10.6092/issn.2785-0943/16369
This paper investigates the cross-linguistic diversity of continuative (‘still’) expressions. Based on a genealogically stratified sample of 120 languages, the continuative expressions are systematically analyzed according to the four following parameters: morphosyntactic type, emphatic vs. non-emphatic status, other (non-continuative) uses and semantic effects when combined with negation. The study shows that the most widespread type of continuative expressions is represented by monosemous emphatic continuative adverbials which in combination with negation acquire a ‘not yet’ meaning. In many languages, however, we also find continuative expressions which have followed evolutionary pathways towards morphologization, non-emphatic uses, rich polysemy networks, and less trivial types of interaction with negation. The paper discusses possible areal, genealogical and structural factors which might contribute to the “maturation” of continuative expressions in the world’s languages.
application/pdf
2785-0943
16369
2
en
Anastasia Panova
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
maturation
Towards a typology of continuative expressions
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
3
Research articles
2023-12-27
2023-01-29
2023-12-27
2024-01-09
191-244
LTC
Anastasia Panova
2023/12/27
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/16369
191
Stockholm University
2785-0943
2
maturation
en
244
<p>Ziervogel, Dirk &amp; Jacobus A. Louw &amp; P. Taljaard 1967. <em>A Handbook of the Zulu Language</em>. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik.</p>
Towards a typology of continuative expressions
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/16369/17371
3
             Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244                  ISSN 2785-0943



         Towards a typology of continuative expressions

                                           ANASTASIA PANOVA
                                           STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY




                      Submitted: 29/01/2023               Revised version: 22/07/2023
                         Accepted: 03/08/2023                  Published: 27/12/2023



                    Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (The authors
                    remain the copyright holders and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article).




                                                     Abstract
This paper investigates the cross-linguistic diversity of continuative (‘still’) expressions. Based
on a genealogically stratified sample of 120 languages, the continuative expressions are
systematically analyzed according to the four following parameters: morphosyntactic type,
emphatic vs. non-emphatic status, other (non-continuative) uses and semantic effects when
combined with negation. The study shows that the most widespread type of continuative
expressions is represented by monosemous emphatic continuative adverbials which in
combination with negation acquire a ‘not yet’ meaning. In many languages, however, we also
find continuative expressions which have followed evolutionary pathways towards
morphologization, non-emphatic uses, rich polysemy networks, and less trivial types of
interaction with negation. The paper discusses possible areal, genealogical and structural
factors which might contribute to the “maturation” of continuative expressions in the world’s
languages.


Keywords: continuative; phasal polarity; typology; polysemy; maturation.



1. Introduction


This article is a study of linguistic encoding of the semantics of continuation: a domain
that has not yet been a topic of a dedicated typological investigation. The term
continuative covers expressions used in reference to the situations which started to
exist before the reference time and exist at reference time (for a more detailed



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/16369                                                                           191
Panova                                                    Towards a typology of continuative expressions


definition and discussion, see Section 2.1). Examples of such expressions, hereinafter
referred to as continuative expressions, are given in (1)-(4). It can be seen that
continuative expressions vary greatly with respect to their morphosyntactic status.


(1)     Spanish (spa; Indo-European, Italic; van der Auwera 1998: 30)1
        Juan          duerme      todavía.
        Juan          sleeps      still
        ‘Juan is still asleep.’


(2)     Balanta-Ganja (bjt; Atlantic-Congo, North-Central Atlantic; Creissels and Biaye
        2016: 201)
        bá-n-tígtà-nà                     yâaθ.
        INCL-INACP-AUXCONT-INCL           work
        ‘We keep working.’


(3)     Yine (pib; Arawakan, Southern Maipuran; Hanson 2010: 245; glosses adapted)
        r-halna-wa
        3-fly-IPFV
        ‘He is still flying.’ / ‘He continues flying.’


(4)     Nanga (nzz; Dogon, Nangan Dogon; Heath 2016: 226)
        [níŋèyⁿ yŋà]           [ò:L       gó]     bù-∅
        [now         INST]     [fieldL    LOC]    be-3SG.SBJ
        ‘He/She is still in the fields.’


In the late 1990s, several studies dealt with continuative expressions from a cross-
linguistic perspective within a broader semantic domain — phasality or phasal
polarity (van Baar 1997; van der Auwera 1998; Plungian 1999) — which, apart from
the continuative (~ ‘still’), also includes ‘already’, ‘no longer’ and ‘not yet’. More
recent studies have focused on specific phasal meanings. For example, Veselinova
(2015) addresses ‘not yet’ expressions in the languages of the world. Dahl and Wälchli
(2016) investigate the iamitive (‘already’) meaning. The continuative meaning,

1
    Throughout the article the language names are provided according to Glottolog 4.8 (Hammarström
et al. 2023). Transcription and glosses in the linguistic examples are provided as in the sources unless
otherwise stated.



                                                                                                   192
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


however, has never been a topic of a dedicated large-sample typological investigation.
The present study is intended to fill this gap.
     The research questions addressed in this paper deal with the problem of structural
diversity and linguistic preferences. The specific goal of the study is to describe the
cross-linguistic variation in the properties of continuative expressions, and what
properties of continuative expressions are more or less typical of the world’s
languages. With respect to these questions, the continuative semantics is particularly
interesting because it can be expressed by both lexical items and grammatical
markers. Thus, the challenge of this study is to conduct a consistent cross-linguistic
analysis of the highly diverse class of linguistic expressions combining methods of
both lexical and grammatical typology.
     The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 discusses the relevant theoretical
concepts and the methodology used in this study. Section 3 is a detailed description
of    the   analysis    of   the    continuative      expressions   along   four   parameters:
morphosyntactic type, emphatic vs. non-emphatic status, uses outside the
continuative domain and semantic effects when combined with negation. Section 4
provides a comprehensive account of the typology of continuative expressions from a
diachronic perspective. Finally, Section 5 discusses the main findings of the study.


2. Theoretical and methodological preliminaries


2.1. The continuative meaning: a definition


According to van Baar (1997), van der Auwera (1998), Plungian (1999) among
others, the continuative meaning belongs to the phasal domain (also known as
phasality or phasal polarity). The phasal domain consists of the four values: ‘already’,
‘still’, ‘no longer’ and ‘not yet’. As shown in Table 1, phasal markers denote “existence
or non-existence of a situation at several moments, as compared to some other
moments” (Plungian 1999: 315). For example, ‘already’ indicates that the situation
existed (+) at the reference time and that it did not exist (–) at some moment
preceding the reference time.




                                                                                          193
Panova                                               Towards a typology of continuative expressions


  ti (preceding    t0 (reference    meaning          van der Auwera 1998       Plungian 1999
       moment)        time)
          –             +            ‘already’                inchoative          inchoative
         +              +              ‘still’            continuative           continuative
          –             –            ‘not yet’       continuative negative        cunctative
         +              –           ‘no longer’         discontinuative          terminative


                                    Table 1: Phasal values.


The phasal domain remains a rather vague semantic area for (at least) three reasons
which will now be addressed in more detail.


2.1.1. Phasal polarity and aspect


First, it is not clear whether phasal polarity is a part of the aspectual domain or is a
functional domain in its own right (Plungian 1999: 313-315). Following Klein (1994),
in this study I define aspect as a relation between reference time and situation time. For
example, in (5) reference time is the moment of coming into the room, whereas
situation time is the whole period during which John was sleeping. Reference time is
fully included into situation time (5’), and this type of the relation between reference
time and situation time represents the imperfective aspect.


(5)     [Context: I came into the room and saw…]
        John was sleeping.


(5’)




When the adverb still is added to the sentence, it brings the following information:
the situation existed at reference time, and it existed at some moment preceding
reference time. As shown in (6’), the semantic contribution of still does not interfere
with aspect, the scheme of the imperfective remains the same.




                                                                                                194
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


(6)     [Context: I came into the room and saw…]
        John was still sleeping.


(6’)




Thus, according to this view of aspectual domain, phasal polarity and aspect are two
distinct categories which complement each other.
     Note, however, that not all combinations of aspectual and phasal values are
available, cf. Figure 1.




               Figure 1: Compatibility of still with some actional and aspectual categories.


Importantly for this study, the continuative meaning is not compatible with the
perfective aspect,2 cf. (7)-(8).


(7)     *John still arrived. (telic)
(8)     *John still slept. (atelic) (the perfective interpretation is impossible; the reader is
        asked to ignore the habitual reading)




2
    Perfective implies that the boundaries of situation time are included in reference time (Klein 1994),
and this condition is incompatible with the continuative meaning (it requires the situation to be true
at some moment before reference time).



                                                                                                    195
Panova                                                       Towards a typology of continuative expressions


Examples (7)-(8) demonstrate that, contrary to the analysis in Michaelis (1993: 198),
the reason for such restrictions on still is indeed perfectivity and not telicity: sleep is
an atelic verb but its combination with still in the perfective context is forbidden.


2.1.2. Phasal verbs


The second issue crucial to understand the structure of the phasal domain is the
relationship between phasal expressions, e.g., still, and the so-called phasal verbs, e.g.,
continue. There may be a substantial difference between these two types of expressions
(cf. discussion of already and start in Gorbunova 2014), or their semantics may
overlap.
     The English verb continue is ambiguous. When used imperfectively as in (9a), it
seems to be semantically identical to still. However, continue may also be used
perfectively, being interpreted as ‘continue after a break’ (9b).3


(9)      a. The sudsy water continues working while it is slippery and you can still make
            bubbles by agitating it. [BNC]
         b. After dinner we continued to fiddle around with tackle and were joined by Mr.
            Ferguson and his son, Paul, who were also booked in for the same week. [BNC]


In this study only the imperfective uses of the phasal verbs like continue (9a), which
do not presuppose any interruptions, are treated as examples of the continuative
meaning. The meaning ‘continue after a break’ (9b), in turn, is considered a distinct
semantic value and is not discussed in the paper.4


2.1.3. Counter-expectations


It has been suggested that the phasal polarity semantics involves a component of
counter-expectations (Plungian 1999: 318). As was shown by van der Auwera (1998,
2021), that is not exactly true: the expectation of the contrary is not an obligatory
semantic component of phasal markers, although it may sometimes be present.


3
    Xiao and McEnery (2004: 233) describe the same ambiguity with respect to the continuative -xiaqu
in Mandarin Chinese (Sino-Tibetan, Sinitic).
4
    In Stoynova (2013: 128-129) the meaning ‘continue after a break’ is discussed as part of the repetitive
semantic domain.



                                                                                                      196
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


     Van der Auwera distinguishes two possible scenarios where continuative markers
may be used: a neutral scenario and a counterfactual (= counter-expected) scenario.
Examples (10)-(11), taken from the overview of van der Auwera’s discussion by van
Baar (1997: 31-32), 5 illustrate neutral and counterfactual scenarios respectively.


(10) [Peter is going to fly from London to Amsterdam at 4 p.m. John and Peter meet
        at the airport at 3 p.m. At 3 p.m. it is possible for John to say:]
        (Yes, I know.) Peter is still in London.


(11) [Peter is going to fly from London to Amsterdam at 4 p.m. John and Peter meet
        at the airport at 3 p.m. Then Peter makes an ad hoc decision to leave for
        Amsterdam on a later plane, which departs at 7 p.m. Suppose that their
        appointment was arranged in order to discuss some urgent matter which had to
        be transferred to Amsterdam as soon as possible. If John finds out at 6 p.m. that
        Peter will take a later plane, it is possible for John to say:]
        (Damn!) Peter is still in London.


In English, as shown in (10)-(11), the adverb still can be used in both scenarios, while
in some other languages continuative expressions may be available only in one of
them. Thus, according to van der Auwera, the ability of phasal markers to be used in
neutral and counterfactual scenarios is a parameter of typological variation. This
approach is adopted in the present paper.


2.1.4. The definition


Based on the discussion above, the definition of the continuative meaning can be
formulated as follows:


(12) Continuative is a phasal value which indicates that
        (a) the situation X exists at reference time,
        (b) the situation X existed at the moment ti preceding reference time,
        (c) the situation X has not been interrupted between ti and reference time.



5
    The year of publication of van Baar’s dissertation (1997) may be misleading. Although van der
Auwera’s article was published in 1998, van Baar discusses it in great detail.



                                                                                            197
Panova                                                    Towards a typology of continuative expressions


To be absolutely clear on the expectations issue (see 2.1.3), it may be added that the
state of affairs in (a)-(c) may (but does not have to) be compared with someone’s
expectations.


2.2. Methods and data


2.2.1. Methodology


The aim of this study is a large-scale typological investigation of a particular lexical-
grammatical domain based on a stratified language sample. This approach allows to
capture the world-wide variation of the parameters deemed relevant for the domain
and to determine the observed relative frequency and areal distribution of their
different values. I focus on four parameters which are relevant to the typological
profile of a continuative expression and information on which can be found in the
sources (see a more detailed description of each of the parameters in Section 3):


(13) (a)     morphosyntactic type,
     (b)     emphatic vs. non-emphatic status,
     (c)     uses outside the continuative domain,
     (d)     meaning in combination with negation.


