microvariation in finno-ugric possessive markers:...
TRANSCRIPT
Microvariation in Finno-Ugric possessive markers:three relational stories
Alexandra Simonenko
McGill University
LSALAA 2013, Paris 8
Introduction
Introduction
Polyfunctionality of 3SG (Komi)
(1) Ponm-ejdog-1sg‘my dog’
(2) Ponm-yddog-2sg‘your dog’
(3) Ponm-ysdog-3sg‘his dog’
(4) Pon-numdog-1pl‘our dog’
(5) Pon-nyddog-2pl‘your (pl.) dog’
(6) Pon-nysdog-3pl‘their dog’
Introduction
Introduction
Polyfunctionality of 3SG (Komi)
(1) Ponm-ejdog-1sg‘my dog’
(2) Ponm-yddog-2sg‘your dog’
(3) Ponm-ysdog-3sg‘his dog’/∼‘that dog’
(4) Pon-numdog-1pl‘our dog’
(5) Pon-nyddog-2pl‘your (pl.) dog’
(6) Pon-nysdog-3pl‘their dog’
Introduction
Introduction
Polyfunctionality of 3SG (Komi)
Head marking of a possessive relation:
(1) Petra-lynPetr-gen
ponm-ysdog-3sg
‘Petja’s dog’
Non-possessive use:
(2) Sond-ysSun-3sg
dep-s’i-s.dep-detr-prt.3sg
‘The sun has set.’
Introduction
Research question
What is the status of 3SG on its non-possessive use?
Introduction
Background
Status of non-possessive uses of 3sg in Finno-Ugric as a group
Collinder (1955:203): “an equivalent of the English definite article”(and references in Nikolaeva 2003)
Kuznetsova (2012:260): “At present we do not have enoughevidence to talk about homophonous possessive, deictic and definitesuffixes” (translation mine – A.S.). A. I. Kuznetsova analysespossessive markers as cumulatively expressing several categories,including definiteness.
Introduction
Background
Status of non-possessive uses of 3sg in Finno-Ugric as a group
Collinder (1955:203): “an equivalent of the English definite article”(and references in Nikolaeva 2003)
Kuznetsova (2012:260): “At present we do not have enoughevidence to talk about homophonous possessive, deictic and definitesuffixes” (translation mine – A.S.). A. I. Kuznetsova analysespossessive markers as cumulatively expressing several categories,including definiteness.
Introduction
Background
Status of non-possessive uses of 3sg in Finno-Ugric as a group
Nikolaeva (2003:135): “...the use of the 3rd person possessive affixin Uralic is comparable to the uses of the definite article in articlelanguages and includes: (i) a direct anaphoric use; (ii) an immediatesituation use, and (iii) a larger situation use (cf. Hawkins 1978 forEnglish). However, the affix is not obligatory in any of thesefunctions and so has not become fully grammaticalized. It is notpossible to speak of the emergence of the category of articlein the languages in question.” Similar in Fraurud (2001)
Gerland (2011): Relational Suffix: 1) “referent is anchored byanother, already unique referent”; or 2) “referent is semantically orpragmatically unique”.
Introduction
Background
Status of non-possessive uses of 3sg in Finno-Ugric as a group
Nikolaeva (2003:135): “...the use of the 3rd person possessive affixin Uralic is comparable to the uses of the definite article in articlelanguages and includes: (i) a direct anaphoric use; (ii) an immediatesituation use, and (iii) a larger situation use (cf. Hawkins 1978 forEnglish). However, the affix is not obligatory in any of thesefunctions and so has not become fully grammaticalized. It is notpossible to speak of the emergence of the category of articlein the languages in question.” Similar in Fraurud (2001)
Gerland (2011): Relational Suffix: 1) “referent is anchored byanother, already unique referent”; or 2) “referent is semantically orpragmatically unique”.
Introduction
Current contribution
Non-possessive uses follow different patterns in differentFinno-Ugric languages.
Mari (Meadow, village Staryj Torjal, Mari El republic)Khanty (Shuryshkarskij dialect, village Tegi, Khanty-Mansidistrict)Komi (Izhem, village Muzhi, Yamal-Nenets district)
The semantics of the non-possessive use in each case isqualitatively different from that of “classic” definite articles.
A common grammatical denominator can be found with aproper semantic implementation; we do not have to talkabout under-grammaticalization.
Introduction
Current contribution
Non-possessive uses follow different patterns in differentFinno-Ugric languages.
