Defining caritive as a comparative concept

Affiliation:
Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences
Saint Petersburg State University
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Sergei Klimenko

Affiliation: Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Maksim L. Fedotov

Affiliation:
Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Journal name

Voprosy Jazykoznanija

Edition

Issue 3

Pages

7-25

Abstract

The paper attempts at giving a definition to caritive (cf. John came without Mary) as a comparative concept that could be used in typological studies. We discuss the drawbacks of the current definitions and formulate the principles with which the definition must comply. One of the main principles is avoidance of any grammatical notions, which allows to apply the definition to every language. We start with a list of contexts which should be covered by the definition and a list of contexts which should be left out (such as John doesn’t have children). We identify properties that are shared by the chosen contexts. As a result, we propose the following definition of caritive: caritive describes non-involvement (including, but not limited to absence) of a participant (Absentee) in a situation, with the non-involvement predication semantically modifying the situation or a participant of another situation. The definition is accompanied by a discussion of certain aspects of its application to languages with different structures.

Keywords

caritive, linguistic typology, semantic roles

Acknowledgment

The research is supported by the Russian Science Foundation, grant No. 18-78-10058.

Received

08.05.2019

Publication date

26.06.2020

Number of characters

58316

Cite

GOST	Oskolskaya S., Zaika N., Klimenko S., Fedotov M. Defining caritive as a comparative concept // Voprosy Jazykoznanija – 2020. – Issue 3 C. 7-25 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/vopjaz/s0373658x0009370-6-1-en (circulation date: 24.04.2025). DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0009370-6
MLA	Oskolskaya, Sofia A, Zaika, Natalia, Klimenko, Sergei, Fedotov, Maksim L "Defining caritive as a comparative concept." Voprosy Jazykoznanija 3 (2020):7-25. DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0009370-6
APA	Oskolskaya S., Zaika N., Klimenko S., Fedotov M. (2020). Defining caritive as a comparative concept. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (3), pp.7-25 DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0009370-6

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 2, views: 1529

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Аврорин 1959 — Аврорин В. А. Грамматика нанайского языка. Т. 1. М.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1959. [Avrorin V. A. Grammatika nanaiskogo yazyka [Nanai grammar]. Vol. 1. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR Publ., 1959.]

2. Архипов 2009 — Архипов А. В. Типология комитативных конструкций. М.: Знак, 2009. [Arkhipov A. V. Tipologiya komitativnykh konstruktsii [Typology of comitative constructions]. Moscow: Znak, 2009.]

3. Галямина 2017 — Галямина Ю. Е. Каритив и комитатив в современном кетском языке. Вестник РГГУ. Серия «История. Филология. Культурология. Востоковедение», 2017, 11: 24–32. [Galyamina Yu. E. Caritive and comitative in Modern Ket. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya «Istoriya. Filologiya. Kul’turologiya. Vostokovedenie», 2017, 11: 24–32.]

4. Гращенков 2015 — Гращенков П. В. Комитатив и каритив в тюркских и монгольских языках: функции и возможная эволюция. Урало-алтайские исследования, 2015, 19(4): 7–16. [Grashchenkov P. V. Comitative and caritive in Turkic and Mongolic: Functions and possible paths of evolution. Uralo-altaiskie issledovaniya, 2015, 19(4): 7–16.]

5. Ермакова, Кузнецова 1998 — Ермакова Н. Д., Кузнецова Н. Г. Суффиксальное отрицание в селькупском языке. Linguistica Uralica, 1998, 2: 134–139. [Ermakova N. D., Kuznetsova N. G. Suffixal negation in Selkup. Linguistica Uralica, 1998, 2: 134–139.]

6. Иванов 1995 — Иванов Вяч. Вс. Типология лишительности (каритивности). Этюды по типологии грамматических категорий в славянских и балканских языках. Иванов Вяч. Вс., Молошная Т. Н. (отв. ред.). М.: Индрик, 1995, 5–59. [Ivanov Vyach. Vs. Typology of caritives. Etyudy po tipologii grammaticheskikh kategorii v slavyanskikh i balkanskikh yazykakh. Ivanov Vyach. Vs., Moloshnaya T. N. (eds.). Moscow: Indrik, 1995, 5–59.]

7. Муталов 2003 — Муталов Р. О. Морфологический строй глагола даргинского языка. Дисс. … докт. филол. наук. Махачкала: ДГУ, 2003. [Mutalov R. O. Morfologicheskii stroi glagola darginskogo yazyka [Morphological structure of Dargwa verb]. Ph.D. diss. Makhachkala: Dagestan State Univ., 2003.]

8. Падучева 2013 — Падучева Е. В. Русское отрицательное предложение. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2013. [Paducheva E. V. Russkoe otritsatel’noe predlozhenie [Russian negative sentence]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2013.]

9. Плунгян 2010 — Плунгян В. А. Общая морфология. Введение в проблематику. 3-е изд., испр. и доп. М.: Книжный дом «Либроком», 2010. [Plungian V. A. Obshchaya morfologiya. Vvedenie v problematiku [General morphology: Introduction to the problematics]. 3rd edn. Moscow: Librokom, 2010.]

10. Плунгян 2011 — Плунгян В. А. Введение в грамматическую семантику: грамматические значения и грамматические системы языков мира. М.: РГГУ, 2011. [Plungian V. A. Vvedenie v grammaticheskuyu semantiku: grammaticheskie znacheniya i grammaticheskie sistemy yazykov mira [Introduction to grammatical semantics: Grammatical meanings and grammatical systems of the world’s languages]. Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2011.]

11. Evans 1995 — Evans N. A grammar of Kayardild. With historical-comparative notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995.

12. Hamari 2011 — Hamari A. The abessive in the Permic languages. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja / Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, 2011, 93: 37–84.

13. Haspelmath 2003 — Haspelmath M. The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. The new psychology of language. Vol. 2. Tomasello M. (ed.). Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum, 2003, 211–242.

14. Haspelmath 2009 — Haspelmath M. Terminology of case. The Oxford handbook of case. Malchukov A., Spencer A. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 505–517.

15. Haspelmath 2010 — Haspelmath M. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 2010, 86(3): 663–687.

16. Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt (eds.) 2006 — Himmelmann N. P., Schultze-Berndt E. F. (eds.). Secondary predication and adverbial modification: The typology of depictives. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2006.

17. Kämpfe, Volodin 1995 — Kämpfe H.-R., Volodin A. P. Abriß der Tschuktschischen Grammatik auf der Basis der Schriftsprache. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1995.

18. Karlsson 1999 — Karlsson F. Finnish: An essential grammar. London: Routledge, 1999.

19. Laughlin 1977 — Laughlin R. M. Of cabbages and kings: Tales from Zinacantán. (Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, 23.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1977.

20. Lichtenberk 2008 — Lichtenberk F. A grammar of Toqabaqita. Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008.

21. McGregor 1990 — McGregor W. A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990.

22. Stassen 2009 — Stassen L. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009.

23. Stolz et al. 2006 — Stolz T., Stroh C., Urdze A. On comitatives and related categories: A typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006.

24. Stolz et al. 2007 — Stolz T., Stroh C., Urdze A. With(out): On the markedness relation between comitatives/instrumentals and abessives. WORD: Journal of the International Linguistic Association, 2007, 58(1–3): 63–122.

25. Van den Berg 1989/2013 — van den Berg R. A grammar of the Muna language. SIL, 2013. Reprint of: van den Berg R. A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht: Foris Publ., 1989.

26. Wagner-Nagy 2018 — Wagner-Nagy B. A grammar of Nganasan. Leiden: Brill, 2018.