Information concerning these parameters for each individual language was obtained
from grammatical descriptions and dictionaries. When necessary, information
provided by experts on and speakers of particular languages was also used.
  When it was possible, I searched for translational equivalents of the lexical items
presented in Table 2 (cf. the use of the same method in e.g., Khanina 2008).


     language of the source                          continuative expressions
               English                          still, continue, keep (on), stay, remain
               French                                  encore, continuer, rester
               Spanish                             todavía, aún, seguir, continuar
             Portuguese                                    ainda, continuar
               Russian              (vsё) eščё [(всё) ещё], prodolžat’ [продолжать], poka [пока]


         Table 2: Translational equivalents used when searching for continuative expressions.




                                                                                                   198
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


When it was not possible to search for translational equivalents, I looked through
sections dedicated to aspect, derivational morphology, auxiliary verbs, adverbials and
particles. If some expression (in at least one of its meanings) fitted the definition of
the continuative given in Section 2.1.4, it was included in the database.6
     Some reference grammars contained a special section about continuative
expressions where at least some of the parameters (a)-(d) were discussed. If there was
no description of continuative expressions or if it was not detailed enough, the
relevant information could often (but not always) be retrieved from examples found
in the sources.


2.2.2. Sampling


To construct a genealogically stratified sample, I included one language per family by
default and added more languages from the families which are the most diverse (Indo-
European, Austroasiatic, Atlantic-Congo, Afro-Asiatic, Otomanguean, Athabaskan-
Eyak-Tlingit, Arawakan, Pama-Nyungan). I used genealogical classifications in
Glottolog 4.8 (Hammarström et al. 2023). To make the sample geographically
balanced, I made sure that all macro-areas were represented by an equal number of
languages. In dividing the world into macro-areas, I followed Hammarström &
Donohue (2014) who distinguish Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America,
Australia and Papunesia. The overall number of languages in the sample is determined
by the quality of the available language descriptions. In particular, after applying the
genealogical “filter” to the languages of Australia, the number of languages having
descriptions which mention continuative expressions is hardly above 20, and a similar
situation is observed with the languages of South America. As a result, I decided to
take 20 languages per macro-area, and, in case of more than 20 good candidates, I
included those which are geographically more distant from each other. The
geographical distribution of all 120 languages included in the sample is shown in
Figure 2.7




6
    The database is available online at https://anapanifica.github.io/continuative, the raw dataset is
available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8352034.
7
  All maps were created with the R package “lingtypology” (Moroz 2017).



                                                                                                 199
Panova                                                 Towards a typology of continuative expressions




                            Figure 2: Languages included in the sample.


2. Analysis


2.1. Morphosyntactic type


2.1.1. Defining the types


The continuative meaning was defined in Section 2.1.4 in such a way that does not
allow a continuative marker to constitute an independent predication itself: it must
modify a predicate. Thus, the range of possible types of continuative expressions is
restricted to those types of morphosyntactic elements that can function as predicate
modifiers. The continuative markers identified in the sources can be classified into
the following types of predicate modifiers: affixes, auxiliaries and adverbs/particles.
Importantly, when using the terms “auxiliary” and “adverbs/particles” I mean
exclusively morphosyntactic properties of continuative expressions and not their
place on the lexical-grammatical scale (for example, particles may be both lexical and
grammatical markers, but this difference is ignored in the annotation).
  Working criteria used for assigning the morphosyntactic types are summarized in
Table 3.




                                                                                                200
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


 morphologically bound                      morphologically free (including clitics)
                                 marking typical for verbs in the        no verb-like marking
           affixes              given language (e.g., agreement)
                                           auxiliaries                     adverbs/particles


                     Table 3: Morphosyntactic types of continuative expressions.


If the continuative meaning is expressed by an element interpreted in the source as
an affix on the predicate, this element is classified as affix, cf. (14). Several cases
where the author’s decision about the morphological status of an element seems
debatable are discussed in Section 3.1.2.


(14) Central Alaskan Yupik (esu; Eskimo-Aleut, Yupik; Miyaoka 2012: 1232, glosses
      added)
      tai-gur-tuq
      come-CONT-IND.3SG
      ‘He is still coming, keeps coming.’


Second, morphologically free continuative markers which can be identified as verbs
in the given language, e.g., agree with the subject of the clause and/or have TAM
markers, etc., and which combine with another (lexical) predicate, are labelled
auxiliaries, cf. (2) repeated here as (15).


(15) Balanta-Ganja (Atlantic-Congo, North-Central Atlantic; Creissels and Biaye
      2016: 201)
      Bá-n-tígtà-nà                            yâaθ.
      INCL-INACP-AUXCONT-INCL                  work
      ‘We keep working.’


Most of the rest of the continuative expressions fit into the category of
adverbs/particles. To draw a boundary between adverbs and particles is hardly
possible because in the literature on specific languages there are no common
methodological grounds for using the terms. In addition, this type includes
adpositional phrases and combinations of adverbs/particles with intensifiers.
Examples of continuative adverbs/particles are given in (16)-(17).




                                                                                                201
Panova                                                Towards a typology of continuative expressions


(16) Montagnais (moe; Algic, Algonquian-Blackfoot; Oxford 2007: 209)
     Tâpue      eshku mishta-minuâteu.
     truly      still   really-love.3>3'
     ‘He truly still loves her.’


(17) Hup (jup; Naduhup, Eastern Naduhup; Epps 2008: 584)
     dóʔ=d’əh      b’óy-óy              tǽ
     child=PL      study-DYNM           YET

     ‘The children are still studying/at school.’


Finally, there are six continuative expressions whose morphosyntactic status cannot
be defined based on the data provided in the sources. I mark such cases with the label
“not clear”.


3.1.2. Areal distribution


Figure 3 shows the distribution of morphosyntactic types of continuative expressions
across macro-areas.




                  Figure 3: Morphosyntactic types of continuative expressions.




                                                                                               202
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


It can be seen that adverbs/particles constitute the most widespread morphosyntactic
type of continuative expressions: they occur in many languages in the sample and are
present in all macro-areas. Moreover, one may suspect that the adverbial strategy is
actually possible in many more or even all languages in the sample. Since most of my
sources are grammatical descriptions, and adverbial phrases tend to be lexical rather
than grammatical items, some adverbs/particles might have been overlooked. This
assumption is plausible from yet another perspective: although many languages have
continuative adverbs/particles whose diachronic sources are no longer transparent,
supposedly all languages can derive a continuative as a periphrastic expression, e.g.,
as a combination ‘until’/‘to’/‘and’ + ‘now’, cf. (18).8


(18) Mongolian (mon; Mongolic-Khitan, Mongolic; Pjurbeev 2001; glosses and
       transcription added)
       odoo     boltol /       odoo       xürtel
       now      until /        now        to
       ‘Up to now; to this day; still’


Having established that the ‘adverbs/particles’-type is the default morphosyntactic
type of continuative expressions, let us now turn to the affix-type and auxiliary-type
in each of the macro-areas.
     Among 20 Eurasian languages included in the sample there are nine languages which
feature either a continuative auxiliary or a continuative affix. The boundary between
these two types is not always clear, especially in languages which lack inflectional
morphology. For example, the Mandarin Chinese continuative (-)xiaqu is usually
interpreted as one of the suffixes deriving verbal compounds (Li & Thompson 1989: 61-
62; Ross & Ma 2014: 120), cf. (19a). However, the same element can occur in its lexical
meaning as a morphologically independent predicate (19b). Thus, the affixal status of
(-)xiaqu is not self-evident (at least, from a purely morphological perspective).




8
    Although ‘now’-based periphrastic continuatives may be restricted to present tense, they are
nevertheless considered continuative expressions in the framework of the study (cf. van der Auwera
2021: 26 on this issue for phasal expressions in general).



                                                                                             203
Panova                                                     Towards a typology of continuative expressions


(19) Mandarin Chinese (cmn; Sino-Tibetan, Sinitic)


a.       kàn-xià-qù
         read-descend-go
         ‘Keep reading.’ (Li & Thompson 1989: 61)
b.       wo      xian    xiaqu       dating-dating          zai    shuo
         I       first   get_off     enquire-enquire        then say
         ‘Let me get off (the car) and ask about it first before taking action.’ (Xiao &
         McEnery 2004: 227)


Similar issues can be discussed with regard to almost all continuative
auxiliaries/affixes in South East Asian languages included in the sample (Central
Khmer, Thai, Korean and Halh Mongolian).9
     In the European part of the macro-area there are four languages in the sample
which possess continuative affixes or auxiliaries: Spanish (Indo-European, Italic),
Lithuanian (lit; Indo-European, Balto-Slavic), Abaza (abq; Abkhaz-Adyge, Abkhaz-
Abaza) and Lezgian (lez; Nakh-Daghestanian, Daghestanian). The degree of
morphologization of the continuative markers in these languages clearly varies. The
auxiliary verbs continuar ‘continue’ and seguir ‘follow, continue’ in Spanish do not
show any effects of morphologization. Moreover, even their auxiliary status seems to
be relatively new: according to van der Auwera (1998: 30), “Spanish continuar, when
followed by the gerundio, could be considered to be an auxiliary or semi-auxiliary”,
while “English continue may still be a lexical verb”. In contrast, the Lezgian
continuative auxiliary ama ‘stays’ is univerbated with the preposed dependent verb
inflected for aspect (20), see Haspelmath (1993: 145) and Maisak & Verhees (ms); but
in other Lezgic languages, e.g., in Agul (21), the auxiliary ‘stay’ still functions as a
morphologically independent verb (Maisak & Verhees ms).


(20) Lezgian (Nakh-Daghestanian, Daghestanian; Haspelmath 1993: 210; glosses
         adapted)
         Jusuf.a          k’walax-zama.
         Jusuf.ERG        work-IPFV.CONT
         ‘Jusuf is still working.’

9
    Central Khmer (khm; Austroasiatic, Khmeric), Thai (tha; Tai-Kadai, Kam-Tai), Korean (kor; Koreanic);
Halh Mongolian (khk; Mongolic-Khitan, Eastern Mongolic).



                                                                                                    204
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


(21) Agul (agx; Nakh-Daghestanian, Daghestanian; Merdanova 2004: 115, cited by
         Maisak & Verhees ms)
         dad.a            kːazit         ruχ.a-j            ame-a
         father.ERG       newspaper      read.IPFV-CVB      stay-PRS
         ‘Father is still reading the newspaper.’


The diachronic source of the Abaza continuative -rḳʷ(a) (22) is not absolutely clear,
although there is some partial support for its verbal origins (Genko 1955: 140). In the
modern language, its affixal status is fairly certain.


(22) Abaza (Abkhaz-Adyge, Abkhaz-Abaza; Klyagina & Panova 2019: 7; glosses
         adapted)
         a-kʷa         ʕa-kʷa-rḳʷ-əw-n
         DEF-rain      CSL-rain-CONT-IPFV-PST

         ‘[When I was going home] it was still raining.’


The Lithuanian prefix tebe- is a rare example of the continuative affix originating from an
adverb. According to Ostrowski (2011, 2016: 176-177), the verbal prefix be-, reinforced
by the deictic element te-, goes back to the adverb be ‘yet, still’. As can be seen from texts,
the prefix superseded the corresponding adverb in the first half of 19th century.
      Auxiliaries and affixes are very frequent types of continuative expressions in the
languages of Africa. With the exception of the Afro-Asiatic languages, which generally
prefer adverbial phrases, all the seven Atlantic-Congo languages included in the
sample as well as three out of eight languages belonging to the smaller African
families (Gban, Mande; Ma’di, Central Sudanic; Turkana, Nilotic)10 feature either a
continuative auxiliary or a continuative affix. Moreover, in most of these languages,
and especially in Bantu, continuative markers play a prominent role in TAM systems,
so they are discussed both in grammatical descriptions and in specific papers, see
Nurse (2008: 145-148), Maho (2008), Löfgren (2019), among others. Two main
morphosyntactic types of continuative expressions in Bantu are exemplified in (23)-
(24).11 In Zulu the continuative marker sa- appears directly in the verb; in Nyakyusa-

10
     Gban (ggu; Mande, Eastern Mande), Ma’di (mhi; Central Sudanic, Moru-Madi), Turkana (tuv; Nilotic,
Eastern Nilotic).
11
     The third possible option can be seen in Swahili (swh; Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo) where the
borrowed adverb bado ‘still’ almost replaced an older continuative auxiliary -ngali (Nurse 2008: 145;
Zahran & Bloom Ström 2022).



                                                                                                 205
Panova                                                      Towards a typology of continuative expressions


Ngonde the continuative marker tʊ-kaalɪ (glossed as SP1PL-PERS(persistive)) is a
separate word consisting of the subject prefix and the root -kaalɪ. 12


(23) Zulu (zul; Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, Bantoid; Ziervogel et al. 1967: 91;
         glosses added)


a.       u-sa-phek.a
         3SG.G2.SBJ-CONT-cook
         ‘She still cooks/ She is still cooking.’
b.       ba-sa-wadla                  ama-swidi
         3PL.G2.SBJ-CONT-eat          PL.G4-sweet

         ‘They are still eating the sweets.’


(24) Nyakyusa-Ngonde (nyy; Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo; Persohn 2021: 133;
         glosses adapted)
         tʊ-kaalɪ           tʊ-kʊ-bop-a.
         SBJ1PL-PERS        SP1PL-PRS-run-FV
         ʻWe are still running / still run.’


Historically, continuative markers attested in Bantu (often called “persistives” in the
literature) go back to the Proto-Bantu marker *-kí(-) (Meeussen 1967: 109; Nurse
2008: 145-148). According to (Maho 2008: 296), it originally had an imperfective
and/or progressive meaning and functioned as an auxiliary in the construction
structurally similar to the one in (24).
      Outside Bantu, several African languages, e.g., Balanta-Ganja (Atlantic-Congo,
North-Central Atlantic) and Ewe (ewe; Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, Kwa Volta-
Congo), show dedicated continuative auxiliaries similar to (24), while others — at
least, Sango (sag; Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, North Volta-Congo), Ma’di (Central
Sudanic, Moru-Madi) and Gban (Mande, Eastern Mande) — demonstrate a different
strategy, using the verb ‘stay, remain’. Example (25) illustrates the case of Sango: in
(25a) the verb ngba is a lexical verb, in (25b) it functions as an auxiliary, taking the
nominalized verb form as a complement.




12
     The root -kaalɪ is very likely to contain the copula lɪ (Persohn 2021: 133), cf. Nurse (2008: 147) on
this pattern in other Bantu languages.



                                                                                                     206
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


(25) Sango (Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, North Volta-Congo)


a.       mbi        yí           ála   ngbá na         ndo       só      pɛpɛ
         1SG        want         3PL stay     PREP     ?         DEM     NEG
         ‘I don’t want them to stay here.’ (Samarin 1970: 127; glosses added)
b.       mbi              ngba         ti     hu-ngo         pino
         1SG              remain       SBJ    see-NMLZ       suffering
         ‘I am still suffering.’ (Nassenstein & Pasch 2021: 114; glosses adapted)


Finally, one continuative marker in Africa in the database is classified as ‘not clear’.
This is a predicative marker lé‶ in Gban (Mande). Predicative markers are
portmanteau morphemes expressing TAM and polarity and occurring in the post-
subject position. An example illustrating the predicative marker lé‶ in the
continuative meaning is given in (26).


(26) Gban (Mande, Eastern Mande; Fedotov 2015: 4; glosses adapted)
         zig̰̋̋ ő    ɔ̏                lé‶           blȅ
         then        3SG[…]            CONT          IPFV\walk

         ‘[They walked all morning] and are still walking.’


Overall, the number of continuative auxiliaries/affixes in Africa gradually increases
from north to south: continuative auxiliaries/affixes are not widespread in North
Africa but in Central and especially South Africa (with the notable exception of the
Khoisan language Ts’ixa13 genealogically distant from most languages spoken in this
area) they represent the dominant strategy of expressing the continuative meaning.
     In North America non-adverbial continuatives are rare and scattered throughout
the macro-area. Central Alaskan Yupik (esu; Eskimo-Aleut, Eskimo), Purepecha (tsz;
Tarascan) and Lakota (lkt; Siouan, Core Siouan) are the only North American
languages in the sample with continuative affixes (however, the Lakota continuative
suffix -akhe is non-productive (Ullrich 2018: 190)), and two more languages have
continuative auxiliaries (27)-(28). In addition, Yucatec Maya (yua; Mayan, Core
Mayan) employs the auxiliary sèegir ‘continue’, borrowed from Spanish.




13
     Ts’ixa (Khoe-Kwadi, Khoe).



                                                                                    207
Panova                                                  Towards a typology of continuative expressions


(27) Tipai (dih; Cochimi-Yuman, Yuman; Miller 2001: 293; glosses adapted)
     nyaach       saaw      xkiiway
     I+SBJ        eat       still.do
     ‘I’m still eating.’


(28) Creek (mus; Muskogean; Martin 2011: 306)
     a:fack-itá     hámk-it         ahô:sk-i:              mónk-ati:-s
     happy-INF      one-T           left.over.FGR-DUR      still-PAST5-IND
     ‘One game still remained.’


South America turns out to be the macro-area with the largest number of
morphologically bound continuative expressions. Continuative affixes are attested in
12 of the 20 South American languages included in the sample, and only one language
— Nivaclé (cag; Matacoan, Mataguayo I) — demonstrates a continuative auxiliary
(based on the verb ‘stay’ (Fabre 2016: 360)). South America is often subdivided into
two linguistic areas with different typological profiles: Amazonia and the Andes
(Dixon & Aikhenvald 1999: 8-10). However, continuative affixes found in Amazonian
and Andean languages are structurally very similar, see examples in (29)-(30).
Usually these are optional suffixes occupying a specific slot in the verbal template
along with a number of other suffixes having rather “lexical” meanings, e.g., ‘again’,
‘for a long time’, ‘regretfully’, etc. Diachronic sources of South American continuative
suffixes are not discussed in the literature, which might suggest that they are not
synchronically transparent.


(29) Tanimuca-Retuarã (tnc; Tucanoan, Eastern Tucanoan; Eraso 2015: 263)
     [Amazonia]
     ɟi-bá’írábé-~ɟúhú-ruɟú
     1S-work-NO.COMPL-FUT
     ‘I will still be working.’


(30) Mapudungun (arn; Araucanian; Smeets 2008: 172, glosses simplified) [the Andes]
     müle-ka-y              ta-mi                chaw?
     be-CONT-IND-3          the-POSS.2SG         father
     ‘Is your father still there?’




                                                                                                 208
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


In Australia continuative auxiliaries and continuative affixes are rare. The database
includes two continuative expressions encoded as auxiliaries: wirdija in Kayardild
(gyd; Tangkic, Southern Tangkic) and mirra in Wambayan (wmb; Mirndi, Ngurlun).
Both verbs have a wide range of meanings: ‘stay, reside’ (in locative clauses), ‘be’,
‘become’, and only in ascriptive clauses14 it is used in the continuative meaning (~
‘be still’) (Evans 1995: 321; Nordlinger 1998: 178). Two examples of continuative
affixes are also not straightforward. The continuative -wa in Garrwa (wrk; Garrwan)
is described as a suffix which is exclusive to verbs (Mushin 2012: 199). However,
there are examples where it also attaches to the temporal adverbial wabula ‘olden
times’ (Mushin 2012: 321), which makes it more similar to a clitic. The continuative
djal- in Bininj Kun-Wok (gup; Gunwinyguan) appears in the verb as a prefix (31) but
“when it restricts nouns, it is a separate word rather than a prefix” (Evans 2003: 516).


(31) Bininj Kun-Wok (gup; Gunwinyguan; Evans 2003: 518)
        A-marne-djal-djare
        1/3-BEN-just-want.NPST
        ‘I still love him/her’ (first interpretation offered) / ‘Only I love him/her’ / ‘I love
        only him/her.’


Papunesia is a very diverse macro-area, and it does not always make sense to discuss
it as a whole. However, as for continuatives, the general tendency to lack continuative
auxiliaries and affixes seems to hold for all major areal and genealogical linguistic
units distinguished in the macro-area. The detailed data on continuative expressions
in Malayo-Polynesian languages of South East Asia (MPSEA) are provided in
(Veselinova et al. to appear). The distribution of morphosyntactic types of
continuative expressions in their sample is presented in Table 4.
     As Veselinova et al. (to appear) note, “the preference is clearly for morphologically
free expressions; bound ones exist but are relatively few”. Leaving aside differences
in encoding, my data show the same pattern: seven out of eight Austronesian
languages included in my sample have continuative expressions classified as adverbial
phrases, and only Tukang Besi North (khc; Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian) —
which happened to be included both in my study and in the study of Veselinova et al.
(to appear) — has the continuative suffix -ho (Donohue 1999: 173-174).

14
     Ascriptive clauses are clauses where the predicate “attributes a certain property to the subject”
(Nordlinger 1998: 173).



                                                                                                 209
Panova                                                          Towards a typology of continuative expressions


                                        type                                number of languages
                                   free markers
                                     adverb                                      15 languages
                                  aspect marker                                  11 languages
                                    free gram                                    9 languages
                                 single morpheme                                 5 languages
                                    auxiliary                                    4 languages
                                     particle                                    3 languages
                                 aspectual adverb                                 1 language
                      periphrastic construction/adverbial                         1 language
                                 several markers
                          1. AUX-like 2. aspect marker                            1 language
            1. adverb 2. combination of adverb and clitic 3. clitic               1 language
                  1. AUX-like 2. aspect marker 2. aspect clitic                   1 language
               1. free aspect marker 2. proclitic aspect marker                   1 language
                                     enclitics                                   7 languages
                                        suffix                                    1 language


     Table 4: Types of STILL expressions in 61 MPSEA languages (Veselinova et al. to appear). 15


Non-Austronesian languages included in the sample show a similar picture. There are
only three non-adverbial continuatives and, in addition, none of them has
continuative as a core meaning. The only putative example of the morphologically
bound continuative marker is the suffix -an in Daga (dgz; Dagan, Central Dagan)
described in (Murane 1974: 62) as the marker of the Prolonged Action Tense, but it
is mainly used in the sense ‘do smth until’. Two continuative auxiliaries found in the
languages Bunak (bfn; Timor-Alor-Pantar) and Siwai (siw; South Bougainville, Buinic)
show the continuative meaning only in examples with stative predicates (32)-(33),
while in other cases they have meanings in the domain of pluractionality (cf. Section
3.3 on polysemy of continuative markers).


(32) Bunak (Timor-Alor-Pantar; Schapper 2022: 469)
      Baqi            u       niq          oa,           baqi         heser       liol.
      NPRX.AN         live    NEG          PFV           NPRX.AN      dead        continue
      ‘He didn’t live any more, he kept on being dead.’



15
     The   data   come    from    the     map    layer    “MPSEA_STILL:     bound    or   free   expressions”,
https://arcg.is/0jnvHm.



                                                                                                         210
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


(33) Siwai (South Bougainville, Buinic; Onishi 1994: 500; glosses adapted)
      ong          noo            toko=tokoh-ah             tu-ro-ng?
      DEM.M        possibly       REDUP=be.hot-PART         COP.3SG-PERF-M

      ‘Is that possibly still hot?’


3.1.3. Discussion


The preferences for specific morphosyntactic types of continuative expressions can be
to a certain degree explained by appealing to the typological profiles of the languages.
Two linguistic characteristics which seem to be especially relevant for developing
continuative auxiliaries and continuative affixes are multiple verb (i.e., auxiliary or
serial verb) constructions and polysynthetic morphology.
   Predictably, continuative auxiliaries tend to be found in languages with well-
developed systems of multiple verb constructions. Good examples are Mandarin
Chinese and Thai in Southeast Asia and the Papuan language Bunak, which are known
for directional serial verb constructions and also use motion verbs as continuative
markers (Li & Thompson 1989: 61; Iwasaki and Ingkaphirom 2005: 157-158;
Schapper 2022: 468). Continuative auxiliaries that originated from the position verbs
‘be at’, ‘stay’, ‘sit’ or from copulas usually present a part of a diverse system of
auxiliary verb constructions, as in Creek (Muskogean; Martin 2011: 306-307) or Ma'di
(Central Sudanic; Blackings & Fabb 2003: 246-250). It must be specially noted that
the Atlantic-Congo type of continuative auxiliaries can also be associated with the
extensive use of multiple verb constructions in many of these languages: when an
“old” continuative affix is fused with copula and then combined with a lexical verb,
a new multiple verb construction emerges, cf. (24) above and the still transparent
continuative construction in Ewe (34).


(34) Ewe (Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, Kwa Volta-Congo; Ameka 2018, cited by
      Kramer 2021: 7; ko ‘only’ is an intensifier)
      é-ga-le                     aha          no-m           ko
      3SG-REP-be.at:PRS           alcohol      drink-PROG     only
      ‘He is still drinking alcohol.’


Polysynthesis and, specifically, elaborate derivational morphology is a characteristic
of many languages featuring continuative affixes. In particular, morphologically



                                                                                    211
Panova                                             Towards a typology of continuative expressions


bound continuatives are found in such polysynthetic languages as Abaza (Abkhaz-
Adyge), Central Alaskan Yupik (Eskimo-Aleut) and many South American languages.
One may hypothesize that the widespread presence of continuative affixes in South
America can be a part of the more general tendency concerning verbal derivational
morphology as a whole. For example, as Müller (2014) reports, South America is the
macro-area where the number of languages having special desiderative affixes is
considerably higher than in the rest of the world.
  Of course, polysynthesis and multiple verb constructions are not sufficient criteria
for the development of a continuative affix/auxiliary: there are languages that show
these features but still exclusively use continuative adverbials, e.g., polysynthetic
Navajo (nav; Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, Athabaskan-Eyak) or serializing Nêlêmwa-
Nixumwak (nee; Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, Oceanic). However, in general it
seems that a continuative affix or auxiliary can be easily developed only in a language
with the relevant morphosyntactic profile.