Mari (Meadow, village Staryj Torjal, Mari El republic)Khanty (Shuryshkarskij dialect, village Tegi, Khanty-Mansidistrict)Komi (Izhem, village Muzhi, Yamal-Nenets district)
The semantics of the non-possessive use in each case isqualitatively different from that of “classic” definite articles.
A common grammatical denominator can be found with aproper semantic implementation; we do not have to talkabout under-grammaticalization.
Introduction
Current contribution
Non-possessive uses follow different patterns in differentFinno-Ugric languages.
Mari (Meadow, village Staryj Torjal, Mari El republic)Khanty (Shuryshkarskij dialect, village Tegi, Khanty-Mansidistrict)Komi (Izhem, village Muzhi, Yamal-Nenets district)
The semantics of the non-possessive use in each case isqualitatively different from that of “classic” definite articles.
A common grammatical denominator can be found with aproper semantic implementation; we do not have to talkabout under-grammaticalization.
Introduction
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sgKomi patternMari patternKhanty pattern
3 Analysis
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sgKomi patternMari patternKhanty pattern
3 Analysis
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Komi pattern
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sgKomi patternMari patternKhanty pattern
3 Analysis
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Komi pattern
Non-possessive use in Komi
Anaphoric antecedent
(3) MeI
mun-iwalk-prt
ulicastreet
kuzaalong
iand
add-il-isee-iter-prt
pon.dog
Ponm-*(ys)dog-*(3sg)
kuc-i-sstart-prt-3
uut-ny.bark-inf
‘I was walking down the street and saw a dog. The dogstarted barking.’ [Kashkin 2008]
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Komi pattern
Non-possessive use in Komi
Referent belongs to a known group
(3) Lavkastore
t@rytyesterday
va-i-snybring-prt-3pl
kuimthree
pyzan.table
Tontoday
miwe
ytione
pyzan-??(se)table-??(3sg.acc)
n’eb-i-m.buy-prt-1pl
‘Yesterday they brought three tables to (the/a) store.Today we bought one table.’
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Komi pattern
Non-possessive use in Komi
Referent known from a local situation
(3) @bes-*(se)door-3sg.acc
sipt-i!close-imp
‘Close the door!’ [Kashkin 2008]
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Komi pattern
Non-possessive use in Komi
Referent known from a global situation
(3) Sond-*(ys)Sun-*(3sg)
dep-s’-i-s.dep-detr-prt-3sg
‘The sun has set.’
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Komi pattern
Komi Pattern Summary
Licensing contexts of 3sg
anaph. antc. group immed. sit. global sit.
Komi X X X X
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Mari pattern
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sgKomi patternMari patternKhanty pattern
3 Analysis
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Mari pattern
Non-possessive use in Mari
Anaphoric antecedent – NO
(4) VasjaVasja
kniga-mbook-acc
Tac’etoday
tudohe
(tide)(that)
kniga-(*z)-@mbook-(*3sg)-acc
lud-es.read-prs.3sg
‘Vasja bought a book. Today he is reading that book.’
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Mari pattern
Non-possessive use in Mari
Referent belongs to a known group (I)
(4) VasjaVasja
kumthree
kniga-mbook-acc
Tac’etoday
ikone
kniga-z-@mbook-3sg-acc
tudehe
lud-es.read-prs.3sg
‘Vasja bought three books. Today he is reading a book(from those).’
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Mari pattern
Non-possessive use in Mari
Referent belongs to a known group (II)
(4) M@j-@nI-gen
n@lfour
uskal-emcow-1sg
ulo.is.
m@jI
ikt-@z-@m/ikt-@mone-3sg-acc/one-acc
[email protected]‘I have four cows. I want to sell one of them.’
a. Uskal-zecow-3sg
siz-esfeel-prs.3sg
stothat
m@jI
tud-@mhe-acc
uzal-emsell-prs.1sg
‘The cow feels that I’m going to sell it.’ [someone else’s]b. *Uskal-em
cow-1sgsiz-esfeel-prs.3sg
stothat
m@jI
tud-@mhe-acc
uzal-emsell-prs.1sg
Intended: ‘The cow feels that I’m going to sell it.’c. Uskal-em-ze
cow-1sg-3sgsiz-esfeel-prs.3sg
stothat
m@jI
tud-@mhe-acc
uzal-emsell-prs.1sg
‘The cow feels that I’m going to sell it.’
