07 июня 2017г.
The author continues study of the causative form in the Turkic languages. As the material for these researches there have been used numerous examples and illustrations of causative in texts and grammars of the Yakut language.
Before proceeding to the consideration of its functional features in the Yakut language, it seems necessary to dwell again on the very concept of voice.
The most common definition of this category in grammar is the following, the voice of a verb, also called diathesis and (rarely) the gender of a verb, describes the relationship between the action that the verb expresses and the participants identified by its arguments (subject, object, etc.). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice)
In Turkic linguistics in this category paid a lot of attention. In the Turkic languages, unlike Indo-European this category is very developed and has more forms, among which reflexive, reciprocal, causative and passive. All these forms are used much more often in speech than voice’s forms in European languages. We can say that in European languages there are only two forms: the active voice the passive voice, in some languages it is possible to meet also the middle voice. Therefore, we cannot say that in Western linguistics, this concept was well designed.
According to the author, the category of the Voice is the inflectional category, in the meaning of each of the forms which is reflected in and reinforced one of the varieties of relations between actions and one of its arguments. [Guzev, 1990 : 53].
However, important to understand the functioning of this category in the speech is the determination of which argument is associated with the action, its subject or its object. In the Turkic linguistic tradition can meet supporters of the viewpoint that the Voice expresses the attitude between the action and its subject, [Sevortyan E. V., 1962 : 454 ]. There is also an opinion that the connection occurs between the action and its subject or its object [Baskakov, 1952 : 333].
Nevertheless, the actual material of different Turkic languages, and long-term studies of this topic are increasingly pushing the author to the conclusion, the Voice as a grammatical category indicates the relationship of the action only with its subject. Thus, each form reports information about a particular variety of relationship that occurs between the action and the object that is perceived as its grammatical subject. [Dubrovina, 2015]
This article examines the use of causative in the Yakut language is to confirm the preceding hypothesis.
Already O. N. Betling noted a large number of affixes, by which causatives are formed in the Yakut language [Betling, 1989 : 315] : -т, -тар, -ар и -ыар. The use of causative in the Yakut speech demonstrates not only the diversity of formal indicators, but they transmit a variety of meanings, some of these meanings I would like to elaborate, since they are able to reinforce the idea ,which were discussed above.
First of all, in Yakut, as in other Turkic languages, this indicator is often used to convert intransitive verbs into transitive:
Кини кус өл+өр+бүт ‘He killed a duck.’ (өл- ‘to die’)
Мин эти буh+ар+дым. ‘I cooked meat’ (бус- ‘to be cooked’)
Иңсэни яччык үөскэ+т+эр. Аччыгы баттал хаңа+т+ар. ‘Greed begets hunger. Hunger intensifies
oppression’. (үөскээ- ‘to arise,’, хаңаа- ‘to thicken, to increase in weight’).
Үлэ киhи өйүн-санаатын кэңэ+т+эр ‘Work broadens the mind (thoughts) of a man’. (кэңээ- ‘become a wide’).
Ол курдук нэhи сэргэхси+т+эр, улугу уhугун+нар+ар. ‘So he encourages lazy, awakens powerless.’
(сэргэхсий- ‘to be encouraged’, уhугун- ‘to wake up’).
Despite the fact that in the synchrony of language, such examples may not be perceived as productive causative forms and be used as a purely technical means of converting intransitive verbs into transitive, diachronically the grammatical meaning of these derived verbs can be traced in them too – the emphasis in those forms is on the fact that the leading role in the commission of an act belongs to its subject.
If we follow the position of those who are considering the causative as an grammatical instrument of communication between action and object, i.e. between the action and those who are impelled to action, beyond comprehension will be a large number of particular examples of this Voice in various Turkic languages. whereas, the one who is impelled to action, actually is the one who does this action in fact.
So the researchers who understand it is available only as a means of indicating the relationship between the action and its real doer is unable to adequately explain the use of collateral in the following sentence:
Куобах сохсођо баттаппыт ‘The hare was pressed down by flat piece of wood’. (бат- ‘to press down’).
Often researchers talk about such verbs that they have become independent lexical units, that sentences with such verbs have already become sustainable in speech. But it's unconvincing, because we can meet in the Yakut speech only word forms with causative suffixes that can be formed from a variety of verbs to transfer the same meanings. These verbal forms are not in dictionaries or in idiomatic phrases.
