CONSTRUCTIONS WITH POSSESSIVE SUFFIXES AND QUANTIFIERS IN PERMIC LANGUAGES
DOI: 10.23951/2307-6119-2019-4-48-66
Possessive markers in Permic languages are widely used outside the contexts that have been described as possessive relations (Aikhenvald, Dixon, 2013). In particular, they can signal definiteness (Schlachter,1960; Suihkonen, 2005; Edygarova, 2010; Winkler, 2011). As a consequence, there are works that consider the hypothesis of grammaticalization of possessive markers in Permic as definite articles (Fraurud, 2001). However, they can be used in contexts that require an indefinite reading: first, they encode indefinite elements of a definite set or part of a mass; second, they occur with indefinite and interrogative pronouns; and third, they are used with quantifiers and numerals (in contexts of indefiniteness). The present paper offers an explanation for this phenomenon. The work is based on the data of the Pechora dialect of Komi-Zyrian and the Beserman dialect of Udmurt. Both the elicitation and corpus methods are used. The Permic possessive markers do not exhibit exhaustivity, which is observed with possessive pronouns in English, French and other languages (Simonenko, 2017; Simonenko in press). They can denote an indefinite part of a definite mass or an indefinite subset of a definite set (e.g., there were some stones in the barrel, and he took a stone). Hence, they can be used with numerals, quantifiers and pronouns that can introduce an indefinite part of a definite set or mass (e.g. which of them, one of them, someone of them). In all those contexts the possessive markers are used as referential devices, rather than markers of definiteness. Hence, their functions are adequately described in terms of reference, rather than in terms of definiteness.
Keywords: Uralic languages, Udmurt, Komi-Zyrian, syntax, possessive suffixes, quantifier, noun phrase, definiteness, indefiniteness, reference, referential properties
References:
Edygarova S. 2010. Kategoriya posessivnosti v udmurtskom yazyke [The category of possession in the Udmurt language]. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Kibrik A. E., Brykina M. M., Leont'ev A. P., Hitrov A. N. 2006. Russkie posessivnye konstrukcii v svete korpusno-statisticheskogo issledovaniya [Russian possessive constructions: a statistical corpus study]. In Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Topics in the study of language]. – 2006. – № 1. – P. 16–45. (in Russian)
Kuznecova A. I. 2003. Kumulyaciya grammaticheskih znachenij v agglyutinativnyh pokazatelyah: dejkticheskie funkcii posessiva v ural'skih yazykah [Cumulation of grammatical meanings in agglutinative markers: deictic functions of Uralic possessive markers]. In Kuznecova A. I. e.a. (ed.) Finno-ugorskie yazyki: fragmenty grammaticheskogo opisaniya. Formal'nyj i funkcional'nyj podhody [Finno-Ugric languages: fragments of grammatical description. Formal and functional approaches]. – Moscow: YAzyki slavyanskih kul'tur. – P. 250–262. (in Russian)
Majtinskaya K. E. Istoriko-sopostavitel'naya morfologiya finno-ugorskih yazykov [Historical-comparative morphology of Finno-Ugric languages]. – Moscow: Nauka, 1979. (in Russian)
Majtinskaya K. E. Finno-ugorskie yazyki. YAzyki mira: Ural'skie yazyki [Finno-Ugric languages. Languages of the world: Uralic languages]. Moscow: Nauka, 1993. – P. 20–32. (in Russian)
Simonenko A. P., Leont’ev A. P. Morfosintaksis imennogo kompleksa v finno-permskih yazykah: analiz v ramkah programmy minimalizma [Morphosyntax of the nominal complex in Finno-Ugric languages: an analysis in the Minimalist framework]. In Kuznecova A. I. (ed.) Finno-ugorskie yazyki: Fragmenty grammaticheskogo opisaniya. Formal'nyj i funkcional'nyj podhody [Finno-Ugric languages: fragments of grammatical description. Formal and functional approaches]. Moscow: YAzyki slavyanskih kul'tur, 2012. – P. 262–340. (in Russian)
Toldova S. YU. 2018. Differencirovannoe kodirovanie pryamogo dopolneniya [Differential marking of the direct object]. In Elementy mokshanskogo yazyka v tipologicheskom osveshchenii [Elements of Moksha language in typological interpretation]. – Moscow: Buki-Vedi. – P. 574–608. (in Russian)
YAnko T. E. 1999. O ponyatiyah kommunikativnoj struktury i kommunikativnoj strategii (na materiale russkogo yazyka) [On concepts of information structure and communicative strategy (based on the data of Russian)]. In Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Topics in the study of language]. – 1999. – № 4. – P. 28–56. (in Russian)
Aikhenvald A. Y., Dixon R. M. W. Possession and ownership: A crosslinguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Arkhangelskiy T. A., Usacheva M. N. Functions of the 3sg Possessive in Beserman Udmurt: Corpus Analysis. Talk given at the 13th Conference on Typology and Grammar for Young Scholars (Saint-Petersburg, 24–26 November 2016).