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Mari pattern
Non-possessive use in Mari
Referent belongs to a (deictically) known group (III)
(4) Mem-na-nwe-1pl-gen
skol-naschool-1pl
u,new
abut
tengeceyesterday
alakosomeone
??(tide)??(that)
okna-z-@mwindow-3sg-acc
sal-alt-enbreak-detr-prt
‘Our school is new, but yesterday someone broke thatwindow.’ [pointing to one window]
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Mari pattern
Non-possessive use in Mari
Referent know from an local situation – NO
(4) Pet@r@zaclose-imp
omsa-(*z)-@m!door-(*3sg)-acc
‘Close the door!’
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Mari pattern
Non-possessive use in Mari
Referent known from a global situation – NO
(4) Yarabare
singaeye
denewith
*kec’-@s-(*se)sun-lat-(*3sg)
onc-aslook-inf
ogneg
lijbe
‘One shouldn’t look at the sun with unprotected eyes.’
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Mari pattern
Komi & Mari Pattern Summary
Licensing contexts of 3sg
anaph. antc. group immed. sit. global sit.
Mari X X X XKomi X X X X
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Khanty pattern
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sgKomi patternMari patternKhanty pattern
3 Analysis
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Khanty pattern
Non-possessive use in Khanty
Anaphoric antecedent (I)
(5) VasjaVasja
johtree
hoc’aat
la@m-ynaxe-loc
Joh-*(@L)tree-*(3sg)
iLdown
‘Vasja hit the tree with an axe. The tree fell.’
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Khanty pattern
Non-possessive use in Khanty
Anaphoric antecedent (II)
(5) Ank-@mmoher-1sg
mulhatLyesterday
lut-@sbuy-pst
huL.fish.
C’iThat
hul-*(@L)fish-*(3sg)
tamhatLtoday
lezi.eat.1pl
‘Yesterday my mother bought a fish. Today we ate thisfish.’
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Khanty pattern
Non-possessive use in Khanty
Referent belongs to a known group – NO
(5) a. XoL@mthree
purwoodpecker
newoman
juxanriver
kimaL-@nedge-loc
[email protected]‘Three woodpecker women live by the river...’
b. ...S’aLtathen
ione
purwoodpecker
newoman
s’ar-titell.fortunes-inf
oms@[email protected]‘...Then one woodpecker woman sits down to tellfortunes.’ [MSU Linguistics 2011–2012]
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Khanty pattern
Non-possessive use in Khanty
Referent known from a local situation – NO
(5) c’ithat
amp-(*@L)dog-(*3sg)
takanstrong
‘This dog runs fast.’
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Khanty pattern
Non-possessive use in Khanty
Referent known from a global situation – NO
(5) Vuntforest
jis-telnforever
vuL.be.pst
‘The forest has always existed.’
Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sg
Khanty pattern
Komi & Mari & Khanty Pattern Summary
Licensing contexts of 3sg
anaph. antc. group immed. sit. global sit.
Khanty X X X X
Mari X X X X
Komi X X X X
Analysis
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Patterns of non-possessive use of 3sgKomi patternMari patternKhanty pattern
3 Analysis
Analysis
Analysis: three relations
Restating the observations
Khanty: 3SG marks a noun if the referent is identical to arecently introduced one.
Mari: 3SG marks a noun if the referent belongs to a groupmentioned in the previous discourse/pointed at.
Komi: 3SG marks a noun if the intended referent belongs to aset of individuals whose existence is part of the CommonGround.
Analysis
Analysis: three relations
Restating the observations
Khanty: 3SG marks a noun if the referent is identical to arecently introduced one.
Mari: 3SG marks a noun if the referent belongs to a groupmentioned in the previous discourse/pointed at.
Komi: 3SG marks a noun if the intended referent belongs to aset of individuals whose existence is part of the CommonGround.
Analysis
Analysis: three relations
Restating the observations
Khanty: 3SG marks a noun if the referent is identical to arecently introduced one.
Mari: 3SG marks a noun if the referent belongs to a groupmentioned in the previous discourse/pointed at.
Komi: 3SG marks a noun if the intended referent belongs to aset of individuals whose existence is part of the CommonGround.
Analysis
Analysis: three relations
Three individual-set relations
Common denominator: Relation to a set with presupposedexistence.
Khanty: singleton anaphoric set
Mari: non-singleton anaphoric/deictic set
Komi: Common Ground set
Analysis
Analysis: three relations
Three individual-set relations
Common denominator: Relation to a set with presupposedexistence.
Khanty: singleton anaphoric set
Mari: non-singleton anaphoric/deictic set
Komi: Common Ground set
Analysis
Analysis: three relations
Three individual-set relations
Common denominator: Relation to a set with presupposedexistence.