There is some difficulty analyzing this sentence, because it can be translated into European languages only in the passive form. Speaking European languages, the linguist cannot translate this sentence differently. Therefore, linguists are beginning to attribute to the causative the passive meaning. However, you need to look at the situation through the eyes of Yakut and ask the question, why he used the causative form?
In a situation which is transmitted in the sentence involved three elements of the world: the hare, the flat piece of wood, press down.
The native Russian or English speakers see that the flat piece of wood presses down the hare, and of course, the flat piece of wood is active object, agent, because it makes action, but the hare is on the contrary a passive object, patient.
Such an interpretation, we often find in works of scientists – turkologists. [Kharitonov, 1963 : 64].
In my opinion, the reason for this understanding is the semantic interpretation of the objective situation imposed on the researcher's native, in this case, the Russian language. The flat piece of wood pressed down the hare, so hare is the passive object.
The author offers a different interpretation of this example, and it is correlated with the meaning of this morphological means. In our opinion, the causative indicates a connection between the action and its subject, wherein the subject is a initiator of action, it means the role of the subject is such that it is thanks to his initiative, the action was perfect.
The used term "initiative" should be understood both literally and figuratively, because, in specific situations a person (the subject) can openly call for action (through the order, request, urge), and covertly, through no resistance to its execution or simple through the acquiescence.
Based on the said language meaning, the speaker of the Yakut language intuitively chooses the verb in causative voice, knowing that the piece of wood, as the inanimate object, itself could not perform the action. The one who caused the action to ‘press down’ was the hare, being, though not intentionally, but the initiator of said action.
Yakut language demonstrates the interesting cases of using the causative, which in its original language meaning (paradigmatic meaning) (indicating the initiation of the action the grammatical subject), gets additional and unexpected speech meanings. It may used in cases where the subject causes a certain action (is a kind of source for the action, been guilty of actions), which in reality is made inanimate object, including animals.
Obviously, in some cases, the native speaker is aware that an inanimate object or a particular animal is not itself able to perform the action, then a subject that is animate, or other animal (subject, grammatical subject of the action) may initiate such action, cause this action.
Кини ыкка ытыр+тар+быт. ‘he was bitten by a dog' (literally, he "forced" the dog to bite)'. (ытыр- ‘to bite’).
Эн акка тэп+тэр+ээйэђин. ‘Look, as if a horse kicked you (literally, you "not force" the horse to kick)'. (тэп- ‘to kick’).
[Мин] атахпын ыкка ытыр+тар+дым. ‘The dog bit my leg (literally, I allowed (initiated involuntarily)
the dog to bite my leg)’ (ытыр- ‘to bite’).
It is assumed that, in accordance with stereotypes of the Yakuts, the actions of animals are initiated by people, because the animals against the people perceived as passive objects. Actions, though committed by their (people’s) connivance, negligence, etc., but nonetheless, happen with their submission, therefore, the subject of the verb in the causative voice is the main, he or it is the initiator of the action.
If the sentence involves an animal and an inanimate object, then there is another hierarchy. In this case, an animal can be perceived as something/ someone that is capable of initiating any action.
List of References
1. Baskakov N. A. Karakalpak language II. Phonetics and morphology. Part I (parts of speech and word formation)/ Moscow: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1952. -544 p.
2. Betling, O. N. The language of the Yakuts. /Translated from the German Phys.N. V. I. Rassadin / Novosibirsk: "Nauka". Siberian department, 1989. - 645 p.
3. Guzev V.G. Essays on the Theory of Turkic inflection: Verb: On a material Old Anatolian Turkic language. — Leningrad: Publishing house of Leningrad University, 1990. - 165 p.
4. Dubrovina M.E. A few words about the meaning of the cauzative in the Turkic languages // Prospects of development of modern humanitarian Sciences. Collection of scientific papers on the results of international scientific-practical conference. Voronezh, 2015. - P. 120-122.
5. Kharitonov L. N. Voice forms of the verb in Yakut language. Moscow; Leningrad: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1963. - 128 p.
6. Melnikov G. P. Systemology and linguistic aspects of Cybernetics. Moscow: "Soviet radio", 1978. - 368 p.
7. Sevortyan E. V. Affixes of the verbal word formation in the Azerbaijani language. Experience in comparative research. Moscow: Publishing house of Oriental literature, 1962. - 643 p.