Barker C. 2011. Possessives and relational nouns. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 2. – P. 1109–1130.
Birner B., Ward G. Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English. In Proceedings of the 20th meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. – 1994. – P. 93–102.
Collinder B. 1957. Survey of the Uralic languages. Stockholm: Almkvist & Wiksell.
Décsy G. 1990. The Uralic Protolanguage: A Comprehensive Reconstruction. Bloomington, Indiana: EUROLINGUA.
Dobrovie-Sorin C. Genitives and determiners. In Lander Y. A., Kim J.-Y., Partee B. H. (eds.) Possessive and beyond: Semantics and Syntax. University of Massachusetts Amherst. – 2004. – P. 115–132.
von Fintel K. 1994. Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Fraurud K. Possessives with extensive use: A source of definite articles? In Baron I., Herslund M., Sørensen F. (eds.). Dimensions of possession. Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001. Р. 243–267.
Heller D. Possession as a lexical relation: evidence from the Hebrew Construct State. In WCCFL 21 Proceedings. 2002.
von Heusinger K., Kornfilt J. Partitivity and case marking in Turkish and related languages. In Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1): – 2017. – 20. – P. 1–40.
Klumpp G. Differentielle Objektmarkierung & Informationsstruktur in Dialekten des Komi. Dr. phil. habil. dis., München. 2008.
Künnap A. Historically problematic morphosyntactic features in Uralic languages. München: LINCOM EUROPA. 2006.
Nikolaeva I. A. Possessive affixes as markers of information structuring: Evidence from Uralic. In Suihkonen P., Comrie B. (eds.) International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification in Languages spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Collection of papers. Izhevsk; Leipzig: Udmurt State University; Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology. 2003. P. 130–145.
Raun A. Proto-Uralic Comparative Historical Morphosyntax. In Sinor D. (ed.) The Uralic languages. Description, history, and foreign influences. Leiden, New York, København, Köln: Brill. – 1988. – P. 555–571.
Schlachter W. Studien zum Possessivsuffix des Syrjänischen. – Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 1960.
Serdobolskaya N., Usacheva M., Arkhangelskiy T. Grammaticalization of possessive markers in the Beserman dialect of Udmurt. In Johanson L., Nevskaya I., Mazzitelli L. F. Linguistic possession. New insights from the languages of Europe and North and Central Asia. (Studies in Language Companion Series.) John Benjamins, 2019. P. 291–311.
Sharvy R. A more general theory of definite descriptions. In Philosophical Review 89. – 1980. – P. 607–24.
Siegl F. The structure of noun phrases with referential Px.2p in Northern Samoyedic. In Tomsk Journal of Linguistic and Anthropology. – 2015. – № 1 (7). – P. 21–31. (in Russian)
Simonenko A. Towards a semantic typology of specific determiners. In The 21st Amsterdam Colloquium. – 2017. – P. 425–434.
Simonenko A. In press. Full vs. clitic vs. bound determiners. To appear in the Oxford Handbook of Determiners. Oxford University Press.
Suihkonen P. On the categories and functions developed from the possessive and deictic suffixes in Udmurt. In Hasselblatt C., Koponen E., Widmer A. (eds.) Beiträge zur Finnougristik aus Anlaß des sechzigsten Geburtstages von Hans-Hermann Bartens. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2005. – P. 401–427.
( 617.57 kB ) 
( 901.78 kB )
Issue: 4, 2019
Series of issue: Issue 4
Rubric: LINGUISTICS
Pages: 48 — 66
Downloads: 821