�properties�of�experiencer�constructions,�such�as�the�subjecthood�of�the�dative�participant�(Verma�and�Mohanan�1990,�Feuillet�1998),�or�the�degree�of�syntactic�gen-eralization�that�can�be�found�among�these�constructions�(Bossong�1998).�Experiencer�constructions�have�also�been�examined�in�work�on�non-canonical�subject�and�object�marking�(Aikhenvald,�Dixon,�Onishi�2001�and�Bhaskararao�and�Subbarao�2004,�which�includes� an� article� on� the� Nakh-Daghestanian� language� Tsez).� Semantically,� experi-encer�predicates�are�usually�assumed�to�form�a�homogeneous�class.�Yet�there�are�no�typological�studies�which�deal�with�their�semantic�characteristics�or�specifically�with�the�semantic�relationships�among�experiencers�of�different�verbs.� The�Nakh-Daghestanian�languages�are�known�for�coding�semantic�roles�straightfor-wardly.�Often,�the�situational�properties�of�a�participant�influence�the�valence�pattern�of�the�predicate.�This�is�known�as�‘role�domination’�(see�Foley�and�Van�Valin�1984,�Kibrik�1997).�Compare�the�standard�vs.�involuntary�agent�opposition�in�Lezgian�(Haspelmath�1993:�291–3):

� (4)� Zamira-di get’e xa-na.Zamira-erg�pot� break-pst‘Zamira�broke�the�pot.’

� (5)� Zamira.di-w-aj get’e xa-na.Zamira-ad-el� pot� break-pst‘Zamira�broke�the�pot�accidentally/involuntarily.’

Nakh-Daghestanian�languages�possess�a�rich�system�of�experiencer�markers.�For�ex-ample,�Andi�uses�four�markers�to�encode�the�experiencer�role:�absolutive,�dative,�affec-tive,�and�a�locative�form�called�cont-essive�(location�in�contact�with�a�landmark).�Most�Andic�languages�and�also�Tsakhur�possess�a�distinct�affective�case�to�mark�the�experi-encer�with�certain�verbs.�The�set�of�markers�and�their�distribution�vary�across�the�family.� This�paper�presents�a�cross-linguistic�comparison�of�the�experiencer�marking�found�in�the�Nakh-Daghestanian�family.�It�attempts�to�determine�several�experiencer�types�and�to�establish�semantic�relations�among�them.�Nakh-Daghestanian�languages,�with�their�rich� inventory�of�role�markers,�are�a�natural�choice�for�study�since�they�gram-maticalize�situations�that�are�not�formally�distinguished�in�many�other�languages.�In�addition�to�experiencer�roles,� some�other� functions� including�the�recipient�and�the�so-called�involuntary�agent�(cf.�5)�are�also�considered�in�connection�with�the�experi-

Page 3: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

� Experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian� 1�1

encer’s�functional�domain.�The�study�is�based�on�a�sample�of�eighteen�languages�rep-resenting�all� groups� in�Nakh-Daghestanian.�Language�data� (listed� in� the�appendix)�were�collected�mostly�from�native�consultants�on�the�basis�of�an�experiencer-oriented�questionnaire,�as�well�as�from�reference�grammars,�dictionaries�and�other�secondary�sources.�The�eighteen�languages�of�the�sample�(arranged�by�genetic�affiliation)�are�list-ed�in�Table�1.

Table 1.� The�18�languages�of�the�sample

Subgroup Languages

Avar AvarAndic Andi,�Chamalal,�Akhvakh,�Karata,�Bagwalal,�GodoberiTsezic TsezLak LakDargi Akusha�Dargi�(very�close�to�standard�Dargi),�Icari�DargiLezgic Lezgian,�Agul,�Tabasaran,�Tsakhur,�ArchiNakh Chechen,�Ingush

2.� An�overview�of�experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian

2.1� Introductory�remarks

This�section�deals�with�role-coding�patterns�of�experiencer�verbs.�A�detailed�analysis�of�the�morphological�encoding�of�the�experiencer�role�with�different�verbs�shows�that�from�a�semantic�point�of�view�these�predicates�do�not�constitute�a�homogeneous�class�and�can�be�classified�into�several�groups.�At�first,�for�each�language�I�examined�the�va-lence�pattern�of�about�twenty�five�verbs,�but�then�I�concluded�that�some�verbs�should�be�excluded�from�the�study.� First�of�all,�here�I�do�not�consider�experiencers�expressed�by�possessive�constructions.�Neither�internal�possessors�(genitive�marked)�nor�external�possessors�(expressed�by�one�of�the�locative�cases)�are�taken�into�consideration.�For�example,�the�verb�‘remem-ber’�is�not�within�the�scope�of�the�present�study�since�in�virtually�all�Nakh-Daghestani-an�languages�the�meaning�‘remember’�is�expressed�by�a�possessive�construction�(liter-ally�‘be�on�somebody’s�heart’�or�something�similar).�In�contrast,�the�opposite�meaning�‘forget’�is�conceptualized�as�a�possessive�situation�much�more�rarely,�since�the�construc-tion�which�translates�as�‘go�away�from�somebody’s�heart’�is�used�only�in�two�languages�of�the�sample.�So,�experiencer�marking�with�this�verb�is�included�into�our�study.�An�ex-ample�of�an�external�possessive�construction�from�Andi�is�shown�in�(6),�and�an�internal�possessive�construction�from�Lezgian�is�shown�in�(7):

� (6)� Di-č’u hono-w hek’a rok’o-lla.I-cont�this-m� person�heart-super‘I�remember�this�person.’�(lit.�‘I�have�this�person�on�heart.’)

Page 4: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

1�2 Dmitry�Ganenkov

� (7)� I mani-di-n gaf-ar zi rik’e–l-aj fe-na.this�song-obl-gen�word-pl�my�heart-super-el�go-pst‘I�forgot�the�words�of�this�song.’�(lit.�‘The�words�of�this�song�went�away�from�my�heart.’)

Verbs�of�thinking�are�also�excluded�from�this�study,�since�in�all�languages�of�the�sample�they�either�employ�one�of�the�canonical�patterns�(transitive�in�Lezgian�and�Chechen,�intransitive�in�most�other�languages,�e.g.�Andi�and�Archi)�or�use�an�external�possessive�construction�(as�in�Chamalal).�Since�the�experiencer�of�this�verb�is�not�expressed�by�the�same�formal�means�as�experiencers�with�other�predicates,�at�least�in�Nakh-Dagh-estanian,�I�assume�that�‘think’�differs�conceptually�from�other�verbs�discussed�here,�and�hence�lies�outside�the�experiencer�domain.� Finally,�verbs�of�causation�of�emotion,�such�as�‘frighten’,�‘annoy’�etc.,�are�also�absent.�Verb�meanings�of�this�sort�are�not�easily�identifiable�in�the�languages�of�the�sample.�In�any�case,�most�of�these�verbs�always�use�canonical�constructions�to�encode�the�experi-encer�role�(using�either�nominative�marking�or�a�causative�construction).�The�final�list�of�verbs�considered� in� this�paper� is�presented� in�Table�2�(although�some�argument-marking�patterns�are�lacking�for�some�languages).

Table 2.� The�20�verbs�examined�in�the�paper

1. ‘see’ � 8. ‘like/love’ 15. ‘can�(=�know�how)’2. ‘hear’ � 9. ‘want’ 16. ‘be�able’3. ‘show’ 10. ‘hate’ 17. ‘feel�cold’4. ‘find’ 11. ‘be�boring’ 18. ‘be�afraid’5. ‘know’ 12. ‘suffice’ 19. ‘give’6. ‘understand’ 13. ‘need’ 20. ‘seem’7. ‘forget’ 14. ‘be�difficult’

2.2� Three�classes�of�experiencers�and�experiencer�verbs

In�this�section�I�propose�a�semantic�classification�of�the�experiencer�verbs.�This�classi-fication�is�built�on�formal�distinctions�in�expressing�the�experiencer�argument�of�the�verbs.�As� is�often�assumed,� the�coincidence�of� linguistic� form�reflects� the�conceptu-al�similarity�of�meanings�expressed�by�this�form.�The�more�often�cross-linguistically�meanings�are�expressed�by�the�same�linguistic�form,�the�closer�semantically�they�are.The�analysis�of�the�formal�means�of�encoding�experiencers�in�the�Nakh-Daghestanian�languages�allows�us�to�distinguish�three�types�of�experiencers:

1.� �Perceptional:�core�experiencers�that�appear�with�perception�verbs�(‘see’,�‘hear’)�and�verbs�of�mental�state�(‘know’);

2.� �Recipiential:�recipient-like�experiencers�that�are�typically�expressed�in�the�same�way�as�recipient�and�appear�with�verbs�of�volition�(‘want’),�emotional�states�(‘love/like’,�‘hate’,�‘be�boring’)�and�the�predicate�‘be�difficult�(=experience�difficulties�with)’,�as�in�It was difficult�for�me to catch up with him;

Page 5: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

� Experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian� 1�3

3.� �Involuntary:�‘involuntary�agent’-like�experiencers�that�are�typically�expressed�in�the�same�way�as�involuntary�agents�and�appear�with�three�verbs�of�the�sample,�‘be�able’,�‘find’,�and�‘forget’.