Khanty: singleton anaphoric set
Mari: non-singleton anaphoric/deictic set
Komi: Common Ground set
Analysis
Analysis: three relations
3SG is not a definite article
Definite article: Fregean uniqueness & existencepresuppositions (and much subsequent literature)
3SG: only existential quantification (over the intersection of[[N]] and a relevant set).
Analysis
Analysis: three relations
3SG is not a definite article
Definite article: Fregean uniqueness & existencepresuppositions (and much subsequent literature)
3SG: only existential quantification (over the intersection of[[N]] and a relevant set).
Analysis
Concluding remarks
Is this all there is to it?
anaph. antc. group immed. sit. global sit.
Khanty X X X X
Mari X X X X
Komi X X X X
Analysis
Concluding remarks
Is this all there is to it? No. Tentatively:
anaph. antc. group immed. sit. global sit.
Khanty X X obj. agr./2SG 2SG
Mari case/dem. X case/dem. X
Komi X X X X
Analysis
Some Consequences
Expectation
Mari: Two Suffixes should be able to co-occur since a set of“my things” is different from a locally introduced set (fromthe semantic standpoint).
Komi: Two Suffixes should not be able to co-occur becausethe set of “my things” is just a subset of things withpresupposed existence.
Analysis
Some Consequences
Possessive suffix co-occurrence is possible in Mari
(6) m@j-@nI-gen
n@lfour
uskal-emcow-1sg
ulo.is.
m@jI
ikt-@z-@m/ikt-@mone-3sg-acc
[email protected]‘I have four cows. I want to sell one of them...’
(7) ...uskal-em-ze...cow-1sg-3sg
siz-esfeel-prs.3sg
stothat
m@jI
tud-@mhe-acc
uzal-emsell-prs.1sg‘...that cow of mine feels that I’m going to sell her.’
Analysis
Some Consequences
Possessive suffix co-occurrence is possible in Mari but not in Komi
(6) Sy-athat-nom
mosk-(*ym)-yscow-(*1sg)-3sg
cuvstvujt-o,feel-prs.3sg
myjthat
meI
mod-awant-prs.1sg
sij-othat-acc
vuzoo-nysell-inf
‘That cow (*of mine) feels that I want to sell her.’
Analysis
Conclusions
Language-specific patterns are consistent: the sphere of 3SGis delimited by categorical judgements.
3SG grammaticalizes a category different from definiteness– one whose semantics does not involve a uniquenesspresupposition.
Analysis
I’m very thankful to Jessica Coon, Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Bernhard Schwarz,and Svetlana Y. Toldova for multiple discussions.
Thanks for helpful comments to the audiences at McGillSyntax-Semantics Reading Group, Finno-Ugric Studies Association ofCanada (FUSAC), and NELS 43.
This work has been made possible by N. V. Elmekeeva, A. V. Ershova, G.G. Pushkina, I. V. Shabalina, L. A. Yangabysheva, Z. V. Klyucheva, E. F.Hozyainova, S. S. Veniaminova, I. D. Makarova, E. Y. Makarova, L. M.Nettina, L. M. Kuznetzova, U. P. Nenzilova, V. F. Ozilov, Z. K. Ozilova,V. P. Pyryseva, P. S. Saltykova, who unsparingly shared with me theirknowledge of their languages.
Fieldwork 2011–2012 has been supported by McGill Arts Research TravelAward.
Analysis
Collinder, Bjorn.
Comparative grammar of the Uralic languages.Stockholm: UP.
Fraurud, Kari. 2001.
Possessives with extensive use.In Dimensions of Possession, vol. 47, 243. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kashkin, Egor. 2008.
Osobennosti upotreblenija posessivnyh pokazatelej v izhemskom dialekte komi-zyrjanskogo jazyka.In Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, vol. IV, ed. N. N. Kazanskij, 81–85. Saint Petersburg.
Kuznetsova, Ariadna I. 2012.
Kumuljatsija grammatititcheskih znatchenij v agglutinativnyh pokazateljah: deiktitcheskie funktsii posessivav ural’skih jazykah.In Finno-ugorskie jazyki. Fragmenty grammaticheskogo opisanija., eds. N. V. Serdobolskaya, C. Y. Toldova,S. S. Say, and Kalinina E. Y. Moscow: Languages of the Slavic cultures.
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2003.
Possessive affixes as markers of information structuring: Evidence from Uralic.In International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification in Languages spoken in Europe andNorth and Central Asia, eds. P. Suihkonen and B. Comrie, 130–145. Izhevsk; Leipzig: Udmurt StateUniversity; Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology.