Abstract
In this work we consider the distribution of complementizers in Modern Eastern Armenian. There are two complementizers: wor and t‘e. They both introduce complement clauses, but t‘e also expresses a dubitative value, implying that the speaker has doubts on the content following the complementizer. Moreover, t‘e, when embedded under verbs of saying, shifts the anchoring of indexicals, moving the anchor from the speaker – better called utterer – to the subject of the saying predicate. On the basis of this and further evidence coming from the analysis of sequence of tense and if-clauses, we will argue that the position of t‘e in the left periphery of the clause occupies a high position in the syntactic hierarchy. The aim of this work is on one hand, a better understanding of indirect reports and their syntax and, on the other, a more precise characterization of indexicals across languages.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The two authors have elaborated every part of this research together. However, as far as legal requirements are concerned, Alessandra Giorgi takes official responsibility for sections 3.2, 4 and 5. Sona Haroutyunian for sections 1, 2 and 3.1.
Modern Eastern Armenian is the official language of the Republic of Armenia and Nogorno Karabakh. Western Armenian is the language spoken by the Armenian diaspora around the world. In this work we will consider data from MEA. However, with respect to the phenomena discussed here, Western Armenian does not seem to differ in a considerable way.
- 2.
For the transliteration of the Armenian examples we adopt the system based on the works of the linguists Heinrich Hübschmann and Antoine Meillet as referenced in A. Meillet (1913:8–9). However, in order to be closer to MEA pronunciation, the complementizer is transliterated as wor (instead of or).
- 3.
In previous work – cf. Giorgi and Haroutyunian (2014, 2016) – we analyzed the verbal system and the position of the auxiliary. We argued that MEA is a Verb Second (V2) language, where V2 order is triggered by a left peripheral focus. We will not consider this issue in this work, because it is not immediately relevant to this topic. In the examples we will mostly use sentences exhibiting the basic word order, namely Subject-object-participle-auxiliary. Moreover, in MEA the verbal forms of the indicative, with the exception of the aorist, are periphrastic, present tense included, and are constituted by an invariable participle and auxiliary be. There are eight different participles. For a description of the participles, see Haroutyunian (2011, ch.1) Dum-Tragut (2009, pp. 201–214). On Armenian word order, see also Tamrazian (1991) and (1994). To help the non-native reader to go through the examples, we will write the complementizer in bold characters.
- 4.
Irrelevantly to the present discussion, the present and past value of the embedded verbal form is due to the different participle used.
- 5.
Note that the present tense in MEA is a continuous verbal form, even with eventive predicates, like the Italian one and contrary to English. Consider the following examples:
(i)
Hakob-n ut-um ē
Hakob-art eat-prs.ptcp aux.3sg
‘Hakob is eating’
Analogously, in Italian:
(i)
Gianni mangia
Gianni eat.3sg
‘Gianni is eating’
Hence, a simultaneous interpretation of the embedded verbal form is possible in MEA even with predicates such as to eat. Moreover, as in English, both in MEA and in Italian the present tense can also be interpreted habitually.
- 6.
The embedded verbal form in example (4) is constituted by a perfect participle and a present tense auxiliary. Hence, the literal translation would be has eaten, even if the interpretive value is just past. These issues will be more deeply investigated in further work
- 7.
In these contexts, Armenian normative grammars tend to prescribe the imperfect. Speakers however, do not seem to have a preference in this direction.
- 8.
In examples (5) and (6), the participle is the perfective one and the auxiliary appears in the imperfect morphology.
- 9.
The difference between indicative and subjunctive in this case is the utterer’s commitment with respect to the embedded content. The utterer is more committed when there is an indicative, and less with a subjunctive. The implications of these judgments are not entirely clear and we will disregard this issue in this work. Also, the participle used in example (9) and (11) is the one expressing futurity, as shown in the glosses. However, the relevant point under discussion here is the tense and mood of the auxiliary. The analysis for the various forms of participles goes beyond the limits of this work.