Below�we�consider�the�three�classes�of�verbs�in�more�detail.

2.2.1� Perceptional classThe�core�of� the�perceptional� class�consists�of� two�predicates�of�perception�(‘see’�and�‘hear’).�The�class�often�also�includes�the�causative�‘show’�and�some�mental�state�verbs�such�as�‘know’,�‘understand’,�‘forget’,�‘seem’,�‘can�(=know�how)’,�‘be�able’,�and�‘find’.�This�means�that�in�a�considerable�part�of�my�sample�these�verbs�encode�the�experiencer�role�with�the�same�marker�as�the�verbs�‘see’�and�‘hear’.�Note�that�we�distinguish�the�percep-tional�cluster�not�on�purely�semantic�grounds,�but�taking�into�account�formal�distinc-tions,�since�in�all�cases�when�we�say�that�the�experiencer�marking�of�a�verb�is�identical�to�the�marking�of�the�experiencer�of�‘see’,�we�mean�that�the�recipient�and�the�experi-encer�of�‘see’�are�coded�separately.�The�languages�where�the�experiencer�of�‘see’�and�the�recipient�of�‘give’�are�coded�in�the�same�way�simply�do�not�make�a�distinction�between�the�perceptional�and�recipiential�(see�below)�clusters�and�thus�are�not�taken�into�con-sideration�in�classifying�experiencer�constructions.� In�all�languages�of�the�sample,�the�two�perception�verbs�and�the�mental�state�verb�‘know’�express�their�experiencers�with�the�same�marker.�Consider�for�example�the�va-lence�patterns�of�these�verbs�in�Bagwalal�presented�in�(8)�(Daniel�2001:�215).

� (8)� a.� hã�‘see’� <Experiencer:�Affective;�Stimulus:�Nominative>b.� ãhã�‘hear’� <Experiencer:�Affective;�Stimulus:�Nominative>c.� bija�‘know’� <Experiencer:�Affective;�Stimulus:�Nominative>

Other�predicates�in�this�group�usually,�but�not�always,�mark�their�experiencers�with�the�same�case�affix.�For�example,�the�verb�‘forget’�shows�this�pattern�in�twelve�of�the�eight-een�languages,�while�four�languages�use�another�marker�(the�remaining�two�languages�use�possessive�constructions).�Semantically�the�perceptional�cluster�is�quite�transpar-ent�in�the�sense�that�the�semantic� links�between�the�verbs�seem�to�be�obvious.�It� is�plausible�that,�diachronically,�the�marking�specific�to�the�perceptional�cluster�expand-ed�from�the�perceptional�predicates�sensu stricto�(‘see’�and�‘hear’).� Two�kinds�of�motivation�for�this�semantic�and�diachronic�development�can�be�sug-gested.�Extension�by�analogy�can�be�assumed�for�those�verbs�that�have�a�semantic�com-ponent�in�common,�or�cases�where�one�verb�is�derived�from�another�by�adding�a�new�semantic�component.�This�motivation�underlies�the�semantic�development�of�the�ex-periencer�coding�for�the�verbs�‘see’�and�‘hear’�that�have�a�common�semantic�component�of�passive�perception�(as�opposed�to�active�perception�such�as�in�‘look’�and�‘listen’).�The�experiencer�of�‘show’�borrows�its�marking�from�the�experiencer�of�‘see’,�as�the�former�is�semantically�derived�by�adding�a�causative�component�to�the�meaning�of�‘see’.�(In�some�languages�this�derivation�is�also�present�at�the�morphological�level;�cf.�Godoberi�haʔ-ali�‘show’,�lit.�‘see-caus’).

Page 6: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

1�4 Dmitry�Ganenkov

� The�second�possible� semantic�motivation� is� a�metaphoric� shift� from�one�concep-tual�domain,�the�source�domain,�to�another�(target)�domain.�In�this�case�some�more�abstract�target�domain�is�conceptualized�in�terms�of�a�more�concrete�source�domain.�Thus,�treating�the�verbs�of�mental�state�together�with�the�verbs�of�perception�can�be�considered�the�result�of�a�conceptual�shift�from�the�perceptual�domain�to�the�mental�domain.�Some�mental�state�verbs,�namely� ‘know’,� ‘understand’,�and�‘seem’,�arguably�derive�immediately�from�‘see’.�Presumably,�this�shift�becomes�possible�by�conceptual-izing�these�situations�in�terms�of�visual�perception.�The�meaning�of�the�verb�‘seem’�is�also�close�to�the�domain�of�visual�perception�—�‘If�it�seems�to�me�that�something�hap-pens,�then�I�mentally�see�it’.�The�cognitive�proximity�of�these�senses�(i.e.�‘see’�~�‘know’,�‘understand’,�and�‘seem’)�is�also�manifested�in�the�frequency�of�polysemy�between�these�senses,�both�cross-linguistically�(cf.�English�verb�see)�and�in�Nakh-Daghestanian.�For�instance,�the�Agul�verb�agas�means�both�‘see’�and�‘seem’�(9)�depending�on�the�wider�context:

� (9)� Za-s we ruš qaj-na agu-ne.I-dat�your�daughter�return-con�see-pst‘I�saw�that�your�daughter�had�returned.’�or‘It�seemed�to�me�that�your�daughter�had�returned.’

In�other�contexts�the�same�Agul�verb�means�‘understand’�(an�inference�from�visual�per-ception):

� (10)� Za-s we ruš-a kitab ruXa–f agu-ne.I-dat�your�daughter-erg�book�read-part�see-pst‘I�understood�that�your�daughter�would�read�the�book�(from�how�she�be-haved).’

The�verb�‘find’�also�borrows�its�argument-marking�pattern�from�‘see’.�The�motivation�for�this�development�is�obvious.�The�situation�of�finding�something�is�readily�interpret-ed�as�if�one�has�seen�something�accidentally�or�unexpectedly.�If�one�‘finds’�something�after�having�looked�for�it�a�standard�ergative�marker�is�often�used.The�rest�of�the�mental�state�verbs�discussed�here�(i.e.�‘forget’�and�‘can�(=know�how)’)�are�connected�with�the�perceptional�domain�indirectly,�through�the�sense�of�‘know’.�Here,�the�first�kind�of�semantic�motivation�—�metonymic�extension�—�comes�into�play�again.The�semantic�association�of�‘can�(=know�how)’�with�‘know’�is�well�manifested�in�many�European�languages.�In�Bulgarian�(11),�znam�‘(I)�know’�is�used�for�‘can�(=know�how)’:

� (11)� Zna-m da pluva-m.know-1sg�subj�swim-1sg‘I�can�swim.’

The�same�holds�true�for�the�Nakh-Daghestanian�languages,�cf.�the�following�examples�from�Karata:

Page 7: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

� Experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian� 1�5

� (12)� Dja bii-dja di-w wači w-oã-łer.I.dat�know-prs�my-m�brother�m-go-that‘I�know�that�my�brother�has�gone.’

� (13)� Dja bii-dja kalč’aa-ła.I.dat�know-prs�swim-inf‘I�can�swim.’

The�experiencer�of�‘can�(=know�how)’�may�further�serve�as�a�source�domain�and�shift�to�the�experiencer�of�‘be�able’,�so�that�a�grammaticalization�chain�‘know�—�can�(=know�how)�—�be�able’�arises.�Indeed,�the�development�from�‘know’�to�participant-internal�possibility� (I can eat 5 hamburgers at one sitting)� through� learned�participant-inter-nal�possibility�(cf.�Je sais nager�‘I�can�swim’,�where�the�French�savoir�‘know’�is�used)�is�common�in�the�history�of�mental�state�predicates�(see�van�der�Auwera�and�Plungian�1998:�88–9,�92,�Bybee�et�al.�1994:�187–90).� The�verb�‘forget’�is�another�instance�of�development�by�adding�a�semantic�compon-ent�to�the�meaning�of�a�source�verb.�In�this�case�the�added�component�is�negation,�and�‘forget’�is�interpreted�as�‘not�to�know�(any�more)’.�Thus,�‘forget’�is�the�counterpart�to�‘know’�rather�than�to�‘remember’,�which�does�not�belong�to�this�cluster�or,�at�least,�be-longs�to�its�periphery.

2.2.2� Recipiential classThe�second�cluster�of�experiencer�verbs�consists�of�those�verbs�that�most�often�encode�their�experiencer�arguments�by�a�dative�marker�(i.e.�the�same�marker�as�that�of�the�typ-ical�non-agentive�animate�argument�of�‘give’).�Below,�this�class�will�be�referred�to�as�the�recipiential cluster.�As�in�2.2.1,�we�should�note�that�the�experiencer�marking�of�a�verb�is�considered�identical�to�the�marking�of�the�recipient�only�for�those�languages�that�dis-tinguish�between�the�perceptional�and�recipiential�clusters,�i.e.�if�the�recipient�and�the�experiencer�of�‘see’�are�coded�separately.� Within� the� recipiential� cluster� one� can� distinguish� between� three� sub-groups� de-pending�on�how�frequently�the�marking�appears�with�the�recipient�pattern.�The�first�group�includes�those�predicates�that�mark�experiencers�with�the�dative�in�all�languages�of�the�sample.�These�are�‘need’,�‘suffice’,�and�‘be�difficult�(=experience�difficulties)’.�The�examples�in�(14)–(16)�are�from�Karata.

