Microvariation in Finno-Ugric possessive markers: …archive.sfl.cnrs.fr/sites/sfl/IMG/pdf/LSALAA2013Simonen...Microvariation in Finno-Ugric possessive markers: three relational stories

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


(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


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


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


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


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






Introduction






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


3 Analysis


Komi pattern

Outline

1 Introduction


3 Analysis


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]


Komi pattern


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.’


Komi pattern


Referent known from a local situation

(3) @bes-*(se)door-3sg.acc

sipt-i!close-imp

‘Close the door!’ [Kashkin 2008]


Komi pattern


Referent known from a global situation

(3) Sond-*(ys)Sun-*(3sg)

dep-s’-i-s.dep-detr-prt-3sg

‘The sun has set.’


Komi pattern

Komi Pattern Summary

Licensing contexts of 3sg

anaph. antc. group immed. sit. global sit.

Komi X X X X


Mari pattern

Outline

1 Introduction


3 Analysis


Mari pattern

Non-possessive use in Mari

Anaphoric antecedent – NO

(4) VasjaVasja

kniga-mbook-acc

[email protected]

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.’


Mari pattern


Referent belongs to a known group (I)

(4) VasjaVasja

kumthree

kniga-mbook-acc

[email protected]

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).’


Mari pattern


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.’


Mari pattern


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]


Mari pattern


Referent know from an local situation – NO

(4) Pet@r@zaclose-imp

omsa-(*z)-@m!door-(*3sg)-acc

‘Close the door!’


Mari pattern


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.’


Mari pattern

Komi & Mari Pattern Summary



Mari X X X XKomi X X X X


Khanty pattern

Outline

1 Introduction


3 Analysis


Khanty pattern

Non-possessive use in Khanty

Anaphoric antecedent (I)

(5) VasjaVasja

johtree

hoc’aat

la@m-ynaxe-loc

[email protected]

Joh-*(@L)tree-*(3sg)

iLdown

[email protected]

‘Vasja hit the tree with an axe. The tree fell.’


Khanty pattern


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.’


Khanty pattern


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]


Khanty pattern


Referent known from a local situation – NO

(5) c’ithat

amp-(*@L)dog-(*3sg)

takanstrong

[email protected]

‘This dog runs fast.’


Khanty pattern


Referent known from a global situation – NO

(5) Vuntforest

jis-telnforever

vuL.be.pst

‘The forest has always existed.’


Khanty pattern

Komi & Mari & Khanty Pattern Summary



Khanty X X X X

Mari X X X X

Komi X X X X

Analysis

Outline

1 Introduction


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






Analysis


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







Analysis


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


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?


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:


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.

Documents

Microvariation in Finno-Ugric possessive markers: …archive.sfl.cnrs.fr/sites/sfl/IMG/pdf/LSALAA2013Simonen...Microvariation in Finno-Ugric possessive markers: three relational stories