open access

https://doi.org/10.14943/101900

https://hdl.handle.net/2115/84898

Tense System of the Finite Indicative Forms in Tungusic from the Perspective of Areal Linguistics

日本語

言語接触

2022-03-20

Japan Association of Northern Language Studies

Northern Language Studies

12

147-166

The main objective of this paper is to examine the variation of tense system of finite indicative verb forms in Tungusic from the perspective of areal linguistics. Based on previous studies regarding Tungusic and its adjacent languages, this study concentrates on tense system of finite indicative verb forms, which only function as sentence-final elements, contrary to participle verbs with multi-syntactic functions (i.e., nominal, adnominal and predicative functions). Firstly, the opposition of non-future tense and future tense forms is commonly verified in Evenki, Even, and Negidal spoken in northern part of Russia. Secondly, the finite indicative verb forms in East Tungusic languages (Udihe, Nanay, Uilta), distributed in Amur River Basin, Primorsky Krai and Sakhalin Island, commonly retain 3 tense forms of present, past and future except Ulcha with present and future tense forms only. Thirdly, corresponding element of non-future (North Tungusic) or present (East Tungusic) tense form in South Tungusic languages (Solon, Hezhen, Manchu) in northeastern province of China universally serves as non-past tense marker, denoting present or future event, in addition to the common absence of inflectionally marked future tense form. It is noteworthy that the finite indicative verb forms -mi and -maχei in Sibe, spoken in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, lack the category of tense, as they can be used in present, past and future event. In addition, it should be noted that the imperfective finite form -maχei is also confirmed in Sibe unlike other Tungusic languages. To sum up, the tense system of the finite indicative forms in Tungusic can be classified into 4 groups depending on the geographical distribution as follows: North Tungusic (Evenki, Even, Negidal—distinction of non-future and future), East Tungusic (Nanay, Uilta, Udihe—Past, Present, Future), South Tungusic 1 (Solon, Hezhen, Manchu—Non-past and absence of future tense marker exclusively employed for future event) and South 2 (Sibe—absence of tense category and existence of imperfective finite form) Turning to neighboring languages, the opposition of non-future and future in Kolima Yukaghir shows a similarity to those of North Tungusic languages (Evenki, Even, Negidal). When it comes to Mongolic languages, Buryat retains 3 finite indicative forms to respectively encode present, past and future event, whereas Khalkha in Mongolia and Dagur and Xorcin in China commonly have non-past finite indicative elements and do not have any future-oriented tense marker, as in South Tungusic languages in northeastern province of China. In Turkic languages, non-past forms in Kazakh and Uyghur on the territories of China are used to mark present or future event and future-oriented form is not confirmed in these Turkic languages. Moreover, it should be mentioned that -maqta~mäktä in Uyghur is remarkably analogous to -maχei in Sibe, in morphological form and function as an imperfective finite marker, although they still have some disparities in some aspects. Lastly, the absence of tense category in Chinese (Mandarin) is consistent with those of the above-mentioned 2 finite indicative forms in Sibe. In conclusion, the author raises a possibility that the tense system of finite indicative verb forms in Tungusic varies depending on the geographical distribution of each Tungusic language and this phenomenon may be attributed to an influence from genetically non-related neighboring languages.

紀要論文

Version of Record

2185-7121

AA12516968