� (14)� Dja ʕarse q’ora idja.I.dat�money�need�cop‘I�need�money.’

� (15)� Dja beʔũ bešãda Ruruš.I.dat�suffice�hundred�rouble‘Hundred�roubles�is�enough�for�me.’

Page 8: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

1�6 Dmitry�Ganenkov

� (16)� Dj a zaHmatob idj a rahada herč’a-ła.I.dat�difficult� cop�early� wake.up-inf‘It’s�difficult�for�me�to�wake�up�early�(in�the�morning).’

The�next�group�includes�‘want’,�‘like/love’,�‘hate’,�and�‘be�boring’,�which�encode�the�ex-periencer�with�the�dative�marker�in�all�languages�except�Andi�(where�the�experiencers�of�these�verbs�are�expressed�by�the�affective�case�and�thus�pattern�with�the�perceptional�cluster).�Compare�examples�(17)–(19)�from�Chamalal:

� (17)� Du-ła buq’u–d idak’a ehi jik’ula?you.sg-dat�want-conv�aux� at.home�cop‘Do�you�want�to�stay�at�home?’

� (18)� Di-ła idal-ede aj mač’.I-dat�love-prs�this.f�girl‘I�love�this�girl.’

� (19)� Di-ła mi č’alʕã.I-dat�you.sg�be.boring.pst‘I’m�fed�up�with�you.’

Last�come�the�verbs�that�often,�but�by�no�means�always,�express�the�experiencer�role�with�the�dative.�These�are�‘find’,�‘feel�cold’,�and�‘be�afraid’.� Interestingly,�from�this�analysis�of�the�recipiential�cluster�two�other�coding�patterns�general�to�Nakh-Daghestanian�emerge:�the�‘need’-‘suffice’-‘be�difficult’�group�(hence-forth�the�‘need’�subgroup)�and�the�‘want’-‘like’-‘hate’-‘be.boring’�group�(henceforth�the�‘want’�subgroup).�Both�the�‘need’�subgroup�and�the�‘want’�subgroup�are�semantically�homogeneous,�and�the�links�with�the�recipient�are�quite�obvious.� For�example,�the�sense�‘need’�is�opposite�to�‘suffice’�(‘If�I�have�enough�of�something,�then�I�do�not�need�it’),�so�it�seems�rather�natural�to�treat�them�together�and�code�their�experiencers�in�the�same�way.�The�experiencers�of�these�verbs,�on�the�one�hand,�and�the�recipient,�on�the�other,�are�connected�through�the�concept�of�receiving.�For�example,�the�experiencer�of�‘need’�is�presented�as�a�participant�who�wants�to�receive�something�or,�in�other�words,�be�given�something.� The�verbs�of�the�second�subgroup�can�be�referred�to�as�emotional attitude verbs.�The�meanings�of�these�predicates�are�closely�related�to�each�other.�Thus,�‘hate’�and�‘be�bor-ing’�are�semantically�derived�from�‘like’�by�adding�a�component�of�negation,�while�the�close�connection�between� ‘want’� and� ‘like’� is� shown�by� the� fact� that� they�are�gener-ally� expressed� by� the� same� verb� in� Nakh-Daghestanian� languages.� Kibrik� and� Kod-zasov�(1988:�175)�suggest�that�this�polysemy�is�present�in�all�Daghestanian�languages�(although�some�languages�also�possess�a�distinct�predicate�for�‘like’;�e.g.�Bagwalal).�Not-ably,�it�is�not�unfamiliar�to�European�languages�either.�The�Spanish�verbs�querer�and�the�Macedonian�verb�saka�are�ambiguous�in�the�same�way.� The�experiencers�of�emotional�attitude�verbs�are�arguably�not�related�to�the�recipi-ent�directly�(i.e.�there�are�no�obvious�links�between�these�verbs�and�the�recipient),�but�

Page 9: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

� Experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian� 1�7

through�another� sub-group�of�experiencers,� the� ‘need’� sub-group.� ‘Need’�and� ‘want’�have�much�in�common.�The�meaning�of�the�verb�‘need’�contains�a�semantic�component�of�wish�—�‘If�I�need�something,�then�I�want�to�get�it’.�Presumably,�it�is�this�component�that�allows�such�verbs�as�‘need’�to�govern�the�same�marker�on�the�experiencer�as�‘want’�(note�that�the�diachronic�development�goes�from�‘want’�to�‘need’,�and�not�the�other�way�round�-�see�below).�Moreover,�some�languages�(Karata,�Lezgian,�Tsez)�demonstrate�the�‘want’�—�‘need’�polysemy,�thus�corroborating�our�hypothesis.� Thus,�during�the�semantic�evolution�of�these�verbs,�the�‘need’�sub-group�is�a�media-tor�between�recipients�and�experiencers�of�the�‘want’�sub-group,�since�‘need’�experi-encers�may�be�conceptualized�in�two�different�(though�not�mutually�exclusive)�ways.�On�the�one�hand,�the�experiencer�of�‘need’�is�a�participant�who�wants�to�get�something�(at�the�present�moment)�and,�on�the�other�hand,�it�is�a�participant�who�(potentially)�will�be�given�this�object.� The�third�sub-group�in�the�recipiential�cluster�consists�of�several�semantically�isolat-ed�verbs�including�‘find’,�‘feel�cold’�and�‘be�afraid’.�Each�of�these�verbs�uses�a�coding�dif-ferent�from�‘give’�in�a�considerable�part�of�the�sample�(from�three�to�seven�languages),�but�expresses�its�experiencer�with�the�dative�marker�in�the�rest.�This�is�the�most�clear�with�‘find’.�From�the�semantic�viewpoint,�the�experiencer�of�‘find’�is�characterized�as�a�participant�who�has�just�begun�to�possess�an�object,�so�it�is�natural�to�express�him�in�the�same�way�as�a�recipient.�Therefore,�the�experiencer�of�‘find’�can�have�two�concep-tual�interpretations�—�a�participant�who�sees�something�and�a�participant�who�receives��something.� The�two�predicates� ‘feel�cold’�and� ‘be�afraid’�are�arguably�aligned�with�verbs� that�are�semantically�similar,�namely�‘be�difficult’�(psychological�state)�is�aligned�with�‘feel�cold’�(physiological�state)�and�‘like/love’�(emotional�attitude)�with�‘be�afraid’�(emotion-al�state).�Note�that�as�for�‘be�afraid’�a�non-canonical�(dative)�marking�is�attested�only�in�three�closely�genetically�related�East-Lezgic�languages�(Lezgian,�Agul,�and�Tabasaran),�as�is�illustrated�by�the�following�example�from�Tabasaran�(20),�where�the�experiencer�is�expressed�with�the�dative�and�the�stimulus�is�marked�by�a�locative�case.�In�other�lan-guages�canonical�(intransitive)�marking�is�used.

� (20)� Uzu-z Xu-jir–i–q-an guč’ura.I-dat�dog-pl-obl-post-el�be.afraid‘I�am�afraid�of�dogs.’

2.2.3� Involuntary classThe�last�experiencer�cluster�contains�verbs�that�mark�their�experiencer�as�an�involun-tary agent,�as�shown�in�(5)�from�Lezgian,�where�a�special�marker�is�used�to�show�that�an�agentive-like�participant�does�not�fully�control�the�situation.�The�involuntary�agent�construction�is�found�in�all�Daghestanian�languages�(except�for�Dargi�and�Archi�where�the�standard�transitive�pattern�is�the�only�means�of�marking�any�type�of�agent).�Nakh�languages�lack�this�distinction�altogether.�Typically,�involuntary�agents�are�marked�by�

Page 10: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

1�� Dmitry�Ganenkov

one�of�the�locative�cases�with�a�meaning�of�motion�from�a�landmark�(as�the�Lezgian�ex-ample�shows).�Bagwalal�and�Lak�possess�a�special�case�marker�for�this�semantic�role.�(This�marker�is�also�used�in�the�valence�patterns�of�several�verbs�like�‘take�from’,�but�its�main�function�is�to�mark�involuntary�agents.)� It�is�important�to�note�that�the�involuntary�cluster�exists�only�in�Lezgic�languages;�other�Daghestanian�languages�use�the�involuntary�agent�marking�only�for�‘be�able’.�In�Lezgic,�however,�the�cluster�includes�the�verbs�‘be�able’,�‘find’,�and�‘forget’.�(21)�shows�the�valence�patterns�of�these�verbs�in�Tsakhur,�as�reported�in�Kibrik�(1999:�352):

� (21)� aIXas�‘be�able’� <Experiencer:�Ad-elative>awajkes�‘find’� <Experiencer:�Ad-elative>k’eliXanas�‘forget’� <Experiencer:�Ad-elative>

