Search

A number of unrelated languages have portmanteau morphemes with both temporal and evidential meanings (e.g. Cherokee (Pulte 1985), Kalaallisut (Fortescue 2003), Tariana (Aikhenvald 2004), and Turkish (Slobin and Aksu 1982), among many others). These temporal and evidential meanings are strikingly consistent, cross-linguistically. Evidentiality frequently co-occurs as part of other grammatical categories (Aikhenvald 2018, 2004); however, most theories of evidentiality do not discuss its connection with other kinds of meaning. In this dissertation, I provide a formal account of the connection between temporal and evidential meanings through a case study of a set of portmanteau tense/aspect and evidential (TAE) morphemes in Tatar (Turkic). Part 1 of the dissertation provides in-depth description of the evidential and temporal interpretation of the Tatar TAE morphemes. This Tatar data was collected through original fieldwork on the language. Part 2 analyzes the Tatar TAE morphemes as having underlyingly temporal semantics. I propose that the Tatar TAE morphemes assert temporal meaning, and pragmatically implicate evidential meaning. I accomplish this by positing a tripartite event ontology (following Moens and Steedman 1988) in which events are preceded by contingently related pre-states and are followed by contingently related event post-states. I propose that the evidential meanings of the Tatar TAE morphemes arise as a "byproduct" of their ability to view events from within the runtimes of their pre- and post-states. I show that the evidential readings associatedwith the Tatar TAE morphemes are cancellable in some discourse contexts, and completely absent in others. This suggests that a pragmatic mechanism is needed to account for their use. This dissertation joins and formalizes intuitions about event pre- and post-states, causality, and evidentiality that have been previously described in both the temporal and evidential literatures (e.g. Comrie 1976, Nikolaeva 1999, and Bashir 2006, among others). In doing so, I account for both the temporal and evidential contributions of the Tatar TAE morphemes.

The Soviet approach to national self-determination through ethnic-territorial state-building during the civil war was a problematic policy, for it was not always clear what constituted a national community. Linguistic and cultural similarities among Muslims of the Volga-Ural region convinced many Tatar intellectuals that Tatars and Bashkirs formed a single nation, but Bashkir leaders denied this unity, insisting that Bashkirs deserved a separate territorial republic. Rival national movements developed after 1917, each with its own social concerns and state-building projects; achievement of political power or at least recognition by higher authorities was crucial for their success. The Soviet decision to recognize separate statehood for Tatars and Bashkirs--reached literally in the heat of battle and highly contingent on political developments--determined which national categories would have access to the means of nation-building in the Soviet period. Far from being carefully planned by Moscow, Soviet nationality policy in 1917-1919 was characterized by improvisation, opportunistic political alliances, serious miscalculations, and local initiatives that limited Moscow's options. Center and periphery interacted in complex ways throughout the period. To suppress an anti-Bolshevik rebellion in Kazan and win over Tatar social radicals, local Soviet leaders and later Moscow coopted indigenous nationalist plans for an Idel-Ural state and proclaimed the Tatar-Bashkir Soviet Republic (March 1918). Meanwhile repression by local Soviet figures in Orenburg and tension with Russian settlers pushed Bashkir leaders into the anti-Bolshevik movement. In early 1919 Lenin and Stalin induced one group of Bashkir nationalists to switch sides by recognizing Bashkir territorial autonomy. This opportunistic gambit led to constant problems, for Soviet Bashkortostan was ruled by non-communist and independently-minded Bashkirs. It also frustrated Tatar communists and inspired a debate in 1919 over whether to implement the Tatar-Bashkir republic. Official policy remained contradictory until the Soviet government abrogated its decree on the Tatar-Bashkir republic in late 1919 and began organizing a Tatar republic. Soviet policy in 1920 shows signs of learning from past mistakes: the Politburo strictly controlled the state-building process in Tatarstan (including allocation of territories between Tatarstan and Bashkortostan), limited local initiative by all parties, and restricted Bashkir autonomy.