3.2. Emphatic vs. non-emphatic status


3.2.1. Non-emphatic continuatives


In the literature on phasal polarity it has been noted that some phasal expressions
tend to regularly occur in contexts where their presence seems to be redundant. For
example, Dahl and Wälchli (2016) show that iamitives (a type of ‘already’-markers)
frequently occur with “natural development predicates, that is, predicates that
become true sooner or later under normal circumstances” (Dahl & Wälchli 2016: 326).
In (35) the change of state is a part of the semantics of the predicate ‘rot’, and,
nevertheless, Indonesian sudah ‘already’ appears in such contexts almost obligatorily.
Importantly, it does not seem to add any emphasis to the statement.


(35) Indonesian (ind; Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian; Dahl & Wälchli 2016: 328)
     Kamu    tidak      bisa        memakan-nya.        Itu     sudah        busuk.
     You     not        can         eat-it              that    IAM          rotten
     ‘You cannot eat it. It is rotten.’


A tendency to accompany natural development predicates has also been mentioned
for some nondum (‘not yet’) markers by Veselinova (2015: 20).



                                                                                            212
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


   Likewise, a tendency to regularly occur in contexts already implying the
continuative semantics without adding any emphasis seems to be a characteristic of
some continuative expressions. Continuatives of this type are most often found in the
contexts ‘still alive’ (36), ‘still young’ (37) and ‘still morning’ (38). Less frequent
contexts are ‘still night/dawn’, ‘still a virgin/unmarried’, ‘still in a belly/at the breast’,
etc. All mentioned predicates already contain the semantic components typical for
the continuative meaning: the situation existed at some moment before reference
time, it was not interrupted, and it is expected to change in the future.


(36) Bunak (Timor-Alor-Pantar; Schapper 2022: 508)
      Lui       Bert       u        taq.
      Louis     Berthe     live     CONT

      ‘Louis Berthe was still alive.’


(37) Mapudungun (Araucanian; Smeets 2008: 313, glosses adapted)
      ĩnché     rumé       llüka-nten-nge-wma               pichi-ka-lu
      I         very       get.afraid-NMLZ-VERB-SCVN        small-CONT-SVN
      ‘I really used to be someone who easily got scared when I was young.’


(38) Yeri (yev; Nuclear Torricelli, Wapei-Palei; Wilson 2017: 196)
      awo        ko        maleikia-pɨ              kua
      yes        still     morning-ADD              still
      ‘Yes, it is still morning.’


In the framework of this study, the continuative expressions showing a high degree
of obligatoriness in contexts like (36)-(38) will be called non-emphatic. In contrast, the
continuative expressions which are usually omitted in such contexts (and, when
present, have an obvious emphatic function) will be called emphatic.
   One of the further development paths of non-emphatic continuatives is the gradual
loss of productivity: they become available with a restricted set of stative predicates
and appear only in subordinate while-clauses or secondary predications (in the
depictive function). An example of the non-productive continuative comes from
Lakota: the continuative suffix -akhe is found only in five constructions with the
meanings ‘while still fresh’, ‘with clothes still on’, ‘while still healthy’, ‘while it still
down’, ‘while still alive’ (39) (Ullrich 2018: 190).




                                                                                         213
Panova                                              Towards a typology of continuative expressions


(39) Lakota (Siouan, Core Siouan; Ullrich 2018: 279)
     ní-akhe              thiyáta      ya-khí-pi                      ktA
     alive-DER.CONT       home         2A-arrive.back.there-PL        FUT.IRR

     ‘You will get back home alive.’


Judging by examples from grammatical descriptions, the continuatives -aanjanu in
Worrorra (40) and tǽ in Hup (41) also tend to be frozen with certain stative predicates
(although there are no restrictions on their combinations with dynamic predicates).


(40) Worrorra (wro; Worrorran, Western Worrorran; Clendon 2014: 269)


a.   wangalang-aanjanu
     child-ESS
     ‘While (someone) was a child.’
b.   lewarra-aanjanu
     daylight-ESS
     ‘While there’s still daylight.’


(41) Hup (Naduhup, Eastern Naduhup; Epps 2008: 585)


a.   tɨh=pæcǽw=d’əh                 tǽ
     3SG=adolescent.boy=PL          YET

     ‘Still young (boys).’
b.   wág tǽ
     day YET
     ‘Still day/light.’


3.2.2. How to find non-emphatic continuatives


For the purposes of this study, we need a method which allows us to determine an
emphatic vs. non-emphatic status of all continuative expressions in the sample. The
approach proposed in this section is based on examples presented in grammatical
descriptions. Since non-emphatic continuative expressions tend to frequently occur in
the contexts like ‘be alive’ and ‘be young’, a substantial number of examples of the
specific continuative expression in such contexts in the grammatical description may



                                                                                             214
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


signal the non-emphatic status of that continuative expression. Despite an obvious
bibliographical bias, this method has an important advantage: it is applicable to all
languages the descriptions of which contain at least several sentential examples with
continuative expressions, i.e., almost all languages of the sample.
   Figure 4 shows the distribution of continuative expressions which occur in at least
three different contexts, already implying the continuative semantics, throughout the
grammatical description. For example, the marker koi in Tuvalu (tvl; Austronesian,
Malayo-Polynesian) in the reference grammar (Besnier 2000) occurs in the contexts
‘still young’ (Besnier 2000: 70), ‘still predawn’ (Besnier 2000: 82) and ‘still alive’
(Besnier 2000: 120), thus it is included to Figure 4.




                                Figure 4: Non-emphatic continuatives.


Even taking into account the vagueness of this method, the areal patterns observed
in Figure 4 do not seem accidental. Most continuative expressions typically used in
natural development contexts are found in Papunesia and Australia, three more
examples come from the Americas. Interestingly, Papunesia is an area where iamitive
(‘already’) markers are also often found, cf. “Philippine” and “Indonesian” types of
iamitives identified in (Dahl & Wälchli 2016).




                                                                                  215
Panova                                                          Towards a typology of continuative expressions


3.3. Polysemy of continuative expressions


3.3.1. Iterative (‘continuously, repeatedly, always’), repetitive (‘again’), additive (‘more,
also’)


Most often the continuative expressions have additional meanings related to
pluractionality, i.e., repetition of the same or, at least, comparable situation one or
more times. The semantic link between the continuative meaning and pluractionality
is easily explained: both meanings imply the existence of some situation at several
temporal points, but the continuative requires it to be precisely the same
uninterrupted situation, while pluractionality allows it to be different situations (cf.
McGregor 1990: 470). Languages with continuative markers which are also used to
express pluractional meanings are shown in Figure 5.16
     The continuative expressions which also have the iterative meaning (‘constantly,
repeatedly, always’) are found in eight languages in the sample.17 For example, in
Kesawai (Nuclear Trans New Guinea) the enclitic =apaie, usually occurring in the
serial construction with the verb te ‘do’, conveys the meaning close to English still, as
in (42a). However, in the habitual/iterative contexts like (42b) the continuative
meaning of =apaie is not seen anymore, instead it is paraphrased as ‘continuously’.


(42) Kesawai (Nuclear Trans New Guinea, Madang; Priestley 2008: 382-383; glosses
        adapted)


a.       Hekeni         ketin=apaie                   te-r-i.
         firewood cut:split=continuously              do-PRS-1S
         ‘I’m still cutting firewood.’
b.       Mo       esame    pi    mipii     somoru      paru=apai                       tu-pu-r-a.
         this     dog      time many       night       bark=continuously do-HAB-PRS-3SG
         ‘Often (many times) this dog barks at night continuously.’


16
     If a language has several continuative expressions, their non-continuative meanings are shown
together (this applies to all maps in Section 3.3).
17
     Gooniyandi (gni; Bunaban), Central Alaskan Yupik (Eskimo-Aleut, Eskimo), Bininj Kun-Wok (gup;
Gunwinyguan), Mawng (mph; Iwaidjan Proper), Mullukmulluk (mpb; Northern Daly), Kesawai (xes;
Nuclear Trans New Guinea, Madang), Ngiyambaa (wyb; Pama-Nyungan, Southeastern Pama-
Nyungan), Bunak (Timor-Alor-Pantar).



                                                                                                         216
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244




        Figure 5: Additive, repetitive and iterative meanings of the continuative expressions.


Remarkably, the English still represents one more example of the close relationship
between continuative and iterative meanings. With a reference to Kemmer (1990),
Michaelis (1993: 205) notes that “temporal still at one time served as a durational
adverb akin to constantly or continually”.
   The continuative-iterative ambiguity of some markers often poses a problem for
determining what can be considered a continuative expression. For instance, in
Paakantyi (Pama-Nyungan, not in the sample) there is the suffix -ŋana which “mainly
describes a prolonged process” (Hercus 1982: 195) but in one of the examples
provided (43) it seems to be used in the continuative meaning. In principle, the
example (43) can be interpreted either as ‘the dog started to sniff at the rat’s nest
some time ago and it is still sniffing’ (continuative) or as ‘the dog is being sniffing at
the rat’s nest continuously’ (iterative). Since there is no evidence in favor of the
continuative interpretation, this marker was not included in the database of the
continuative markers.


(43) Paakantyi (drl; Pama-Nyungan,Yarli-Baagandj; Hercus 1982: 195)
      gaḷi      bāṛa-la-ŋana           bulgu-na        yabara
      dog       smell-TOP-ASP          rat-GEN         camp
      ‘The dog keeps sniffing at the rat’s nest.’




                                                                                                 217
Panova                                                   Towards a typology of continuative expressions


The repetitive meaning (‘again’) is expressed by the same item as the continuative
meaning in 10 languages of the sample.18 Example (44) shows a copula verb with the
repetitive/continuative prefix gà- in Ewe (Kwa Volta-Congo). Another well-known
example of this polysemy is the French adverbial encore ‘again, still’.


(44) Ewe (Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, Kwa Volta-Congo; Rongier 2004: 75)
        Egàle zɔzɔm.
        ‘He walks again.’ / ‘He keeps walking.’


Finally, 17 languages of the sample possess markers which have both the continuative
meaning and the additive meaning (‘also, more’).19 An example of such a marker is
given in (45): the particle ql in Towa (Kiowa-Tanoan) can mean both ‘still’ and ‘also’.


(45) Towa (Kiowa-Tanoan; Yumitani 1998: 247; glosses adapted)


a.      ql     i ̜-wéˑɦɨ ̜́
        still INTR[1DU]-strong/STAT
        ‘We are still strong/healthy.’
b.      vɨ ̂ˑʔwè      tyêˑtɨbɑ-š   ql     sɑp̜ ɑ-̜ pǽˑ
        both          box-INV      also   TR[1DU:3INV]-make/PFV

        ‘We both also made a box.’


The polysemy ‘still’/‘more’ is illustrated with the suffix -ve in Paraguayan Guaraní
(Tupian) (46). Another good example is the Turkish continuative daha which,


18
     Abaza (Abkhaz-Adyge, Abkhaz-Abaza), Kambaata (ktb; Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic), Coptic (cop; Afro-
Asiatic, Egyptian), Tlingit (tli; Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit), Ewe (Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, Kwa
Volta-Congo), Semelai (sza; Austroasiatic, Aslian), Gooniyandi (Bunaban), Wageman (waq; Isolate,
Australia), Mawng (Iwaidjan Proper), Southern Yukaghir (yux; Yukaghir, Southern Yukaghir).
19
     Abaza (Abkhaz-Adyge, Abkhaz-Abaza), Lithuanian (Indo-European, Balto-Slavic), Tlingit (tli;
Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit), Semelai (sza; Austroasiatic, Aslian), Tagalog (tgl; Austronesian, Malayo-
Polynesian), Totoro (ttk; Barbacoan, Coconucan), Gooniyandi (Bunaban), Tamil (tam; Dravidian, South
Dravidian), Spanish (Indo-European, Italic), Mawng (Iwaidjan Proper), Towa (tow; Kiowa-Tanoan),
Tidore (tvo; North Halmahera, Northern North Halmahera), Bardi (bcj; Nyulnyulan, Western
Nyulnyulan), Mandarin Chinese (Sino-Tibetan, Sinitic), Paraguayan Guaraní (gug; Tupian, Maweti-
Guaran), Turkish (tur; Turkic, Common Turkic), Southern Yukaghir (yux; Yukaghir, Southern
Yukaghir).



                                                                                                  218
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


similarly to -ve in Paraguayan Guaraní (46b), is extensively used as a marker of
comparative constructions (Göksel & Kerslake 2005: 176-177).


(46) Paraguayan Guaraní (Tupian, Maweti-Guaran)


a.      o-ho-se-ve
        3ACT-go-DES-CMPR
        ‘He still wants to go.’ / ‘He wants to go on.’ (Gerasimov 2020: 2; glosses adapted)
b.      che a-mba'apo-ve                ndehegui
        I     1SG.ACT-work-more         from.you
        ‘I work more than you.’ (Estigarribia 2020: 249)


From a historical perspective, the meaning ‘also, more’ tends to be older than the
continuative meaning. In his study of European languages, van der Auwera (1998:
75-76) lists a number of continuative adverbials which originate from expressions
denoting addition or comparison, whereas cases of the semantic development in the
other direction, to my knowledge, are not documented.