What�all�of�these�verbs�have�in�common�is�that�the�result�of�the�situations�described�de-pends�only�in�part�on�the�participant’s�will�and�does�not�at�all�depend�on�his�efforts.�It�is�not�unusual�for�some�of�these�verbs�to�be�aligned�with�another�cluster�(most�often,�the�perceptional�cluster).�The�most�stable�member�of�the�involuntary�agent�cluster�is�the�verb�‘be�able,’�which�marks�its�actor�similarly�to�involuntary�agents�in�half�of�the�languages�in�my�sample.�(The�other�half�places�this�verb�in�the�perceptional�cluster�or�aligns�it�with�the�standard�agent.)�It�is�easy�to�account�for�this�stability:�what�this�verb�refers�to�is�an�uncontrolled�situation�which�does�not�depend�on�a�participant’s�efforts.� In�some�languages�there�are�two�ways�of�marking�the�actor�of�‘be�able’�—�the�‘per-ceptional’�marking�and�the� ‘involuntary’�marking.�The�first�way�is�much�more�com-mon.�The�second�way�is�typically�related�to�a�subject�that�tries�to�do�something�for�a�period�of�time�and�finally�(often�unexpectedly�to�himself)�achieves�his�goal�(cf.�Daniel�2001:�217).� The�division�of�experiencer�verbs�into�the�three�large�clusters�proposed�here�is�a�re-sult�of�a�cross-linguistic�comparison�within�a�group�of�closely�related�languages.�Of�course,�this�division�is�not�necessarily�formally�encoded�in�all�languages�of�the�sample,�since�each�individual�language�may�have�a�reduced�scheme�conflating�some�(or�all)�of�these�clusters.�Accordingly,�we�may�classify�the�languages�of�the�sample�according�to�how�many�classes�of�experiencer�verbs�are�distinguished�by�formal�means�(excluding�canonical�and�possessive�constructions):

1.� �The�first�group�includes�those�languages�that�do�not�formally�distinguish�different�types�of�experiencers.�These�are�Ingush�and�Karata.

2.� �The�second�group�of�languages�consists�of�Agul,�Akhvakh,�Archi,�Chechen,�Lezgian,�Lak,�Tabasaran�and�Tsez�where�different�kinds�of�experiencers�are�not�distinguished,�except�for�the�experiencer�of�‘be�able’,�which�is�coded�identically�to�an�involuntary�agent.

3.� �The�third�group�includes�Andi,�Chamalal,�Godoberi,�Avar,�Akusha�Dargi,�where�just�two�types�of�experiencer�are�distinguished,�these�are�the�perceptional/involuntary�cluster�and�the�recipiential�cluster.

Page 11: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

� Experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian� 1�9

4.� �The�last�group�distinguishes�all�three�clusters�forming�an�opposition�between�per-ceptional,�recipiential�and�involuntary�experiencers.�This�group�includes�Bagwalal,�Tsakhur�and�the�Icari�dialect�of�Dargi.�Of�course,�verbs�included�in�the�clusters�may�to�a�certain�extent�vary�from�language�to�language.�For�example,�in�Tsakhur�and�Icari�the�involuntary�cluster�includes�‘be�able’,�‘forget’�and�‘find’,�while�in�Bagwalal�it�con-sists�of�only�the�verb�‘be�able’.

To�sum�up,�this�study�distinguished�three�clusters�of�coding�patterns�for�experiencer�verbs:� perceptional� experiencers,� recipiential� experiencers,� and� ‘involuntary’� experi-encers.�We�have�shown�relations�among�the�verbs�within�these�clusters�and�intercon-nections�between�the�clusters�themselves.�Two�mechanisms�were�posited�to�explain�the�semantic�derivation�from�one�group�of�verbs�to�another�—�metaphoric�shift�and�exten-sion�by�analogy.�The�first�of�these�mechanisms�is�a�shift�from�one�conceptual�domain�to�another�(in�our�case�from�perceptual�to�mental�and�emotional�predicates);�it�is�made�possible�by�a�metaphoric�interpretation�of�the�mental�domain�in�terms�of�less�abstract�perception�predicates.�The�second�mechanism�expands�the�scope�of�a�marker�within�the�same�conceptual�domain�due�to�the�presence�of� identical�components�in�verbal�meaning.� The�next�section�outlines�the�semantic�evolution�of�experiencer�marking�by�analyz-ing�the�use�of�cognate�markers�in�different�languages�of�the�family.

3.� Diachronic�origin�and�semantic�evolution�of�experiencer�marking

Another�aspect�of�experiencer�marking�in�Nakh-Daghestanian�is�its�diachronic�origins�and�semantic�development.�Of�all�the�languages�of�the�family,�a�reliable�reconstruction�of�experiencer�markers�is�possible�only�for�Andic,�Avar�and�possibly�Tsakhur,�and�in�all�cases�the�experiencer�marker�ultimately�derives�from�a�spatial�meaning.

3.1 Spatial sources of experiencer markers

All�basic�spatial�meanings�(allative,�locative�and�ablative)�are�attested�as�giving�rise�to�experiencer�markers.�The�most�frequent�source�is�allative�developing�into�an�affective�case�marker�(i.e.�a�distinct�case�marker�for�experiencers�with�some�verbs,�mostly�per-ception�predicates).�This�evolution�is�typical�of�Andic�languages,�where�at�least�two�dif-ferent�allative�markers�developed�into�experiencer�markers.�In�most�Andic�languages�(Andi,�Bagwalal,�Godoberi,�and�the�Gigatli�dialect�of�Chamalal)�the�affective�case�em-ploys�the�reflexes�of�the�Proto-Andic�affix�*-cl-o�(Alekseev�1988:�83)�where�‘cl’�stands�for�class�agreement.�All�these�languages�have�now�lost�the�allative�use�of�the�marker;�the�only�exception�is�Bagwalal�where�this�marker�is�still�used�to�form�allatives�for�sev-eral�local�place�names�and�in�spatial�adverbs�(Daniel�2002:�159).� Chamalal�(excluding�the�Gigatli�dialect)�lost�the�Proto-Andic�affix�*-cl-o�altogether�

Page 12: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

190 Dmitry�Ganenkov

and�currently�uses�a�different�marker� -Xe,�whose�main� function� is� to�denote�move-ment�towards�a�landmark�(22),�but�with�some�verbs�it�also�expresses�the�experiencer�role�(23):

� (22)� Ĩc-da-X–e w-uR de: o-w.spring-obl-ad-all�m-send.pst�I.erg�this-m‘I�send�him�to�the�spring.’

� (23)� Di-X-e haʔa di-w ima.I-ad-all�see.pst�I-m� father‘I�saw�my�father.’

In�Avar,�experiencer�functions�developed�from�the�locative.�The�marker�-da�normally�expresses�location�on�the�(upper)�surface�of�a�landmark�(24);�but�is�also�used�for�mark-ing�some�experiencers�(25):

� (24)� Stol-al-da t’ex b-ugo.table-obl-super�book�n-cop‘There�is�a�book�on�the�table.’

� (25)� Di-da do-b ric ’a-na.I-super�this-n�understand-pst‘I�understood�it�(this�word).’

Finally,� in�Tsakhur�ablative�has�become�a�means�to�mark�experiencers.�This�is�most�clear�in�the�Sabunchi�dialect�of�Tsakhur,�where�a�super-elative�affix�-le�(denoting�mo-tion� from� the� upper� surface� of� a� landmark)� marks� experiencers� of� ‘see’,� ‘hear’,� and�‘know’�(Talibov�1979:�13).�In�other�Tsakhur�dialects�the�situation�is�obscured�by�the�fact�that�the�affective�case�marker�-k’le�is�not�formally�identical�to�the�super-elative�marker�

-le.�Historically,�however,�the�affective�case�marker�is�likely�to�be�derived�from�the�super-elative�morpheme.� Another� possible� explanation� is� that� originally� there� were� two� different� markers,�namely�experiential�-k’le�and�spatial�-le�(this�is�the�actual�situation�in�most�of�the�dia-lects).�In�the�Sabunchi�dialect,�then,�these�two�markers�merged,�and�the�spatial�affix�-le�has�been�preserved.�An�additional�argument�in�favour�of�this�hypothesis�comes�from�the�Mikik�dialect,�where�both�forms�are�present,�but�the�super-elative�can�be�substitut-ed�for�the�affective�marker�-k’le�in�all�contexts�(Gal’perina�1973:�42–4).

3.2� Semantic�development�of�experiencer�markers

The�present�analysis�of�diachronic�evolution�of�the�experiencer�marker�is�based�primar-ily�on�the�data�from�Andic�languages.�These�data�are�convenient�because�the�Andic�lan-guages�possess�a�set�of�relevant�markers�that�indisputably�derive�from�one�proto-Andic�suffix�*-cl-o.�Table�3�shows�its�reflexes�in�four�Andic�languages�and�provides�a�list�of�ex-periencer�uses�for�each�language.

