L'évolution diachronique de l'expression de la possibilité en basque

En basque, l'expression des notions modales de possibilité, de capacité et de l'épistémique a considérablement évolué depuis le 16e siècle. Le nombre des différentes formes d'un potentiel synthétique construit à l'aide du suffixe modal -ke s'est réduit. Certaines formes ont été fossilisées et ont adopté un sémantisme plus restreint. En basque classique, des particules étaient nécessaires pour désambiguer les diverses fonctions des auxiliaires au mode du potentiel. En basque moderne, on emploie soit la particule, soit l'auxiliaire complexe, mais rarement les deux ensemble. Des formes qui servaient à l'expression d'un futur indéterminé sont devenues des marqueurs épistémiques, mais ces formes sont également en train de disparaître. Par contre, il reste difficile d'employer la particule modale ahal dans un contexte épistémique. Alors que les constructions avec l'auxiliaire et celles avec la particule sont équivalentes lorsque le contexte n'est pas épistémique, des formes construites avec le suffixe modal -ke sont préférées lorsqu'il ne s'agit pas d'une capacité, mais d'une hypothèse. Finalement, on va voir que les variétés du nord et celles du sud se distinguent par la manière d'exprimer la possibilité et sa négation. Une même forme al/ahal était employée comme particule interrogative au sud, mais comme particule de possibilité au nord, ce qui peut être un élément d'explication. Avec l'émergence de variétés supradialectales, les deux interprétations commencent à se côtoyer sous des graphies distinctes. En résumé, les différents exemples montrent que deux variétés d'une même langue somme toute relativement proches peuvent exhiber des différences grammaticales assez prononcées

Menderatzen ez ditugun aditz-formak saihesteko: euskal aditzaren gramatikaren erdigunea eta periferia

This article deals with the morphological reflection of the interaction between argument relations and TAM exponents in Basque, as well as the diachronic, sociolinguistic, and diatopic variation observed in this area. The more an inflected auxiliary represents marked values, the higher its proneness to obsolescence. This explains why certain auxiliary forms are virtually non-existent in corpora. Moreover, morphemic obliteration and routinization lead to the reanalysis of once polymorphemic sequences to a single morpheme. If they are sufficiently frequent, such morphologically complex forms are then stored as ‘single processing units’. Less frequent forms in contrast never enter the morpheme inventory as fused morphemes. As a result, they are marginalized and pushed to the periphery of the linguistic system. The discrepancy between the combinatorial potential of verbal morphology on the one hand, and the frequency of forms in real-language corpora has important consequences for an adequate description of the language as well as its development. The possible number of forms is immense – this is why we find large numbers of tables with elaborate paradigms in most grammatical descriptions of Basque. However, these descriptions produce a false impression, as present-day spoken Basque uses only a small subset of all possible forms. The two approaches -list all the possible forms vs. list frequently attested forms- can be unified though, if we locate possible forms along a cline leading from the core of the grammatical system to its periphery. Whereas the core contains the most frequent and stable forms, the outer periphery contains forms which exist only in theory, with intermediate forms being subject to a great deal of intra-speaker, inter-speaker, and interdialectal variation. And while a peripheral form does not violate any grammatical rule, (most) speakers will avoid it, as their primary aim is not to exploit the morphological potential of the system, but to make themselves understood. The concepts of core vs. periphery can be applied to other grammatical systems where an inflation of morphological forms leads to a hierarchical organization of the system. As for linguistic typology, the Basque scenario is an illustration of what is likely to happen when a language is simultaneously high on the indices of synthesis and fusion

A Fresh Look at the Tense-aspect System of Turkish

Turkish is one of the best described languages of the world. One should therefore expect a large consensus with regards to the way Turkish grammar is described. However, once we compare different grammatical descriptions of Turkish, we find an astonishing variation of analyses. One domain whose description is particularly unsatisfactory is the tense-aspect system. The paper will show that forms like okuyor, okur, okuyacak, and okumuş are participles marked for aspect, but not for tense. Failure to recognize the zero-exponence of present tense has lead to the erroneous analysis of aspectual morphemes as tense markers. Comparison with the tense marking on non-verbal predicates shows however that present tense is neither marked on the noun/adjective/adverbial/participle, nor part of the meaning of the subject cross-reference markers. It is marked by the absence of the other member of the tense paradigm, past tense. In addition to an inadequate semantic description of the progressive aspect suffix -iyor, many grammars present a dia-chronically motivated form -(I)yor, which requires elaborate morphophonological rules to produce the synchronically correct verb forms

Les notions modales de possibilité et de capacité en basque (morphologie, syntaxe, sémantique, variations diachronique et sociolinguistique)

Bureau de recherches géologiques et minières - Orléans (brgm) / SudocSudocFranceF