- 10.
This is the consecutio found in classical Latin as well. Note that in Italian, in order to express pastness of the embedded event with respect to the main predicate, a compound form must be used:
(i)
Gianni spera che Maria abbia vinto la gara
Gianni hopes that Maria have.sbjv.3sg win the race
‘Gianni hopes that Maria won the race’
(ii)
Gianni sperava che Maria avesse vinto la gara
Gianni hoped that Maria have.sbjv.pst.3sg win the race
‘Gianni hoped that Maria won the race’
In Armenian as well, a compound form must be used:
(iii)
Ara-n huys un-i
wor Anna-n mrc‘uyt‘-ə hałt‘-el ē
Ara-art hope have-3sg that Anna-art competition-art win-prf.ptcp aux.3sg
‘Ara hopes that Anna has won the competition’
(iv)
Ara-n huys un-er
wor Anna-n mrc‘uyt‘-ə hałt‘-el ēr
Ara-art hope have- pst.3sg that Anna-art competition-art win-prf.ptcp aux.pst.3sg
‘Ara hoped that Anna had won the competition’
- 11.
- 12.
The lexical pronoun can also be used, as in the following example:
(i)
Hakob-n as-ac‘
t‘e yes mekn-um em
Hakob-art say-aor.3sg that I leave-prs.ptcp aux.1sg.
‘Hakob said that he would leave’
In this sentence, the first person pronoun yes appears in the subordinate clause, so that the literal translation would be ‘that I leave’. The presence of the lexical pronoun is emphatic/focused, as is usually the case in pro-drop languages such as Italian and Armenian.
- 13.
Spatial adverbials in sentences such as (44) and (45) would be preferably located on the right of the clause, hence as the last phrase. The word order given above is preferably associated with a focus on the predicate. The issue here however is not the basic position of adverbs, but their indexical interpretation, hence for uniformity with the other examples we adopt even in this case the order adverb-participle-auxiliary.
- 14.
Actually, the issue is more complex than that, as discussed in Giorgi (2010), but for the present purposes this generalization is sufficient.
- 15.
- 16.
Note that in many languages the indicative complementizer and the subjunctive one have a different lexicalization. See for instance Damonte (2011) for an analysis of Salentino, a Southern Italian dialect.
- 17.
On cross linguistic issues concerning the Double Access Reading, see Giorgi (2008).
- 18.
In Romanian, the judgment is the same as in MEA:
(i)
Acum 2 ani Gianni a spus ca Maria e insarcinata
Two years ago Gianni has said that Maria is pregnant
The presence of the temporal adverb acum 2 ani (two years ago) does not give rise to ungrammaticality. See Giorgi (2008) for a discussion.
- 19.
Interestingly, in example (59) t‘e introduces a clause with a subjunctive. Note that in this sentence, the dubitative value is not due to an attitude of the utterer, but it expresses an evaluation of the superordinate subject, hence the presence of the subjunctive does not violate what said so far. For a complete analysis of all the values of this particle when equivalent to English if or whether, further research is needed. Here we are only mentioning these data as an additional support to our hypothesis.
- 20.
The reverse ordering of the clauses is available in both cases, but the reciprocal distribution of t‘e and wor is the same:
(i)
Aydpes č‘-ēr lini
t‘e wor Anna-yin ls-er
That way neg-aux.pst.3sg be.sbjv.3sg if Anna-dat listen-sbjv.pst.3sg
‘It wouldn’t be like that, if he had listened to Anna’
(ii)
Lav gnahatakan kstanas
t‘e wor daser-d lav sovor-es
Good mark get.cond.fut.2sg if lesson-art.poss.2sg well learn-sbjv.2sg
‘You’ll get a good mark, if you learn your lessons well’.
- 21.
On the relationship between linear order and structural hierarchy, see the seminal work by Kayne (1994) and subsequent developments.