Page 13: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

� Experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian� 191

Table 3.� Reflexes�of�Proto-Andic�*-cl-o�and�their�experiencer�uses

Language Marker Uses with verbs

Andi -cl-o ‘see’,�‘hear’,�‘show’,�‘know’,�‘forget’,�‘understand’,�‘seem’,�‘can�(=know�how)’,�‘be�able’,�‘find’,�‘want’,�‘like/love’,�‘hate’,�‘be�boring’

Bagwalal -ba ‘see’,�‘hear’,�‘show’,�‘know’,�‘forget’,�‘understand’,�‘seem’,�‘can�(=know�how)’,�‘be�able’,�‘find’

Godoberi -ra ‘see’,�‘hear’,�‘know’,�‘forget’

Karata -ja/-wa ‘see’,�‘hear’,�‘show’,�‘know’,�‘forget’,�‘understand’,�‘seem’,�‘can�(=know�how)’,�‘be�able’,�‘find’,�‘want’,�‘like/love’,�‘hate’,�‘be�boring’,�‘need’,�‘suffice’,�‘be�difficult’,�‘give’

As�Table�3�shows,�the�scope�of�these�cognate�morphemes�varies�a�lot.�The�use�of�the�cor-responding�marker�is�the�most�limited�in�Godoberi�where�only�four�experiencer�verbs�allow�it�(Godoberi�‘forget’�can�also�mark�its�experiencer�with�a�marker�denoting�loca-tion�in�contact�with�a�landmark).�The�next�is�Bagwalal�with�ten�verbs�governing�forms�with�-ba.�The�cognate�found�in�Andi�has�a�much�wider�range�of�use.�Finally,�in�Karata�almost�all�the�experiencer�verbs�we�have�been�looking�at�are�found�with�a�cognate�form.�Note�that�-ja/-wa�has�also�become�the�dative�marker�in�Karata,�replacing�the�Proto-An-dic�dative�marker�*-La�(Alekseev�1988:�81–2).� We�may�suspect�that�the�reflexes�of�Proto-Andic�*-cl-o�in�different�Andic�languages�show�different�stages�of�semantic�evolution.�The�problem�is�which�of�the�verb�frames�represents�the�first�step�of�this�development,�and�is�thus�most�directly�connected�to�the�original�spatial�meaning.�Since�Bagwalal�is�the�only�language�that�preserves�the�spa-tial�meaning�of�the�marker,�it�would�be�plausible�to�assume�that�the�verb�that�is�closest�to�the�spatial�domain�should�be�one�of�the�verbs�that�code�their�experiencers�with�-ba�in�Bagwalal.�To�comply�with�the�adjacency�requirement,�we�should�assume�that�the�semantic�evolution�starts�from�the�perceptional�cluster�(the�semantic-map�method�is�discussed�in�Haspelmath�(2003)�and�in�van�der�Auwera�and�Plungian�(1998)�in�more�detail).�Similarly,�applying�the�adjacency�requirement,�we�transform�the�grouping�of�the�predicates�in�Table�3�above�into�the�following�scheme�representing�the�functional�spread�of�the�markers�under�discussion:

� allative� >� ‘see’� >� ‘show’� >� ‘want’� >� ‘need’� � � ‘hear’� � ‘understand’� � ‘like/love’� � ‘suffice’� � � ‘know’� � ‘seem’� � ‘hate’� � ‘be�difficult’� � � ‘forget’� � ‘know�how’� � ‘be�boring’�� ‘give’� � � � � ‘be�able’� � � � � ‘find’

I�do�not�claim�that�this�scheme�reproduces�the�actual�expansion�of�experiencer�mark-ers�over� time.�Rather,�by�using� the�adjacency�principle,�we�exclude� some�evolution�paths�that�are�implausible�from�the�given�distribution�of�markers.�However,�in�order�

Page 14: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

192 Dmitry�Ganenkov

to�choose�among�the�remaining�paths�we�must�examine�the�semantic�relationships�be-tween�the�predicates.� It�was�shown�above�that�the�verbs�of�the�third�and�the�fourth�column�(‘show’�and�‘want’)�are�semantically�related�to�the�verb�‘see’�(or�‘know’),�and�hence�to�the�other�verbs�in�the�second�column.�Therefore,�in�a�hypothetical�semantic�map�these�verbs�should�be�adjacent�to�the�‘see’�group.�Unlike�the�other�groups,�the�‘show’�group�does�not�be-have�as�a�homogenous�class;�i.e.�it�is�possible�that�some�of�these�verbs�encode�the�ex-periencer�with�allative,�while�others�use�a�different�affix.�This�is�possible�because�these�meanings�develop�independently�from�the�same�source�(from�the�experiencers�of�‘see’�or�‘know’).� Now,�let�us�consider�the�case�of� ‘show’.�It�is�noteworthy�that�the�allative�develops�into�the�marker�of�the�experiencer�of�‘show’�independently�of�its�development�into�the�marker�of�the�experiencer�of�‘see’,�although�the�presence�of�a�common�semantic�com-ponent�may�also�support�these�changes.�Compare�Figure�1.� If�we�look�at�other�possible�sources�of�experiencer�markers�in�Nakh-Daghestanian�languages,�we�will�find�that�none�of�them�contradict�this�semantic�map.�Thus,�Avar,�fea-turing�the�locative�source�of�experiencer�marker,�meets�all�constraints�of�the�map.�Fur-ther,�although�an�ablative�source�for�experiencer�coding�(as�in�Tsakhur)�is�located�at�the�other�end�of�the�map,�the�distribution�of�marking�does�not�contradict�the�map.In�the�semantic�analysis�presented�above�we�came�to�the�conclusion�that�‘understand’�and�similar�verbs�do�not�represent�intermediate�stages�of�development�between�the�‘see’�and�‘want’�groups.�Yet,�in�virtually�all�languages�where�the�verbs�of�the�recipien-tial�cluster�express�the�experiencer�in�the�same�way�as�‘see’,�the�same�marker�is�used�by�verbs�like�‘seem’�or�‘understand’.�A�possible�explanation�would�be�that�‘seem’�and�

show

understand

motion�to/location�at

seehear

know

know�how

seem

forget

be�able

Recipient

Agent

motion�from

find

Involuntaryagent

wantlike/love

hatebe�boring

sufficeneed

be�difficult

Figure 1.� A�semantic�map�of�experiencer�and�related�functions�(here�and�elsewhere�the�verb�actually�stands�for�the�experiencer�of�that�verb)

Page 15: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

� Experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian� 193

similar�verbs�are�extremely�close�to�the�perceptual�domain,�so�that�when�the�semantic�development�expands�to�the�‘want’�group,�which�is�farther�from�‘see’,�the�verbs�imme-diately�connected�with�‘see’�are�likely�to�be�included�in�the�scope�of�this�expanding�ex-periencer�marking.� With�these�assumptions,�the�data�of�all�languages�in�the�sample�perfectly�fit�in�the�map�in�Figure�1,�which�in�fact�suggests�various�hypotheses�about�possible�and�impos-sible�combinations�in�experiencer�marking.� Two�examples�from�Dargi�dialects�will�illustrate�how�this�map�works.�The�first�ex-ample�comes�from�Akusha�Dargi�(which�is�close�to�Standard�Dargi),�where�just�two�markers�(ergative�and�dative)�cover�most�of�the�map�(cf.�Figure�2).�The�ergative�is�used�with�‘see’,�‘hear’,�‘know’,�‘forget’,�‘understand’,�‘can�(=know�how)’,�‘be�able’,�and�‘find’,�while� the�rest�of� the�verbs�discussed�here�govern� the�dative.� (The�only�exception� is�the�verb� ‘show’,�which�governs� the� in-allative.)�Diachronically,� the�dative�marker�-s�is�assumed�to�have�developed�from�the�in-allative�marker�-zi�(motion�to�the�inner�re-gion).�The�semantic�evolution�may�then�be�reconstructed�as� follows:�first,� the� in-al-lative�marker�began�to�encode�experiencers�with�‘see’,�‘hear’,�and�‘know’;�then�it�con-tinued�to�gradually�penetrate�‘deeper’�into�the�experiencer�domain�(the�experiencers�of�‘understand’,�‘want’,�‘need’�and,�finally,�recipient)�and�at�a�certain�moment�it�lost�its�spatial�uses�and�became�a�dative�marker�(along�with�several�phonetic�changes).�The�se-mantic�contiguity�was�destroyed�and�an�ergative�marker�began�its�expansion�into�the�experiencer�sphere.�This�expansion�first�of�all�concerned�‘be�able’,� ‘find’,�and�‘forget’,�which�aligned�their�experiencer�marking�with�involuntary�agent�constructions�(given�that�the�involuntary�agent�certainly�is�very�close�to�the�typical�agent).�The�penetration�of�the�ergative�into�the�experiencer�domain�arguably�triggered�the�process�of�syntac-tic�generalization,�and�a�number�of�other�verbs�turned�into�ordinary�transitive�verbs.�Only�the�verb�‘show’�has�preserved�its�original�marking,�presumably�because�it�already�had�an�ergative�agent�and�could�not�align�an�experiencer�marker�with�the�ergative�pat-tern.�(Note�that�it�uses�a�current�phonetic�form�-zi�(in-allative)�rather�than�switching�to�the�reduced�form�-s�(dative),�since�the�latter�situation�might�violate�the�adjacency�requirement.)� One�might�expect�that�this�process�of�shifting�to�the�standard�transitive�construc-tions�will�continue.�The�distribution�of�the�ergative�and�the�dative�in�Akusha�Dargi�is�shown�in�Figure�2.� The�second�example�is�taken�from�the�Icari�dialect�of�Dargi,�which�diverges�signifi-cantly�from�Standard�Dargi�(cf.�Figure�3).�The�dialect�arguably�presents�an�earlier�stage�of�the�semantic�evolution�of�experiencer�marking.�Similar�to�Akusha�Dargi,�Icari�has�two� markers� for� experiencers�—�ergative� and� super-allative� (motion� to� the� surface).�The�distribution�of�the�markers�is�as�follows:�the�verbs�‘see’,�‘hear’,�‘know’,�‘forget’,�‘un-derstand’,�‘can�(=know�how)’,�‘be�able’,�‘find’�code�the�experiencers�with�the�ergative,�while�the�rest�employ�the�super-allative�(again,�with�the�exception�of�‘show’�which�uses�the�in-allative�just�like�in�the�Akusha�dialect).�The�distribution�is�therefore�quite�close�to�that�of�the�Akusha�Dargi,�the�only�difference�being�that�instead�of�the�dative�mark-