3.3.2. Temporal (non-)simultaneity (‘while’, ‘before’, ‘a while ago’, etc.)


The continuative expressions often serve as markers of temporal simultaneity or non-
simultaneity: they may express such meanings as ‘while (still)’, ‘before’, ‘a while ago’,
‘just’, ‘recently’, cf. Figure 6.
     Note that in these functions continuative expressions might have syntactic
properties fundamentally different from just being a predicate modifier: they may
behave not only as standard adverbial expressions but also take a nominal or a whole
clause as an argument, cf. English before vs. before Christmas vs. before Christmas comes.
     The most common meaning from this semantic group is ‘while (still)’: it is attested
in seven languages of the sample. 20 Syntactically the ‘while’-clause can be more or
less independent from the other clause: for example, in (47b) the ‘while’-predicate
can be analyzed as a depictive, whereas in (48b) the biclausal analysis is preferable.



20
     Tagalog (Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian), Tuvalu (tvl; Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian), Creek
(Muskogean), Ngarinman (nbj; Pama-Nyungan, Desert Nyungic), Lakota (Siouan, Core Siouan),
Tadaksahak (dsq; Songhay, Northwest Songhay), Siwai (South Bougainville, Buinic).



                                                                                               219
Panova                                                       Towards a typology of continuative expressions




        Figure 6: Continuative expressions functioning as markers of temporal (non-)simultaneity.




(47) Ngarinman (Pama-Nyungan, Desert Nyungic; Meakins & Nordlinger 2014: 387;
         glosses adapted)


a.       No      nyawa=ma=rna                   janga=rni.
         no      this=TOP=1MIN.SBJ              sick=ONLY21
         ‘No I’m still sick.’
b.       Lab           ma-na         magin-jirri=rni.
         pick.up       get-PST       sleep-ALL=ONLY
         ‘He takes him while he’s still asleep.’


(48) Tuvalu (Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian; Besnier 2000: 90, 488; glosses
         adapted)


a.       Koi fai      vaa                    ssuaa        maaloo          ki   ssuaa       maaloo.
         still have poor.relationship a+other government to a+other government
         ‘The relationship between these countries is still bad.’



21
     The continuative is glossed ONLY because it also has a restrictive meaning, see Section 3.3.3.



                                                                                                      220
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


b.    [Kee         naa      vau       koe]         [koi     nofo   au   i      konei].
      SBJC         please   come      you          still    stay   I    at     here
      ‘Please come while I’m still here.’


Examples with the continuative expressions in the ‘before’ function are attested in
five languages: Turkana (Nilotic, Eastern Nilotic), Nyakyusa-Ngonde (Atlantic-Congo,
Volta-Congo, Bantoid), Cherokee (chr; Iroquoian), Creek (Muskogean) and Nivaclé
(Matacoan, Mataguayo I). The syntactic structure of these examples is also highly
variable. In (49) the continuative marker in Turkana modifies a nominal (‘tomorrow’)
as a preposition; the ‘before’-clause in Nyakyusa-Ngonde presented in (50) is formed
by the element bo ‘as’, the continuative auxiliary and the verb in the infinitive form.


(49) Turkana (Nilotic, Eastern Nilotic; Dimmendaal 1983: 360)
      tò-boŋ-ù̥            è-ròkò        mòyì
      IMP-return-VEN        still         tomorrow
      ‘Return before tomorrow.’


(50) Nyakyusa-Ngonde (nyy; Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, Bantoid; Persohn 2017: 187)
      m-ba-kooliile               ʊkʊtɪ          m-ba-lagɪl-e           a-ma-syʊ
      1SG-2PL-call.PFV            COMP           1SG-2PL-dictate-SUBJ   AUG-6-word
      bo      n-gaalɪ          ʊ-kʊ-fw-a
      as      1SG-PERS         AUG-15(INF)-die-FV

      ‘I’ve called you (pl.) to give you instructions before I die.’


At first glance, the meaning ‘before’ seems more natural for nondum (‘not yet’)
markers, cf. I will return while it is not Sunday yet > I will return before Sunday, and
indeed, e.g., in Indonesian the word for ‘before’ sebelum is based on belum ‘not yet’
(Sneddon et al. 2010: 199). That the continuative expressions often have the ‘before’
meaning can be explained in two ways. First, the semantic shift can happen according
to the model ‘still to do > not yet done’ discussed in Section 3.3.3. This seems to be
the case in (50) where the embedded clause is formed with the infinitive, i.e., literally
it means ‘while I am still to die’. Second, according to Jin & Koenig (2020), ‘before’-
clauses represent one of the contexts where the phenomenon of expletive negation
frequently occurs. In other words, ‘before’-clauses involving negation and non-




                                                                                         221
Panova                                               Towards a typology of continuative expressions


involving negation often denote the same situation, and this factor could also
contribute to the shift from ‘still’ to ‘not yet’ in the temporal clauses.
     A whole group of meanings related to localization of the situation in the past (‘a
while ago’, ‘just a moment ago’, ‘just’, ‘(immediately) after’) usually occurs in the
perfective contexts, cf. (51). The mechanism of this semantic shift is not clear.


(51) Huehuetla Tepehua (tee; Totonacan, Tepehua; Kung 2007: 468; glosses adapted)


a.     xa-k-maq-sqoli-y+ka7
       PST-1SUBJ-CAUS-whistle-IPFV+JST
       ‘I still played [music].’
b.     waa     min-li+ka7
       FOC     come-PFV+JST
       ‘He just arrived.’


3.3.3. Other meanings (concessive, restrictive, delimitative, progressive, etc.)


Several more non-continuative meanings of continuative expressions attested in the
data can be seen in Figure 7.
     The concessive meaning (‘despite, nevertheless’) of the continuative expressions can
be illustrated by the English continuative still: it is the meaning of still in the perfective
contexts where the continuative interpretation is not available, cf. (52).


(52) We told Bill not to come, but he still showed up. (Michaelis 1993: 193)


The concessive meaning is tightly connected to the “counter-expectation” semantic
component which is sometimes discussed as a part of the semantics of the phasal
domain in general (Plungian 1999, see Section 2.1.3). Indeed, in the languages in the
sample the concessive meaning is often combined with the continuative meaning and
results in the sense ‘something is still happening, although it is expected to be over’,
cf. (53). Bowern (2012: 650) describes the meaning of the Bardi (Nyulnyulan)
continuative gardi in (53) as follows: “it refers to actions or states which persist,
despite the action of the previous clause”.




                                                                                              222
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244




Figure 7: Continuatives which can also express concessive, restrictive, delimitative, progressive, ‘not
                                      yet’ and ‘wait!’ meanings.


(53) Bardi (Nyulnyulan, Western Nyulnyulan; Bowern 2012: 650; glosses adapted)
      Ginyinggon        i-ng-arr-bala-nyji-n,                arra
      then              3-PST-AUG-fight-REFL-CNTS            NEG

      oo-la-rr-m-ala-nyji-n,                 gardi          ragal           irr-garda.
      3-IRR-AUG-REFL-fight-REFL-CNTS         still          uninjured       3AUG-body
      ‘Then they fought, but it wasn’t a serious fight; their bodies were uninjured.’


Moreover, sometimes languages develop two continuative markers, one of which has
a “plain” continuative semantics, while the other one has an obligatory counter-
expectation semantic component, see gaa vs. gat in Nêlêmwa-Nixumwak
(Austronesian; Bril 2016: 93) and jon vs. hum in Mankanya (knf; Atlantic-Congo,
North-Central Atlantic, not in the sample; Gaved 2020: 180-184). Overall,
continuative expressions which are described as having the concessive/counter-
expectation meaning (at least in some of the contexts) are found in four languages:
Gban (Mande), Bardi (Nyulnyulan), Nêlêmwa-Nixumwak (Austronesian) and Turkana
(Nilotic).
   Continuative expressions in three Papuanesian (Chamorro, Austronesian; Taulil,
Taulil-Butam, tuh; Anta-Komnzo-Wára-Wérè-Kémä, Yam) and four Australian
(Gooniyandi, Bunaban; Wambayan, Mirndi; Bininj Kun-Wok, Gunwinyguan;



                                                                                                  223
Panova                                                    Towards a typology of continuative expressions


Ngarinman, Pama-Nyungan) languages also function as restrictive (‘only, just’)
markers. Example (54) shows the continuative and restrictive uses of the particle ha’
in Chamorro.


(54) Chamorro (cha; Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian; Chung 2020: 344, 514)


a.     Mungnga       hit          manburuka                       mientras         ki
       don’t         we.INCL      AGR.INF.make.noise              while            PRT

       mamaigu’                ha’      i         neni.
       AGR.sleep.PROG          EMP      the       baby
       ‘Let’s (incl.) not make noise while the baby is still sleeping.’
b.     Para       hami         ha’      esti      na      inetnun.
       for        us.EXCL      EMP      this      L       group
       ‘This gathering is only for us (excl.).’


The relations between the continuative and restrictive meanings are discussed by van
Baar (1997: 110-113). In particular, van Baar (1997: 111) analyzes the case of the
particle (-pa/-wa)-rni in Gurindji (gue; Pama-Nyungan, Desert Nyungic) and
concludes that its continuative and restrictive meanings are connected through
several intermediate meanings which this particle also demonstrates. Thus, the full
semantic scale can be formulated as follows: ‘only’ — ‘right, exactly, really’ — ‘all the
time’ — ‘still’. Likewise, Evans (1995: 248-249) suggests a diachronic path from
continuative to restrictive for the affix djal- in Bininj Kun-Wok (Gunwinyguan): ‘keep
doing A until B’, ‘still be doing A at reference time, keep on doing A’ > ‘only do A
and no more’, ‘only do A and not something else one might expect’ > ‘only’. In
addition, both van Baar (1997) and Evans (1995) point out that in some contexts the
‘all’ meaning, close to the continuative, turns out to be synonymous to ‘only’, cf. all
that happened was… . Apparently, such contexts could also facilitate the continuative-
restrictive semantic shift.
     It is worth noting two non-continuative meanings of continuative expressions
which belong to the aspectual domain: delimitative (‘for a while, for some period of
time’) and progressive. Both meanings are close to the continuative in terms of types




                                                                                                   224
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


of situations they can modify.22 The delimitative meaning, illustrated in (54), is attested
in Halh Mongolian (Mongolic-Khitan), Zulu (Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, Bantoid),
Gban (Mande), Wardaman (wrr; Yangmanic) and Siwai (South Bougainville).


(54) Halh         Mongolian       (Mongolic-Khitan,         Mongolic;      Kullmann       1996:      138;
         transcription and glosses added)
         ta       ger-eesee         zahia      av-saar           l       bay-na             uu
         2SG      home-ABL          letter     receive-CVB       PRT     COP-NPST           Q

         ‘Are you still receiving letters from home?’ / ‘Have you been receiving letters
         from home lately?’


The progressive meaning is mentioned with respect to the continuative lé‶ in Gban
(Mande; Fedotov 2015). The second probable example is the marker -ju in Puinave
(isolate): in (55a) it is used in the continuative meaning, in (55b) it can be interpreted
as progressive.


(55) Puinave (pui; Isolate, South America; Higuita 2008: 262; glosses adapted)


a.       mam-da        ka-peu-é-ju                        ~ mam-da        ka-ju-peu-é
         PR2SG-ASR     3PL-load-AGT-IPFV
         ‘You are still loading them.’
b.       ja-bêp-di-da-ju               ó’o
         3SG-work-PST-ASR-IPFV         PRNE

         ‘He was working [when the speaker stopped seeing him].’


The continuative-progressive polysemy also played a significant role in the history of
the continuative marker (te)be- in Lithuanian. As shown in (Arkadiev 2011, 2019;

22
     One more meaning close to the continuative in this respect is the non-phasal meaning ‘keep on doing’
called “continuative” by Bybee et al. (1994). It “involves a continued input of energy and implies that
the situation is continued longer than normal” (Bybee et al. 1994: 170), but, as far as I can tell, it does
not presuppose the moment ti preceding reference time when the situation X was also true. This
meaning can be illustrated, for example, by the suffix -poki/ -pokya in Ese Ejja (ese; Pano-Tacanan,
Tacanan; Vuillermet 2012: 478-480) or by the construction V vienā V-šanā (lit. V in one V-ing) in
Latvian (lav; Indo-European, Balto-Slavic; not in the sample; Nau 2019). My database does not contain
clear examples of the “continuative” meaning in terms of (Bybee et al. 1994) colexified with the
(phasal) continuative, so it is not considered further.