- 22.
In its reportive function, t‘e does not carry the feature +dubitative we mentioned in the preceding section. We can look at it as a case of lexical ambiguity, or we could resort to a more complex theory, according to which t‘e can be inserted even in this case with its interpretive features, which however are redundant and not interpreted in that the pragmatic context does not license them. Further study is indeed required to clarify this issue.
- 23.
See Giorgi (2016) for an analysis of these cases in Italian and English.
- 24.
References
Abusch, Dorit. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics & Philosophy 20:1–50.
Costantini, Francesco. 2006. Obviation in Subjunctive Argument Clauses and the first-personal Interpretation. In Phases of Interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli, 295-320. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Damonte, Federico. 2011. Mood Concord between CP and IP in Salentino and Southern Calabrian Subjunctive Complements. In Mapping the Left Periphery vol. 5, ed. Paola Benincà and Nicola Munaro, 228-256. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Giorgi, Alessandra, 2008. Reflections on the Optimal Solution: On the Syntactic Representation of Indexicality. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise, eds. Anna Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx 392-416. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giorgi, Alessandra. 2009. Toward a syntax of the subjunctive mood, Lingua, 118: 1837-1858.
Giorgi, Alessandra. 2010. About the Speaker: Towards a Syntax of Indexicality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giorgi, Alessandra. 2016. Integrated Parentheticals in Quotations and Free Indirect Discourse. In Indirect Reports and Pragmatics, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 5, eds. Capone Alessandro et al, 471-488. Berlin: Springer.
Giorgi, Alessandra, and Haroutyunian, Sona. 2016. Word order and information structure in Modern Eastern Armenian, Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 25: 185-200.
Giorgi, Alessandra, and Haroutyunian, Sona. 2018. Il verbo secondo in armeno moderno orientale. In Tipologia e “dintorni”: il metodo tipologico alla intersezione di piani d”analisi, Proceedings of the SLI Conference, Malta 2016. Roma: Bulzoni.
Haroutyunian, Sona. 2011. An Analysis of Dante’s Tenses in the Armenian Translations of the Divina Commedia, PhD Dissertation, Venice: Ca’ Foscari University.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Koul, Omkar. 2008. Modern Hindi Grammar. USA: Dowdy Press.
Laskova, Vesselina. 2012. Subjunctive mood, epistemic modality and Main Clause Phenomena in the analysis of adverbial clauses. In Main Clause Phenomena, eds. Ailbrecht Loebke et al 385-404. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Laskova, Vesselina. 2017. On the Nature of the Subjunctive, Lingua, 189: 19-45.
Manetta, Emily. 2011. Peripheries in Kashmiri and Hindi-Urdu: the Syntax of Discourse Driven Movement. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Meillet, Antoine. 1913. Altarmenisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitäts-Buchhandlung.
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1995. Double-access sentences and reference to states. Natural Language Semantics 3: 177–210.
Schlenker, Philippe. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A crosscategorial approach, PhD. Dissertation, Cambridge MA: MIT.
Sharvit, Yael. 2003. Embedded tense and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 669–681.
Tamrazian, Armine. 1991. Focus and WH-movement in Armenian, Working papers in Linguistics University College London, 3: 102-121.
Tamrazian, Armine. 1994. The Syntax of Armenian: Chains and the Auxiliary, PhD, London: University College London.
Zanon, Jacopo. 2013. Interpretation of the I-pronoun in contexts of subordination in the Hindi language and indexicals, MA Dissertation, Venice: Ca’ Foscari University. http://dspace.unive.it/handle/10579/2589. Accessed 23 January 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giorgi, A., Haroutyunian, S. (2019). Indirect reports in Modern Eastern Armenian. In: Capone, A., García-Carpintero, M., Falzone, A. (eds) Indirect Reports and Pragmatics in the World Languages. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78771-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78771-8_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78770-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78771-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)