Page 16: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

194 Dmitry�Ganenkov

er�Icari�uses�the�super-allative.�This�would�seem�to�violate�the�adjacency�requirement,�since�the�spatial�meaning�and�the�recipient�role�turn�out�to�be�expressed�by�the�same�marker,�while� ‘see’,�which�is�placed�between�them�in�Figure�1,�codes�its�experiencer�with�another�marker.�But,�four�verbs�(‘see’,�‘hear’,�‘know’,�and�‘understand’)�optionally�allow�the�super-allative�marking�on�a�par�with�the�ergative�marking.�Consequently,�we�really�have�three�groups�of�verbs:�ergative�only�(‘be�able’,�‘can�(=know�how)’,�‘find’,�‘for-get’,�note�that�they�all�belong�to�the�involuntary�cluster�discussed�above),�ergative�~�su-per-allative�in�variation,�and�super-allative�only.�So�the�adjacency�rule�really�holds�true:�the�ergative�expansion�started�from�the�periphery�of�this�functional�domain�(agent�or�

show

understand

motion�to/location�at

seehear

know

know�how

seem

forget

be�able

Recipient

Agent

motion�from

find

Involuntaryagent

wantlike/love

hatebe�boring

sufficeneed

be�difficult

Figure 2.� �The�distribution�of�ergative�and�dative�in�Akusha�Dargi

ERG

DAT

Figure 3.� �The�distribution�of�ergative�and�super-allative�in�Icari

show

understand

motion�to

seehear

know

know�how

seem

forget

be�able

Recipient

Agent

motion�from

find

Involuntaryagent

wantlike/love

hatebe�boring

sufficeneed

be�difficult

ERG

SUP­ALL

Page 17: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

� Experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian� 195

agent-like�constructions)�and�then�gradually�penetrated�into�its�very�heart.�But�the�su-per-allative�coding�pattern�has�been�preserved�in�order�to�avoid�a�violation�of�semantic�contiguity.�As�soon�as�the�super-allative�marker�loses�its�spatial�meaning,�one�can�ex-pect�that�the�ergative�marking�will�become�the�only�way�to�mark�the�experiencer�with�these�verbs,�as�is�the�case�in�Akusha�Dargi.�See�Figure�3�for�the�distribution�of�the�case�markers�in�Icari.� Curiously,�the�situation�in�Icari�is�very�similar�to�Russian,�where�there�are�also�three�groups�of�verbs:

1.� �verbs�that�allow�only�nominative�marking�of�the�experiencer�—�‘be�able’,�‘can�(=know�how)’,�‘forget’,�‘find’;

2.� �verbs�that�encode�the�experiencer�either�with�nominative�or�with�dative�—�‘see’,�‘hear’,�‘understand’,�‘want’,�‘like/love’,�‘hate’�(cf.�constructions�like�ja vižu�[I�see-1sg]�versus�mne vidno�[I-dat�see-impers]);

3.� �verbs�that�code�the�experiencer�only�with�dative�—�‘be�boring’,�‘be�difficult’,�‘need’,�‘suffice’.

The�modern�Russian�dative�developed�from�the�allative,�although�the�original�spatial�meaning�is�now�lost.�Thus,�the�distribution�of�experiencer�marking�in�Russian�is� in�many�respects�similar�to�that� in�Icari:�nominative�is�governed�by�the�verbs�immedi-ately�connected�to�agentive�constructions�(involuntary�experiencers),�the�nominative–�dative�alternation�originally�located�in�the�center�(‘see’,�‘hear’,�‘understand’)�spreads�to�some�verbs�(‘want’,� ‘like/love’,� ‘hate’)�in�the�periphery�of�the�domain.�Finally,�experi-encers�that�are�closest�to�the�recipient�are�expressed�by�the�dative.�We�can�see�also�that�in�Russian�the�transitive�alignment�expanded�farther�than�in�Icari.� The�last�example�to�be�considered�here�is�Avar.�Here,�the�modern�dative�marker�-e�is�cognate�to�the�Proto-Andic�allative�*-cl-o�(see�above).�Avar�shows�the�next�step�of�the�semantic�evolution�of�experiencer�marking�after�Karata,�where�the�scope�of�this�marker�has�been�considerably�extended,�so�that�it�became�the�dative�marker�which�now�cov-ers�both� the�experiencer�domain�and�the�recipient.� In�Avar,�however,�a�new�experi-encer�marker,�the�super-essive�-da,�arises�from�another�spatial�source�and�re-covers�the�center�of�the�experiencer�domain.�This�marker�codes�experiencers�of�‘see’,�‘hear’,�‘show’,�‘know’,�‘can�(=know�how)’,�‘be�able’,�‘seem’,�‘understand’,�and�‘find’.�The�old�experiential,�now�dative,�marker�-e�is�gradually�pushed�outside�this�domain�and�retreats�to�its�per-iphery�(experiencers�of�‘want’,�‘need’�etc.).�As�a�result,�the�coding�pattern�of�the�percep-tional�cluster�is�again�formally�distinct�from�that�of�the�recipiential�cluster.

4.� Conclusion

In�this�paper�I�examined�the�argument�marking�patterns�of�a�number�of�experiencer�verbs�in�Nakh-Daghestanian�languages.�This�allowed�us�to�distinguish�several�groups�of�predicates,�which�differ�mainly�in�the�ways�they�govern�experiencers.�The�analysis�

Page 18: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

196 Dmitry�Ganenkov

conducted�in�the�paper�shows�that�the�morphological�coding�is�determined�to�a�great�extent�by�the�semantics�of�the�corresponding�verbs.� In�addition�to�this,�a�preliminary�reconstruction�of�the�semantic�evolution�of�experi-encer�markers�revealed�two�diachronic�tendencies�in�this�domain:

1.� �First,�experiencer�markers�tend�to�arise�from�spatial�sources�and�then�gradually�de-velop�into�dative�markers;

2.� �Second,�non-canonical�experiencer�arguments�often�turn�into�canonically�marked�transitive�subjects,�which�are�expressed�by�the�ergative�case�in�Nakh-Daghestanian�languages.

It�may�be�relevant�in�this�respect�that�in�these�languages�the�core�arguments�(i.e.�S,�A,�and�O)�are�not�so�strongly�opposed�to�each�other�as�far�as�their�syntactic�(subject)�prop-erties�are�concerned.�For�example,� in�Agul�both�A�and�O�can�control� reflexive�pro-nouns�and�behave�similarly�with�respect� to�most�other�syntactic�properties,� so� that�none�of�them�can�be�considered�a�true�subject�(from�the�viewpoint�of�typical�European�languages).�Presumably,�this�could�facilitate�the�above-mentioned�processes�of�seman-tic�development,�although�the�details�of�this�are�still�to�be�investigated.� Unlike�most�cross-linguistic�studies,�which�explore�a�sample�of�genetically�and�are-ally�unrelated�languages,�this�paper�has�considered�a�group�of�closely�related�languages.�Such�a�methodology�seems�to�be�fruitful�when�one�studies�the�details�of�the�diachronic�development�via�comparison�of�cognate�markers.�It�is�hoped�that�this�study�will�help�us�to�better�understand�the�overall�structure�of�this�functional�domain.

Acknowledgements

I� am� very� grateful� to� Michael� Daniel,� Yuri� Lander,� Vladimir� Plungian� and� two� anonymous��reviewers�for�their�comments�on�an�earlier�version�of�this�paper�as�well�as�for�improving�my�English.