                                                                                                      225
Panova                                                    Towards a typology of continuative expressions


Holvoet & Kavaliūnaitė 2021), the prefix be- has a wide range of construction-specific
meanings, including continuative (when used in this meaning, be- is reinforced by
te-, see Section 3.1.2), progressive, avertive (“something was going to happen but did
not”) and mirative. Apparently, the avertive construction with be- historically
developed from the progressive construction with be- in the past tense due to
conventionalization of interruption implicature (Arkadiev 2011: 49-50; Arkadiev
2019: 103-104). Example (56) shows the progressive-avertive use of be- in the context
with an interrupted process in Old Lithuanian.


(56) Old Lithuanian (Indo-European, Balto-Slavic; Arkadiev 2011: 49; glosses
        adapted)
        Tawa       tarn-as             buw-a     be-gan-ans
        your       servant-NOM.SG      AUX-PST   CONT-pasture-PRS.PA.NOM.SG.M

        aw-is           sawa       Tiew-o,       ir           ateij-a     Lęw-as.
        sheep-ACC.PL his           father-GEN    and          come-PST    lion-NOM.SG
        ‘Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep, and a lion came...’


In six Australian languages and one Papunesian language (Western Dani, Nuclear
Trans New Guinea) isolated continuative markers are used as exclamations ‘wait!’ or
‘hang on!’, cf. (57).23 Supposedly, this meaning is a further development of the
concessive meaning: one can introduce her speech in this way if what is going to be
said contradicts what has been said before by another person.
(57) Limilngan (Limilngan-Wulna; Harvey 2001: 141, 142; glosses adapted)


a.      Ø-ayum-iji           i-yi-jukgula-rri         ulik        i-y-im-ambijiwi-rri
        IV-go_back-here      3<3AUG-shoot-PL          still       3<3AUG-IPFV-hit-PL
        ‘(The planes) had come back. They were shooting. They were still fighting.’
b.      Captain Gray-in          il-ami-ny,      ulik,
        Captain Gray             II-say-PP       wait
        ‘Captain Gray said: Wait!’


Interestingly, in certain contexts continuative markers may express the opposite
phasal meaning ‘not yet’. To start with, the English still becomes semantically close

23
     Worrorra (Worrorran, Western Worrorran), Mangarrayi (mpc; Mangarrayi-Maran), Kitja (gia;
Jarrakan), Limilngan (lmc; Limilngan-Wulna), Wardaman (Yangmanic), Wageman (Isolate, Australia).



                                                                                                   226
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


to not yet when combined with telic predicates, cf. I am still crossing the street ~ I
haven’t crossed the street yet. There are several more cases attested in the literature: in
Kalamang (West Bomberai) the continuative expression is used in the sense ‘not yet’
when it occurs as a one-word fragment answer to a negative question (58), see also
Fanego (2021: 342) on the same pattern in Tachelhit (shi; Afro-Asiatic, Berber, not in
the sample).


(58) Kalamang (kgv; West Bomberai; Visser 2020: 388)


a. A: ka        tok       sekola
      2SG       still     go.to.school
      ‘Do you still go to school?’
   B: tok
      still
      ‘Yes [I still go to school].’
b. A: ka        tok sekola=nin
      2SG       yet go.to.school=NEG
      ‘Don’t you go to school yet?’
   B: tok
      not.yet
      ‘Not yet.’


According to Nurse (2008: 148), some of the continuative markers in Bantu, following
the model “We are still to buy > We haven’t bought yet”, changed their meaning to
‘not yet’. Another interesting case is discussed in Veselinova et al. (to appear): the
continuative morə̃ in Lamaholot (slp; Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, not in the
sample), when used with atelic predicates, has the continuative meaning, while when
used with telic predicates, it has the meaning ‘not yet’.
   This is, of course, not an exhaustive list of possible meanings of continuative
expressions. Due to space constraints, I do not discuss in detail the relatively rare
meanings ‘first’, ‘later’, ‘always’, ‘throughout’, ‘together’, ‘even’, ‘same’, ‘forever’,
‘barely’ and several others.




                                                                                      227
Panova                                               Towards a typology of continuative expressions


3.3.4. Areal patterns


As for polysemy of continuatives in a geographical perspective, two macro-areas
clearly stand out as exceptional — Australia and Papunesia. First, according to my
data, two non-continuative meanings — restrictive (‘only’) and ‘wait!’ — occur
exclusively in Australia and Papunesia (see the previous section). Second, many
continuative expressions found in these two macro-areas are enormously multi-
functional. The extreme case is the marker -nyali in Gooniyandi (Bunaban), which,
according to McGregor (1990: 469), has 14 meanings. Other continuative markers
normally have at least three-four meanings including continuative. Apparently, the
existence of such a polyfunctional marker in the majority of Australian and
Papunesian languages can be considered a phenomenon of areal nature.


3.4. Semantic effects when combined with negation


The so-called Duality Hypothesis (Löbner 1989) predicts that continuative markers in
negative contexts can mean either ‘not yet’ or ‘no longer’. Two meanings are possible
because of the different scope of semantic operators: ‘still (not)’ = ‘not yet’, ‘not (still)’
= ‘no longer’. Both strategies are found in the languages of the sample (59)-(60).


(59) Kalamang (West Bomberai; Visser 2020: 391)


a.   ma    tok      nawanggar
     3SG still      wait
     ‘He still waits.’


b.   Nyong esun                tok     bo-t=nin
     N.        father.3POSS    yet     go-T=NEG
     ‘Nyong’s father doesn’t go yet.’


(60) Lezgian (Nakh-Daghestanian, Daghestanian; Haspelmath 1993: 210; glosses adapted)
     Jusuf.a        k’walax-zama-č
     Jusuf.ERG      work-IPFV.CONT-NEG
     ‘Jusuf is no longer working.’




                                                                                              228
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


In some sources continuative expressions accompanied by the markers of negation
are translated into English as ‘still not’, cf. an example from Cherokee (61). As shown
by van der Auwera (1993: 625; 2021: 32), the meaning ‘still not’ is not identical to
‘not yet’: ‘still not’ is more emphatic because, in contrast to ‘not yet’, it obligatorily
presupposes speaker’s expectation of the contrary (see Section 2.1.3). However, for
the purposes of this study, in the encoding of the data I unite the meanings ‘not yet’
and ‘still not’ into one value ‘not yet (still not)’.


(61) Cherokee (Iroquoian; Montgomery & Anderson 2008: 185)
       tla+si             yi-uunii-anvhtha
       NEG+still          IRR-3B.PL-know:PRC
       ‘They still don’t know.’


In addition to ‘not yet (still not)’ and ‘no longer’, three more values of this parameter
are distinguished. The value ‘no longer, not yet (still not)’ covers cases where a
language has two separate constructions for expressing the meanings ‘no longer’ and
‘not yet (still not)’ based on the same continuative marker, as in Turkana (62).


(62) Turkana (Nilotic, Eastern Nilotic; Dimmendaal 1983: 458-459, cited by Kramer
       2017: 6; glosses adapted)


a.     è-ròkò    apɛ̀sɛ      ɲ-ɛ̀-nap-à         ewɔ̀rʊ̀     kɛŋ̀   lɔkɪʊ̀sɛt
       3-still   girl        not-3-wear-V       cloth       her    wedding
       ‘The girl does not wear her wedding dress yet.’
b.     ɲ-è-roko       apɛ̀sɛ    ɛ̀-nàp-ɪt ̀    ewɔ̀rʊ̀              kɛŋ̀       lɔkɪʊ̀sɛt
       not-3-still        girl       3-wear-ASP           cloth     her        wedding
       ‘The girl no longer wears her wedding dress.’


The value ‘ungrammatical / marginal’ denotes the situation when the continuative
marker is not compatible with negation or its use in the negative contexts is estimated
as marginal.
     The information on the semantics of continuatives combined with negation is
available for 71 out of 159 continuative expressions in the database, and for the other
88 continuative expressions this field was left blank. The geographical distribution of
types of continuatives according to this parameter is shown in Figure 8.




                                                                                           229
Panova                                                 Towards a typology of continuative expressions




            Figure 8: Semantics of continuative expressions in the negative contexts.


Figure 8 shows that continuative expressions in the negative contexts most frequently
have the meaning ‘not yet (still not)’. This pattern appears in the majority of
languages in all macro-areas. That derivation of ‘not yet’ expressions from
continuative markers is a very widespread strategy in the languages of the world has
been noted in the previous literature. In particular, van Baar (1997: 179) mentions
that in his sample more than 50% of ‘still’ markers are used to form the meaning ‘not
yet’. Diachronically the development of ‘not yet’ markers based on ‘still’ markers has
been traced in such languages as Bantu (Veselinova & Devos 2021: 474-477),
Austronesian (Veselinova et al. to appear) and even English. In English the adverbial
yet is an old continuative marker which nowadays is mostly used in the expression
not yet, whereas in the continuative function it has been almost fully replaced by the
new continuative still (König & Traugott 1982, van der Auwera 1998: 53). Apparently,
similar processes happen in the languages in the sample, e.g., in Wayuu (Arawakan)
the use of the continuative suffix -yülia in positive contexts is restricted to specific
locative phrases, while when combined with negation it can function as a ‘not yet’
marker in all types of clauses (Mansen & Mansen 1984: 535-539).
  The meaning ‘no longer’ is generally less preferable and can be considered
relatively frequent only in Africa where it is attested five times (cf. also Löfgren (2019:
29) who shows that in Bantu ‘no longer’ is a more frequent option). The diachronic
relations between continuatives and ‘no longer’ markers appear to be less


                                                                                                230
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


straightforward than between continuatives and ‘not yet’ markers. Specifically, van
Baar (1997) calls into question the existence of the diachronic path from continuatives
to ‘no longer’ markers. He suggests that “whenever there is a coverage of the STILL/NO
LONGER   by means of one and the same expression, this is either the result of the
development of NO LONGER into STILL or the result of independent development of two
different PhP-uses of the same expression” (van Baar 1997: 195). In my sample there
are no cases where there would be enough evidence to determine the (in)dependence
of the diachronic development of phasal markers and its possible direction, but see
van Baar’s (1997: 191-192) suggestions on the evolution of the continuative ga in Ewe
(Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, Kwa Volta-Congo) from repetitive to ‘no longer’ and
then to continuative marker.
   Finally, two languages are marked on the map as having continuative expressions
which are normally not combined with negation. In fact, the number of such
languages must be larger. I suppose that quite a few reference grammars which lack
the description of continuatives in the negative contexts do not include it because
continuatives are not (widely) used in the negative contexts. One of the reasons for
this incompatibility is the existence of the distinct markers expressing the ‘not yet’
(and ‘no longer’) meanings, so the combination of continuative with negation turns
out to be redundant. For instance, the Papuan language Moskona (mtj; East Bird’s
Head, Meax; Gravelle 2010: 151) has the continuative adverbial ros and the separate
adverbial néesa ‘not yet’. Even though Gravelle (2010) does not say explicitly what
happens to ros when it is used in the negative context, one may suggest that it is not
used as a ‘not yet’ expression because this function is fulfilled by néesa.


4. Discussion: maturation of the continuative expressions


In this section I will pursue an integrative approach of the interplay of parameters of
continuative expressions using Dahl’s (2004) notion of maturity process. Dahl defines
“mature” linguistic phenomena as “those that presuppose a non-trivial prehistory:
that is, they can only exist in a language which has passed through specific earlier
stages” (Dahl 2004: 2) and adduces such examples of mature phenomena as
inflectional morphology, incorporation, and agreement (Dahl 2004: 111-115).
Further, Bisang (2015) suggests to distinguish between two types of maturity:
morphosyntax-based maturity (overt complexity, on which Dahl focuses) and
pragmatics-based maturity (hidden complexity, in Bisang’s terms). Pragmatics-based



                                                                                   231
Panova                                           Towards a typology of continuative expressions


maturity is driven by economy and can be illustrated by such phenomena as radical
pro-drop and optional (in)definiteness marking in East and Mainland Southeast Asian
languages (Bisang 2015: 180-181). In this section, both morphosyntax-based and
pragmatics-based maturity are considered.
  The least mature type of continuative expressions is synchronically compositional
adverbial expressions based on the word ‘now’, e.g., de yanna ‘still, until now’ in
Isthmus Zapotec (zai; Otomanguean, Eastern Otomanguean; Pickett 2007: 97). As
suggested in Section 3.1.2, adverbial expressions of this type, if not yet
conventionalized as a lexical item, can be coined at any moment in any language
which has the word ‘now’, thus the time needed for their development is minimal.
Just created, they do not show any signs of morphologization, are emphatic, do not
have non-continuative functions and take the negated predicate in their scope.
  The group of continuative expressions showing an initial stage of maturity are
verbs with the meanings ‘stay’, ‘remain’, ‘continue’: they can function as continuative
markers from the moment they become able to take a predicative complement.
Apparently, English verbs like stay, remain, continue and keep represent examples of
this group of continuative expressions.
  There are many further maturation pathways by which continuative expressions
can (although not necessarily have to) gradually change and acquire new features. As
for their form, they often undergo univerbation with adjacent elements, cf. the adverb
iṉṉum ‘still’ in Tamil (Dravidian), which historically contains the root iṉ ‘the present
moment’ and the particle um (Dubjanskij 2013: 108). As for their semantics and
functions, such expressions may become obligatory in continuative contexts and turn
into fully-fledged grammatical markers, see, e.g., Gorbunova (2014), who argues for
the grammatical status of the particles na ‘still’ and la ‘already’ in Atayal (tay;
Austronesian, Atayalic). One more example of maturation is the morphological
integration of the continuative expression into the predicate, which may result in that
the predicate together with the continuative fall under the scope of negation and yield
the ‘no longer’ interpretation. Finally, the existence of a high number of non-
continuative uses, particularly typical for continuative expressions in the languages
of Australia and Papunesia (Section 3.3.5), is also the result of the evolution which
must have taken considerable time to occur. Note, however, that the starting point of
such developments need not necessarily be a marker with the continuative meaning,
its original function underlying a polysemy network (including the continuative as
one of its meanings) may be different.



                                                                                          232
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


   Table 5 represents an attempt to formalize the distinction between less mature and more
mature continuatives based on the values of each of the discussed parameters. Note that
since the semantic extension of the continuative expressions to additive and repetitive
domains can be considered rather trivial, it is associated with less mature features.


          parameters                 less mature values                 more mature values
     morphosyntactic type             adverbial phrases                   auxiliaries; affixes
  emphatic vs. non-emphatic                emphatic                         non-emphatic
             status
  non-continuative meanings       not attested; only additive     other non-continuative meanings
  of continuative expressions         and/or repetitive
   meaning when combined               not yet (still not)      no longer; no longer and not yet (still
         with negation                                            not); ungrammatical or marginal


             Table 5: Less mature and more mature features of continuative expressions.


Figure 9 shows what mature features (if any) are attested for the continuative
expressions in the sample. For better visibility only one continuative expression per
language (the one that shows more mature features) is indicated on the map.




                         Figure 9: Mature features of continuative expressions.




                                                                                                    233
Panova                                             Towards a typology of continuative expressions


It is possible to see several areal patterns that have already been discussed in the
previous sections: for example, non-emphatic continuative markers tend to occur in
Papunesia and Australia, the ‘no longer’ interpretation is most typical for continuative
expressions in Africa and the Americas. In addition, Figure 9 shows that the
morphosyntactic type “auxiliary or affix” has a week tendency to combine with the
‘no longer’ interpretation. This link can be explained: on the morphosyntactic
grounds, we expect that adverbial continuatives take the negated predicate in their
scope and, as a result, convey the meaning ‘still (not)’ > ‘not yet’. Continuative affixes
and auxiliaries, in turn, are more likely to themselves fall under the scope of the
negative marker and hence express the meaning ‘not (still)’ > ‘no longer’.
  As for the continuatives not showing any mature features, it should be kept in mind
that their real number is likely to be much higher. The first reason of that inaccuracy
is due to their frequent co-existence with more mature continuatives; thus, they are
not visible in Figure 9. The second reason is that synchronically compositional
continuatives of the type ‘and’ + ‘now’ may be not specifically mentioned in the
sources and thus are not included in the database.


5. Concluding remarks


In this paper, I presented a typological study of continuative expressions based on a
balanced sample of 120 languages. The continuative expressions were analyzed
according to specific parameters. It has been shown that, in terms of morphosyntactic
properties, in the vast majority of languages it is possible to encode continuative
semantics by an adverb or particle. However, many languages also develop
continuative auxiliaries and/or continuative affixes; this is more typical of languages
which already feature an elaborate system of auxiliaries and/or affixes. Continuative
expressions may be emphatic and non-emphatic. Examples found in the sources
indicate that some continuative expressions obligatorily accompany predicates
already implying the continuative semantics, and this feature speaks in favor of their
non-emphatic status. In addition to the continuative meaning, continuative
expressions occur in various non-continuative functions. The most frequent meanings
of continuative expressions outside of continuation are related to pluractionality
(‘again’,   ‘also’,   ‘continuously’);   other    possible    meanings        are    temporal
(non-)simultaneity (e.g., ‘while’ and ‘before’), ‘not yet’, restrictive (‘only’), concessive
(‘despite’), the meaning ‘wait!’, etc. The rich polysemy of continuative markers is
especially common in languages of Australia and Papunesia. When combined with



                                                                                            234
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


negation, continuative expressions most frequently have the meaning ‘not yet’ (or the
semantically very close meaning ‘still not’), much less frequently — the meaning ‘no
longer’.
   From a more integrative perspective, continuative expressions vary with respect to the
parameter of maturity (Dahl 2004), i.e., the degree of non-triviality of their historical
development. While there are many continuative expressions representing the least
mature types of continuatives, such as adverbials derived from the word ‘now, the
present moment’, we also find continuative expressions which follow one or several
maturation pathways towards morphologization, non-emphatic uses, polysemy, less
trivial interaction with negation. This study has shown that in all the parameters
discussed above the more “mature” values are distributed unevenly across the languages
of the sample, and areal, genealogical and structural factors affect the probability of the
maturation of continuative expressions. It can be further hypothesized that the non-
default, mature properties of continuative expressions, such as ‘being an affix’ or ‘have
the additional ‘before’ meaning’, work similarly to more fundamental features of
linguistic systems, such as, for example, the presence of ejective consonants, ergativity
or VOS word order. Features of this type, first, need specific sociolinguistic conditions to
develop: it is generally agreed upon that the probability of development of mature
linguistic phenomena is higher in closed or “esoteric” communities, i.e., characterized by
small size, dense social networks and low contact (Trudgill 2011). Second, mature
phenomena often turn out to be diachronically unstable, i.e., they have low propensity
to be inherited and/or borrowed (Nichols 2003) and are therefore prone to be lost. A
more detailed account of the social and historical factors influencing the development of
continuative expressions requires further studies focusing on the continuative
expressions in specific linguistic areas or specific language families. Taking into account
the cross-linguistic diversity of continuative expressions described in this study, it will be
possible to estimate to what extent continuative expressions vary in geographically and
genealogically close languages with respect to different social and historical
circumstances.



Acknowledgements


I am grateful to Ljuba Veselinova, Michael Daniel, Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm,
Bernhard Wälchli, Peter Arkadiev and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments on earlier versions of this paper. All errors are mine.



                                                                                         235
Panova                                                    Towards a typology of continuative expressions


Abbreviations


1, 2, 3 = 1st, 2nd, 3rd person   FUT    = future                          PFV   = perfective
A   = actor                      FV   = final vowel                       PL   = plural
ABL   = ablative                 G2, G4   = gender                        POSS   = possession
ACC   = accusative               GEN    = genitive case                   PP   = past realis perfective
ACT   = active                   HAB    = habitual                        PR   = pronoun
ADD    = additive                IAM    = iamitive                        PRC    = present continuous
AGR    = agreement               II, IV, 6, 15 = noun classes             PREP    = preposition
AGT   = agentive                 IMP    = imperative mood                 PRNE    = non-specific
ALL   = allative                 INACP    = incompletive                  pronoun
ASP   = aspect marker            INCL   = inclusive                       PROG    = progressive
ASR   = assertive                IND    = indicative                      PRS   = present
AUG    = augment                 INF   = infinitive                       PRT    = particle
AUX    = auxiliaire              INST   = instrumental                    PST   = past
B   = set B Prefix               INTR   = intransitive                    Q    = interrogative
BEN   = benefactive              INV   = inverse number                   REFL   = reflexive
CAUS   = causative               IPFV   = imperfective                    REP   = repetitive
CMPR    = comparative            IRR   = irrealis                         SBJ   = subject
CNTS   = continuous              JST   = ‘just’                           SBJC   = subjunctive
COMP    = complementizer         L   = linker                             complementizer
CONT    = continuative           L
                                     = low (tone)                         SCVN    = completive
COP   = copula                   LOC    = locative                        subjective verbal noun
CSL   = cislocative              M    = masculine                         SG   = singular
CVB   = converb                  MIN    = minimal                         STAT    = stative
DEF   = definite article         NEG    = negation                        SUB    = subordination
DEM    = demonstrative           NMLZ    = nominalization                 SUBJ   = subjunctive
DER   = morphological            NO.COMPL     = incomplete/not            SVN    = subjective verbal
derivation                       fulfilled                                noun
DES   = desiderative             NOM    = nominative                      T   = thematic clitic
DU    = dual                     NPRX.AN     = animate non-               TOP    = topic
DUR   = durative                 proximal demonstrative                   TR    = transitive
DYNM    = dynamic                NPST    = non-past                       V   = verb
EMP    = emphatic particle       ONLY    = restrictive                    VEN    = ventive extension
ERG   = ergative                 PA    = active participle                VERB    = verbalizer
ESS   = essive                   PART    = participle                     YET   = persistive
EXCL   = exclusive               PAST5    = remote past
FGR   = falling tone grade       PERF    = perfect
FOC   = focus                    PERS   = persistive




                                                                                                       236
           Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244      ISSN 2785-0943


References


Ameka, Felix K. 2018. Phasal polarity in Ewe: Diversity of constructions and dialect
  differences. Paper presented at the International Conference on The expression of
  Phasal Polarity in sub-Saharan African languages. University of Hamburg, 3–4
  February 2018.
Arkadiev, Peter. 2011. On the aspectual uses of the prefix be- in Lithuanian. Baltic
  Linguistics 2. 37–78. https://doi.org/10.32798/bl.426
Arkadiev, Peter. 2019. The Lithuanian “buvo + be-present active participle”
  construction           revisited.          Baltic         Linguistics         10.         65-108.
  https://doi.org/10.32798/bl.361
Besnier, Niko. 2000. Tuvaluan: A Polynesian Language of the Central Pacific. London &
  New York: Routledge.
Bisang, Walter. 2015. Hidden complexity – The neglected side of complexity and its
  implications.           Linguistics          Vanguard            1          (1).         177-187.
  https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1014
Blackings, Mairi & Nigel Fabb. 2003. A Grammar of Ma'di. Berlin, New York: De
  Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894967
Bowern, Claire Louise. 2012. A Grammar of Bardi. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110278187
British National Corpus (BNC)
  https://app.sketchengine.eu/#dashboard?corpname=preloaded%2Fbnc2_tt21
Bril, Isabelle. 2016. Tense, Aspect and Mood in Nêlêmwa (New Caledonia): Encoding
  Events, Processes and States. In Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), Aspectuality and
  temporality: Descriptive and theoretical issues, 63–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.172.03bri
Bybee, Joan & Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar:
  Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: The
  University of Chicago Press.
Chung, Sandra. 2020. Chamorro Grammar. Santa Cruz: University of California.
  https://doi.org/10.48330/E2159R
Clendon, Mark. 2014. Worrorra: A language of the north-west Kimberley coast. Adelaide:
  University of Adelaide.
Creissels, Denis & Séckou Biaye. 2016. Le balant ganja: phonologie, morphosyntaxe, liste
  lexicale, textes. Dakar: IFAN CH.A.DIOP.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/16369                                                   237
Panova                                             Towards a typology of continuative expressions


Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam
  & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.71
Dahl, Östen & Bernhard Wälchli. 2016. Perfects and iamitives: two gram types in one
  grammatical        space.       Letras     De          Hoje         51(3).         325–348.
  https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-7726.2016.3.25454
Dimmendaal, Gerrit Jan. 1983. The Turkana Language. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Aleksandra Y. Aikhenvald 1999. Introduction. In Robert M.
  W. Dixon & Aleksandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 1–21.
  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donohue, Mark. 1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin, New York: Mouton de
  Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805543
Dubjanskij, Aleksandr M. 2013. Tamil’skij jazyk [Tamil language]. In Nikita V. Gurov
  & Aleksandr M. Dubjanskij & Andrej A. Kibrik & Elena B. Markus (eds.), Jazyki
  mira. Dravidijskie jazyki [Languages of the World. Dravidian languages], 47–150.
  Moscow: Academia.
Epps, Patience. 2008. A Grammar of Hup. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199079
Eraso, Natalia. 2015. Gramática Tanimuka, una lengua de la Amazonía Colombiana.
  Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Estigarribia, Bruno. 2020. A Grammar of Paraguayan Guarani. London: UCL Press.
Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A Grammar of Kayardild: With Historical-Comparative Notes
  on      Tangkic.      Berlin,     New      York:          De        Gruyter         Mouton.
  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873733
Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Bininj Gun-Wok: A Pan-Dialectal Grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku
  and Kune. Canberra: Research School of Pacific; Asian Studies, Australian National
  University.
Fabre, Alain. 2016. Gramática de la lengua Nivacle (familia Mataguayo, Chaco
  Paraguayo).        Kangasala,       Finlandia.          (Available           online         at
  https://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Afabre-
  2016/Fabre_2016_Gramatica_Nivacle.pdf Accessed on 01-01-2023)
Fanego, Axel. 2021. Phasal Polarity in Amazigh varieties. In Raija Kramer (ed.), The
  Expression of Phasal Polarity in African Languages, 335–364. Berlin, Boston: De
  Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646290-015
Fedotov, Maksim. 2015. To be continued... : priključenija kontinuativnogo
  pokazatelja v jazyke gban [To be continued…: adventures of the continuative



                                                                                            238
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


   marker in Gban]. Paper presented at Twelfth Conference on Typology and
   Grammar for Young Scholars. Saint Petersburg, 19–21 November 2015.
Gaved, Timothy. 2020. A grammar of Mankanya: An Atlantic language of Guinea-Bissau,
   Senegal and the Gambia. Amsterdam: LOT.
Genko, Anatolij N. 1955. Abazinskij jazyk. Grammatičeskij očerk narečija tapanta [The
   Abaza language. A grammatical sketch of the Tapanta dialect]. Moscow: Izd.
   Akademii nauk SSSR.
Gerasimov, Dmitrij. 2020. Mini-course on Paraguayan Guarani at HSE. Handout.
Gorbunova, Irina M. 2014. Kategorija fazovoj poljarnosti v atajal’skom jazyke [A
   category of phasal polarity in Atayal]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 3. 34–54.
Göksel, A. & Celia Kerslake. 2004. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London, New
   York: Routledge.
Gravelle, Gloria J. 2010. A Grammar of Moskona: An East Bird's Head Language of West
   Papua, Indonesia. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Hammarström, Harald & Mark Donohue. 2014. Some Principles on the Use of Macro-
   Areas in Typological Comparison. Language Dynamics and Change 4(1). 167-187.
   https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00401001
Hammarström, Harald & Robert Forkel & Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank. 2023.
   Glottolog 4.8. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
   https://glottolog.org
Hanson, Rebecca. 2010. A grammar of Yine (Piro). Bundoora, Victoria: La Trobe
   University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Harvey, Mark. 2001. A Grammar of Limilngan: A Language of the Mary River Region
   Northern Territory Australia. Canberra: Research School of Pacific; Asian Studies,
   Australian National University.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin, New York: Mouton de
   Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884210
Heath, Jeffrey. 2016. A grammar of Nanga (Dogon language family, Mali).
   Unpublished MS.
Hercus, L. A. 1982. The Bāgandji Language. Canberra: Research School of Pacific; Asian
   Studies, Australian National University.
Higuita, Jesús Mario Girón. 2008. Una Gramatica Del Wansöjöt (Puinave). Utrecht:
   LOT.
Holvoet, Axel & Gina Kavaliūnaitė. 2021. The Lithuanian mirative present and its
   history. Baltic Linguistics 12. 413–439.



                                                                                  239
Panova                                           Towards a typology of continuative expressions


Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Thai.
  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jin, Yanwei & Jean-Pierre Koenig. 2020. A cross-linguistic study of expletive
  negation. Linguistic Typology 25 (1). 39–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-
  2053
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1990. Still. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual UC Berkeley-UC
  San Diego Cognitive Linguistics Workshop.
Khanina, Olesya. 2008. How universal is wanting? Studies in Language 32(4). 818–
  865. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.32.4.03kha
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.
Klyagina, Evgeniya & Anastasia Panova. 2019. Phasal Polarity in Abaza. HSE Working
  Papers in Linguistics 89. 1-24.
König, Ekkehard & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1982. Divergence and apparent
  convergence in the development of yet and still. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
  Linguistics Society, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v8i0.2029
Kramer, Raija. 2017. Position paper on Phasal Polarity expressions. Hamburg:
  University            of            Hamburg.               Unpublished                  MS.
  https://www.aai.unihamburg.de/afrika/php2018/medien/position-paper-on-
  php.pdf
Kramer, Raija. 2021. Introduction: The expression of phasal polarity in African
languages.
  In Kramer, Raija (ed.), The Expression of Phasal Polarity in African Languages, 3–24.
  Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646290-002
Kullmann, Rita & Dandii-Yadam Tserenpil. 1996. Mongolian Grammar. Hong Kong:
  Jensco.
Kung, Susan Smythe. 2007. A Descriptive Grammar of Huehuetla Tepehua. The
  University of Texas at Austin. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference
  Grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
Löbner, Sebastian. 1989. German Schon - Erst - Noch: An integrated analysis. Linguistics
  and Philosophy 12. 167–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627659
Löfgren, Althea. 2019. Phasal Polarity in Bantu Languages: A typological study.
  Stockholm: Stockholm University. (MA thesis.)
Maisak, Timur & Samira Verhees. The Still Not Present in Andi: discerning the
  grammaticalization source. Unpublished MS.



                                                                                          240
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


Maho, Jouni Filip. 2008. Comparative TAM morphology in Niger-Congo: The case of
   persistive, and some other markers in Bantu. In Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman
   (eds.), Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses, 283–298. Amsterdam:
   John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.103.14mah
Mansen, Karis B. & Richard A. Mansen 1984. Aprendamos Guajiro: Gramática
   Pedagógica de Guajiro. Bogotá: Editorial Townsend.
Martin, Jack B. 2011. A Grammar of Creek (Muskogee). Lincoln, London: University of
   Nebraska Press.
McGregor, William B. 1990. A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: John
   Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.22
Meakins, Felicity & Rachel Nordlinger. 2014. A Grammar of Bilinarra: An Australian
   Aboriginal Language of the Northern Territory. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512745
Meeussen, Achille E. 1967. Bantu grammatical reconstructions. Africana linguistica 3.
   79–121.
Merdanova, Solmaz R. 2004. Morfologija i grammatičeskaja semantika agul’skogo jazyka
   (na materiale xpjukskogo govora) [Morphology and grammatical semantics of Agul
   (data from the Huppuq dialect)]. Moscow: Sovetskij pisatel’.
Michaelis, Laura A. 1993. ‘Continuity’ within Three Scalar Models: The Polysemy of
   Adverbial         Still.       Journal         of        Semantics   10(3).   193–237.
   https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/10.3.193
Miller, Amy. 2001. A Grammar of Jamul Tiipay. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110864823
Miyaoka, Osahito. 2012. A Grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Berlin, Boston:
   De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110278576
Montgomery-Anderson, Brad. 2008. A Reference Grammar of Oklahoma Cherokee.
   University of Kansas. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Moroz, George. 2017. lingtypology: easy mapping for Linguistic Typology.
   https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lingtypology
Murane, Elizabeth. 1974. Daga Grammar: From Morpheme to Discourse. Norman:
   Dallas, Texas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at
   Arlington.
Mushin, Ilana. 2012. A Grammar of (Western) Garrwa. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter
   Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512417




                                                                                     241
Panova                                             Towards a typology of continuative expressions


Müller, Neele. 2014. Language Internal and External Factors in the Development of
  the Desiderative in South American Indigenous Languages. In Loretta O'Connor &
  Pieter Muysken (eds). The Native Languages of South America: Origins, Development,
  Typology,       203–222.     Cambridge:          Cambridge          University         Press.
  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107360105.012
Nassenstein, Nico & Helma M. Pasch. 2021. Phasal polarity in Lingala and Sango. In
  Raija L. Kramer (ed.), The Expression of Phasal Polarity in African Languages, 93–
  128. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Nassenstein, Nico & Helma Pasch. Phasal polarity in Lingala and Sango. In Raija L.
  Kramer (ed.), The Expression of Phasal Polarity in African Languages, 93–128. Berlin,
  Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646290-006
Nau, Nicole. 2019. The Latvian continuative construction runāt vienā runāšanā ‘talk
  in     one    talking’   =   ‘keep   talking’.      Baltic     Linguistics     10,    21-63.
  https://doi.org/10.32798/bl.360
Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Brian D. Joseph &
  Janda, Richard D. (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 283–310. Oxford:
  Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch5
Nordlinger, Rachel. (1998). A Grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia).
  Canberra: Research School of Pacific; Asian Studies, Australian National
  University.
Nurse, Derek. 2008. Tense and aspect in Bantu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Onishi, Masayuki. 1994. A Grammar of Motuna (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea).
  Canberra: Australian National University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Ostrowski, Norbert. 2011. Pochodzenie litewskiego afiksu duratywnego teb(e)-. Folia
  Scandinavica Posnaniensia 12. 205–210.
Ostrowski, Norbert. 2016. Lithuanian discontinuatives nebe- / jau nebe- ‘no more, no
  longer’ and German-Lithuanian language contacts. Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia
  20 (1). 175–179. https://doi.org/10.1515/fsp-2016-0035
Oxford, Will. 2007. Towards a grammar of Innu-aimun particles. Memorial University
  of Newfoundland. (MA thesis.)
Persohn, Bastian. 2017. The Verb in Nyakyusa: A Focus on Tense, Aspect, and Modality.
  Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.926408
Persohn, Bastian. 2021. Phasal polarity in Nyakyusa (Bantu, M31). In Raija L. Kramer
  (ed.), The Expression of Phasal Polarity in African Languages, 129–160. Berlin,
  Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646290-007



                                                                                            242
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-2 (2023): 191-244


Pickett, Velma. 2007. Vocabulario zapoteco del Istmo: español-zapoteco y zapoteco-
   español. México: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Plungian, Vladimir A. 1999. A Typology of Phasal Meanings. In Abraham, Werner &
   Kulikov, Leonid (eds.), Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity: Essays in Honour of
   Vladimir     Nedjalkov,     311–22.      Amsterdam,           Philadelphia:   John   Benjamins.
   https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.50.21plu
Priestley, Carol. 2008. A grammar of Koromu (Kesawai), a Trans New Guinea language
   of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Australian National University. (Doctoral
   dissertation.)
Pjurbeev, Grigorij C. (ed.). 2001. Bol’šoj akademičeskij russko-mongol’skij slovar’ [The
   Big Academic Russian-Mongolian Dictionary]. Moscow: Academia.
Rongier, Jacques. 2004. Parlons Éwé: Langue du Togo. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Ross, Claudia & Jing-heng Sheng Ma. 2014. Modern Mandarin Chinese Grammar: A
   Practical Guide. London: Routledge.
Samarin, William J. 1970. Sango: Langue de L’Afrique Centrale. Leiden: Brill.
Schapper, Antoinette. 2022. A Grammar of Bunaq. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110761146
Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A Grammar of Mapuche. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211795
Sneddon, James Neil & Alexander Adelaar & Dwi Noverini Djenar & Michael C. Ewing.
   2010. Indonesian Reference Grammar. 2nd edition. London: Allen & Unwin.
Stoynova, Natalia M. 2013. Pokazateli refactiva [Refactive markers]. Moscow: AST-
   Press.
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic
   complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ullrich, Jan. 2018. Modification, Secondary Predication and Multi-Verb Constructions in
   Lakota. Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf. (Doctoral dissertation.)
van Baar, Theodorus Martinus. 1997. Phasal Polarity. University of Amsterdam.
   (Doctoral dissertation.)
van der Auwera, Johan. 1993. ‘Already’ and ‘still’: Beyond duality. Linguistics and
   Philosophy 16. 613–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985436
van der Auwera, Johan. 1998. Phasal adverbials in the languages of Europe. In Johan
   van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, 25–145.
   Berlin,            New              York:                De           Gruyter          Mouton.
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.25



                                                                                              243
Panova                                           Towards a typology of continuative expressions


van der Auwera, Johan. Phasal polarity – warnings from earlier research. In Raija L.
  Kramer (ed.), The Expression of Phasal Polarity in African Languages, 25–38. Berlin,
  Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646290-003
Veselinova, Ljuba. 2015. Not-yet expressions in the languages of the world: a special
  negator or a separate cross-linguistic category? Paper presented at Diversity
  Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect. Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
  Anthropology, 1-3 May 2015.
Veselinova, Ljuba & Maud Devos. 2021. NOT YET expressions as a lexico-grammatical
  category in Bantu languages. In Raija L. Kramer (ed.), The Expression of Phasal
  Polarity in African Languages. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 445-496.
  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646290-019
Veselinova, Ljuba & Leif Asplund & Jozina Vander Klok. To appear. Phasal polarity
  in Malayo-Polynesian languages of South East Asia. In Adelaar, Alexander &
  Schapper, Antoinette (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Malayo-Polynesian Languages
  of South East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vuillermet, Marine. 2012. A Grammar of Ese Ejja, a Takanan language of the Bolivian
  Amazon. Université Lumière Lyon 2. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Visser, Eline. 2020. A grammar of Kalamang: The Papuan language of the Karas islands.
  University of Lund. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Wilson, Jennifer. 2017. A grammar of Yeri: A Torricelli language of Papua New Guinea.
  State University of New York at Buffalo. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Xiao, Richard & Tony McEnery. 2004. Aspect in Mandarin Chinese. A corpus-based
  study. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.73
Yumitani, Yukihiro. 1998. A phonology and morphology of Jemez Towa. University of
  Kansas. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Zahran, Aron & Eva-Marie Bloom Ström. 2022. Against expectations – the rise of
  adverbs in Swahili phasal polarity. Studies in African Linguistics 51 (2). 295–323.
  https://doi.org/10.32473/sal.51.2.129687
Ziervogel, Dirk & Jacobus A. Louw & P. Taljaard 1967. A Handbook of the Zulu
  Language. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik.


CONTACT
anastasia.b.panova@gmail.com




                                                                                          244