Abbreviations

acc�accusative,�ad�location�near�a�landmark,�all�allative,�aor�aorist,�cont�location�in�contact�with�a�landmark,�conv�converb,�cop�copula,�dat�dative�case,�el�elative�(motion�from�a�land-mark),�erg�ergative�case,�ess�location�at�a�landmark,�F�feminine,�gen�genitive,�ia�involuntary�agent,�impers�impersonal�construction,�in�location�in�a�container,�inf�infinitive,�inter�location�in�a�mass,�m�masculine,�n�neuter,�nom�nominative,�obl�oblique�stem,�part�participle,�pl�plural,�post�location�behind�a�landmark,�prs�present,�pst�past,�S�sentential�clause,�sg�singular,�sub�lo-cation�under�a�landmark,�super�location�on�the�surface�of�a�landmark.

Page 19: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

� Experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian� 197

References

Aikhenvald,�A.�Y.,�Dixon,�R.�M.�W.�and�Onishi,�M.�(eds)�2001.�Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects.�Amsterdam�and�Philadelphia:�Benjamins.

Alekseev,� M.�E.� 1988.� Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja morfologija avaro-andijskix jazykov� [Compara-tive-historical�morphology�of�the�Avar-Andic�languages].�Moscow:�Nauka.

Bhaskararao,�P.�and�Subbarao,�K.�V.�(eds)�2004.�Non-nominative Subjects. Volume�1–2.�Amster-dam�and�Philadelphia:�John�Benjamins.

Bossong,�G.�1998.�“Le�marquage�de�l’expérient�dans�les�langues�de�l’Europe”.�In�Actance et Va-lence,�J.�Feuillet�(ed.),�259–94.�Berlin:�Mouton�de�Gruyter.

Bybee,�J.�L.,�Perkins,�R.�D.�and�Pagliuca,�W.�1994.�The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World.�Chicago:�University�of�Chicago�Press.

Daniel,�M.�A.�2001.�“Padež�i�lokalizacija”�[Case�and�localization].�In�Bagvalinskij jazyk. Gram-matika. Teksty. Slovari�[Bagwalal.�Grammar.�Texts.�Dictionaries],�A.�E.�Kibrik�(ed.),�203–31.�Moscow:�Nasledie.

Daniel,�M.�A.�2002.�“Bagvalinskie�toponimy�kak�problema�tipologii�častej�reči”�[Bagwalal�Place�Names:�A�Case�Study�in�Part-of-Speech�Typology].�In�Grammatikalizacija prostranstven-nyx značenij�[Grammaticalization�of�spatial�meanings],�V.�A.�Plungian�(ed.),�157–66.�Mos-cow:�Russkie�slovari.

Feuillet,�J.�(ed.).�1998.�Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe.�Berlin�and�New�York:�Mou-ton�de�Gruyter.

Foley,� W.�A.� and� Van� Valin,� R.�D.� Jr.� 1984.� Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar.� Cam-bridge:�Cambridge�University�Press.

Gal’perina,�V.�I.�1973.�Padežnaja sistema caxurskogo jazyka�[The�case�system�of�Tsakhur].�Un-published�manuscript.�Moscow.

Haspelmath,�M.�1993.�A Grammar of Lezgian.�Berlin�and�New�York:�Mouton�de�Gruyter.Haspelmath,�M.�2003.�“The�geometry�of�grammatical�meaning:�Semantic�maps�and�cross-lin-

guistic�comparison”.� In�The New Psychology of Language� II,�M.�Tomasello�(ed.),�211–42,�Mahwah,�nj:�Lawrence�Erlbaum.

Kibrik,�A.�E.,�Kodzasov,�S.�V.,�Olovjannikova,�I.�P.�and�Samedov,�D.�S.�1977.�Arčinskij jazyk.�Tek-sty i slovari�[Archi.�Texts�and�dictionaries].�Moscow:�Izd-vo�mgu.

Kibrik,� A.�E.� and� Kodzasov,� S.�V.� 1988.� Sopostavitel’noe izučenie dagestanskix jazykov.� Glagol�[The�contrastive�study�of�Daghestanian�languages.�The�verb].�Moscow:�Izd-vo�mgu.

Kibrik,�A.�E.�(ed.).�1996.�Godoberi.�München-Newcastle:�Lincom�Europa.Kibrik,�A.�E.�1997.�“Beyond�subject�and�object:�Toward�a�comprehensive�clause�patterning�typ-

ology”.�Linguistic Typology�1:�279–346.Kibrik,�A.�E.�(ed.).�1999.�Elementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii� [Elements�of�

Tsakhur�in�a�typological�perspective].�Moscow:�Nasledije.Kibrik,�A.�E.�(ed.).�2001.�Bagvalinskij jazyk.�Grammatika.�Teksty.�Slovari�[Bagwalal.�Grammar.�

Texts.�Dictionaries].�Moscow:�Nasledije.Magomedova,�P.�T.�1999.�Čamalinsko-russkij slovar’�[Chamalal-Russian�dictionary].�Maxačkala:�

IIJaL.Magomedova,�P.�T.�and�Xalidova,�R.�S.�2001.�Karatinsko-russkij slovar’�[Karata-Russian�diction-

ary].�Maxačkala:�IIJaL.Talibov,�B.�B.�1979.�“Morfologičeskaja�i�sintaksičeskaja�xarakteristika�padežej�caxurskogo�jazy-

ka”�[Morphological�and�syntactical�properties�of�cases�in�Tsakhur].�In�Imennoe sklonenie

Page 20: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

19� Dmitry�Ganenkov

v dagestanskix jazykax�[Noun�inflection�in�Daghestanian�languages],�U.�A.�Mejlanova�(ed.),�4–23.�Maxačkala:�IIJaL.

van� der� Auwera,� J.� and� Plungian,� V.�A.� 1998.� “Modality’s� semantic� map”.� Linguistic Typology�2:�79–124.

Verma,�M.�K.�and�Mohanan,�K.�E.� (eds)�1990.�Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages.�Stanford:�Center�for�the�Study�of�Language�and�Information.

Appendix

Agul (f.n.)

1. agas dat;�nom2. un�xas dat;�nom3. agarq’as erg;�nom;�dat4. ǯik’as dat;�nom5. Haa dat;�nom6. Rawurdi�a dat;�nom7. jurk’uralas�alaTarxas dat;�nom8. kandea dat;�nom9. kandea dat;�nom

10. ��—11. bizar�xas dat;�nom12. �—13. kandea dat;�nom14. �—15. xas

Haaad-el;�sdat;�s

16. xas ad-el�(=ia);�s17. mik’eldia dat18. guč’aa dat;�post-el19. ic’as erg;�nom;�dat20. agas dat;�s

Andi (f.n.)

1. haGo aff;�nom2. anłi aff;�nom3. haGołi erg;�nom;�aff4. b-ison aff;�nom5. c’inni aff;�nom6. bic’unni aff;�nom7. bec’o aff;�nom8. žilʔi aff;�nom9. žilʔi aff;�nom

10. riXon aff;�nom11. č’alanni aff;�nom12. biGon dat;�nom13. q oreGod dat;�nom14. recin dat;�s15. beRełi aff;�s16. beRełi aff;�s17. sodo dat18. sirdo nom;�cont-el19. ci erg;�nom;�dat20. č’o aff;�s

Page 21: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

� Experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian� 199

Akhvakh (f.n.)

1. harigari dat;�nom2. ãLani dat;�nom3. hariga:de erg;�nom;�dat4. mičani dat;�nom5. beq’ari dat;�nom6. b-ic’ilari dat;�nom7. hidičari dat;�nom8. kĩłari dat;�nom9. kĩłari dat;�nom

10. kit’ayari dat;�nom11. č’aʕinari dat;�nom12. miq’ani dat;�nom13. qaraʕani dat;�s14. zaHwãlilari dat;�s15. beq’ari dat;�s16. ĩdani,�bažari erg;�s17. w-uXari nom18. Leri nom;�super-el19. oxede erg;�nom;�dat20. b-uxari dat;�s

Akusha Dargi (f.n.)

1. če–b–aʔes erg;�nom2. b-aq’es erg;�nom3. če–b–iʔaqes erg;�nom;�in-all4. b-urges erg;�nom5. b-ales erg;�nom6. irRes erg;�nom7. qumirtes erg;�nom8. digaqes dat;�nom9. digaqes dat;�nom

10. Hejgaqes dat;�nom11. anc’ulq’es dat;�nom12. baʔes dat;�nom13. ʕaʕnili dat;�nom14. qijanni dat;�s15. wires erg;�s16. wires erg;�s17. buʕarli dat18. uruX-b-ires nom;�in-ess19. b-edes erg;�nom;�dat20. han-b-ikes dat;�s

Archi (Kibrik et al. 1977)

1. akus dat;�nom2. kos dat;�nom3. akus�as erg;�nom;�dat4. Xos dat;�nom5. sini dat;�nom6. jaqI’an dat;�nom7. eXmus dat;�nom8. L’an dat;�nom9. L’an dat;�nom

10. beXIe�kes dat;�nom11. �—12. aXI dat;�nom13. kat’ dat;�nom14. bala dat;�s15. bec’as erg;�s16. bec’as erg;�s17. XIe dat18. L’inčar nom;�sub-el19. Los erg;�nom;�dat20. ik’mis�ekas�boli dat;�s

Avar (f.n.)

1. b-ixize super-ess;�nom2. raʕize super-ess;�nom3. b-ixabize erg;�nom;�super-ess4. b-atize super-ess;�nom5. łaze super-ess;�nom6. b-icize super-ess;�nom7. k’očonteze super-ess;�nom8. b-oL’ize dat;�nom9. b-oL’ize dat;�nom

10. rixine dat;�nom11. bizaryize dat;�nom12. ʕeze dat;�nom13. �—14. zaHmat dat;�s15. łaze super-ess;�s16. k’eze super-ess;�s17. kačan nom18. Hinq’ize nom;�ad-el19. L’�eze erg;�nom;�dat�20. keze super-ess;�s

Page 22: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

200 Dmitry�Ganenkov

Bagwalal (Kibrik 2001)

1. hã: aff;�nom2. ãhã aff;�nom3. ãhẽ: erg;�nom;�aff4. b-isã aff;�nom5. b-ija aff;�nom6. b-uhã aff;�nom7. b-e:ča aff;�nom8. q’očã,�b-oLiri dat;�nom9. q’očã dat;�nom

10. hit’ali dat;�nom11. čalʕã dat;�nom12. b-uwã dat;�nom13. q’očã dat;�nom14. �—15. b-ija aff;�s16. b-ažeri,�uhã aff�||�ia;�s17. �—18. heri nom;�cont-ess19. iči erg;�nom;�dat20. c’ani aff;�s

Chamalal (Magomedova 1999)

1. haʔa ad-all;�nom2. woła ad-all;�nom3. haʔal erg;�nom;�ad-all4. b-isã dat;�nom5. ija ad-all;�nom6. bicid ad-all;�nom7. b-ešuša cont-ess;�nom8. idal dat;�nom9. idal dat;�nom

10. jiXan dat;�nom11. čalʕan dat;�nom12. boXã dat;�nom13. buq’ud dat;�nom14. zaHmata-b dat;�s15. ija,�eXã ad-all;�s16. b-ažarid,�eXã ad-all;�s17. sekul nom18. łed nom;�cont-el19. gud erg;�nom;�dat20. �—

Chechen (f.n., transcription simplified)

1. guo dat;�nom2. Xaza dat;�nom3. gojta erg;�nom;�dat;�4. karade dat;�nom5. Xaʔa dat;�nom6. qeta nom;�inter-ess7. dicluo dat;�nom8. deza dat;�nom9. laʔa dat;�nom

10. ca�deza dat;�nom11. k’ordade dat;�nom12. toʔa dat;�nom13. deza,�ieša dat;�nom14. Xala dat;�s15. Xaʔa dat;�s16. possibilitive in-ess;�s17. šello nom18. qera nom;�inter-ess19. luo erg;�nom;�dat20. Xeta dat;�s

Godoberi (Kibrik 1996, f.n.)

1. haʔa aff;�nom2. anya aff;�nom3. haʔali erg;�nom;�aff4. b-isã dat;�nom5. b-iʔa aff;�nom6. b-icã cont-ess;�nom7. b-eʔuča aff�||�cont-ess;�nom8. idałi dat;�nom9. idałi,�qaraʕĩ dat;�nom

10. riXã dat11. č’alʕam dat12. boʔan dat13. q’araʕĩ dat;�nom14. zaHmat dat15. b-iʔa aff;�s16. iXã dat;�s17. saji dat18. łibi nom;�cont-el19. iki erg;�nom;�dat20. ruki dat;�s

Page 23: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

� Experiencer�coding�in�Nakh-Daghestanian� 201

Icari Dargi (f.n.)

1. či–b-aguj erg�||�super-all;�nom2. b-aq’uj erg�||�super-all;�nom3. či–b-ižaquj erg;�in-all;�nom4. b-urkuj erg;�nom5. b-aRuj erg�||�super-all;�nom6. irRuj erg�||�super-all;�nom7. qumirtuj erg;�nom8. b-icaquj super-all;�nom9. b-icaquj super-all;�nom

10. awicaquj super-all;�nom11. wit’araj super-all;�nom12. habaRaraj super-all;�nom13. HaIžatil super-all;�nom14. qinni super-all;�s15. wiraraj erg;�s16. wiraraj erg;�s17. buXalli super-all;�nom18. uruX–b-ik’uj nom;�ante-el19. lu:kuj erg;�super-all;�nom20. han-b-ikuj super-all;�s

Ingush (f.n., transcription simplified)

1. go dat;�nom2. Xaza dat;�nom3. gojta erg;�nom;�in-ess4. korade dat;�nom5. Xa dat;�nom6. qetade erg;�nom7. dicde dat;�nom8. d-eza dat;�nom9. la dat;�nom

10. goama�Xila dat;�nom11. k’ordade dat;�nom12. toʔal dat;�nom13. d-eza dat;�nom14. Xala dat;�s15. Xa dat;�s16. maga dat;�s17. šijla dat18. qera nom;�inter-ess19. dala erg;�nom;�dat20. Xet dat;�s

Karata (Magomedova and Xalidova 2001)

1. haʔã dat;�nom2. ãye dat;�nom3. haʔã: erg;�nom;�dat4. b-isã dat;�nom5. b-iʔa dat;�nom6. b-ice: dat;�nom7. b-ečeče dat;�nom8. L’abałe dat;�nom9. q’ora dat;�nom

10. riXã dat;�nom11. čalʕã dat;�nom12. beʔũ dat;�nom13. q’ora dat;�nom14. zaHmato-b dat;�s15. b-iʔa,�gije dat;�s16. b-ałe,�gije dat�||�cont-el�(=ia);�s17. zaraRu nom18. łebe nom;�cont-el19. b-eke erg;�nom;�dat20. c’ane dat;�s

Lak (f.n.)

1. č’alankakan

dat;�nom

2. bajan dat;�nom3. kakan�d-an erg;�nom;�dat4. laIqin dat;�nom5. k’ulnu�bik’an dat;�nom6. buwč’in dat;�nom7. qama�bitan dat;�nom8. viranu�bik’an dat;�nom9. can� dat;�nom

10. qacan�xun dat;�nom11. bizar�xun dat;�nom12. �—13. aIrkinnu�b-ur dat;�nom14. zaHmatnu�bik’an dat;�s15. k’ulnu�bik’an dat;�s16. xun ia;�s17. aIwqunnu�ik’an dat18. niha�lač’un nom;�super-el19. bulun erg;�nom;�dat20. č’alan dat;�s

Page 24: Experiencer coding in NakhDaghestanian

202 Dmitry�Ganenkov

Lezgian (f.n.)

1. akun dat;�nom2. wan�atun dat;�gen3. qalurun erg;�nom;�dat�4. ǯuRun dat;�nom5. čida dat;�nom6. Rawurda�aq’un nom;�gen7. rik’elaj�fin gen;�nom8. k’an�xun dat;�nom9. k’an�xun dat;�nom

10. �—11. bizar�xun dat;�nom12. bes�xun dat;�nom13. k’an�xun dat;�nom14. četin�ja dat;�s15. �—16. xun ad-el�(=ia);�s17. meq’ida dat18. kič’eda dat;�post-el19. gun erg;�nom;�dat20. akun dat;�s

Tabasaran (f.n.)

1. raqIub dat;�nom2. jebxub dat;�nom3. ulupub erg;�nom;�dat4. biqub dat;�nom5. aRIu�xub dat;�nom6. Rawri�xub dat;�nom7. k’aʔlan�RIub gen;�nom8. kun�xub dat;�nom9. kun�xub dat;�nom

10. �—11. bizar�xub dat;�nom12. bes�xub dat;�nom13. kun dat;�nom14. RaRi�ǯa dat;�s15. �—16. xub ad-el�(=ia);�s17. aqIu�ǯa dat18. guč’�xub dat;�post-el19. tuwub erg;�nom;�dat20. aRIu�ǯa dat;�s

Tsakhur (Kibrik 1999)

1. Gaǯes aff;�nom2. Gajxes aff;�nom3. hagas erg;�nom;�aff4. awajkes ad-el;�nom5. ac’a aff;�nom6. bašda-xes nom;�super-all7. k’eliXanas ad-el;�nom8. ykki:kanas dat;�nom9. ykki:kanas dat;�nom

10. �—11. �—12. Gajxaras dat;�nom13. ljazim-da dat;�nom14. daRam-da dat;�nom15. �—16. aIXas ad-el�(=ia);�s17. myk’an dat18. qaIq’anas nom;�super-el19. hiles erg;�nom;�dat20. �—

Tsez (f.n.)

1. b-ikada dat;�nom2. te:q dat;�nom3. b-ikara erg;�nom;�cont-ess4. b-esa dat;�nom5. b-ija dat;�nom6. bič’izi�b-oqa dat;�nom7. šoL’a dat;�nom8. b-eta dat;�nom9. b-eta dat;�nom

10. b-aca dat;�nom11. b-aca dat;�nom12. ʕela dat;�nom13. b-eta dat;�nom14. �—15. b-ija,�koL’a dat;�s16. k’ezi�b-oqa cont-ess�(=ia);�s17. b-oč’i dat18. b-uq’a nom;�cont-el19. neLa erg;�nom;�dat20. b-ikada dat;�s


Recommended