Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2772-3720
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3739



This paper presents the (UraTyp 1.0), a typological dataset of 35 Uralic languages and a total of 360 features, mainly covering the levels of morphology, syntax, and phonology. The features belong to two different datasets: 195 features’ definitions originate from the Grambank (GB) database, developed for comparison of world language typology, whereas 165 features (UT) have been designed specifically to describe the typological variation within the Uralic language family. We present a series of analyses of the dataset demonstrating its scope and possibilities. The complete data set correctly identifies the main Uralic subgroups in a Principal Components Analysis, whereas GB data alone is insufficiently granular to detect this family-internal structure. Similar analyses limited to various typological subdomains also give variable results. A model-based admixture analysis identifies four distinct areas of historical interaction: Saami, Finnic, the Volga area and Ob-Ugric.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Abondolo, Daniel Mario
    (ed.) 1998The Uralic languages (Routledge Language Family Descriptions). London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte)
    2012 An essay on Saami ethnolinguistic prehistory. InRiho Grünthal & Petri Kallio (eds.), A linguistic map of prehistoric northern Europe (MSFOu 266), 63–118. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aikio, Ante
    2018 Notes on the development of some consonant clusters in Hungarian. InSampsa Holopainen & Janne Saarikivi (eds.), Περὶ o̓ρθότητος ἐτύμων – Uusiutuva uralilainen etymologia [On the correctness of etymologies – Renewed Uralic etymology]. (Studia Uralica Helsingiensia 11), 77–90. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexander, David H., John Novembre & Kenneth Lange
    2009 Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Research19. 1655–1664. 10.1101/gr.094052.109
    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.094052.109 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bereczki, Gábor
    1977 Permi-cseremisz lexikális kölcsönzések [Permic–Mari lexical borrowings]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények79. 57–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1984 Die Beziehungen zwischen den finnougrischen und türkischen Sprachen im Wolga–Kama-Gebiet [Relations between the Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages in the Volga-Kama region]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények86. 307–314.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ceolin, Andrea, Cristina Guardiano, Monica Alexandrina Irimia & Giuseppe Longobardi
    2020 Formal syntax and deep history. Frontiers in Psychology11. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.488871
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.488871 [Google Scholar]
  8. Csepregi, Márta & Katalin Gugán
    . to appear. The syntax of Khanty. Manuscript, Research Centre for Linguistics, Hungary (www.nytud.hu/oszt/elmnyelv/urali/publ/Khanty_Syntax_first_draft.pdf) (Accessed21-12-2021.)
  9. Csúcs, Sándor
    1990Die tatarischen Lehnwörter des Wotjakischen [The Tatar loanwords of Votyak]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dahl, Östen & Viveka Velupillai
    2013 The past tense. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (wals.info/chapter/66) (Accessed04-04-2021.)
    [Google Scholar]
  11. De Groot, Casper
    2017Uralic essive and the expression of impermanent state. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.119
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.119 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dediu, Dan & Stephen C. Levinson
    2012 Abstract profiles of structural stability point to universal tendencies, family-specific factors, and ancient connections between languages. InAlex Mesoudi (ed.), PLoS ONE7(9). e45198. 10.1371/annotation/ceff8775‑a4e3‑45cb‑b6c9‑dd62d9179d59
    https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/ceff8775-a4e3-45cb-b6c9-dd62d9179d59 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath
    (eds.) 2013WALS Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (https://wals.info/) (Accessed03-11-2018)
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Forkel, Robert, Sebastian Bank, Christoph Rzymski & Hans-Jörg Bibiko
    2020clld/clld: clld – a toolkit for cross-linguistic databases (v7.2.0). Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.3968247
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3968247 [Google Scholar]
  15. Forkel, Robert & Johann-Mattis List
    2020 CLDFBench: Give your cross-linguistic data a lift. InN. Calzolari, F. Béchet, P. Blache, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020), 6995–7002. Paris: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). 10.17613/8t0e‑w639
    https://doi.org/10.17613/8t0e-w639 [Google Scholar]
  16. Forkel, Robert, Johann-Mattis List, Simon J. Greenhill, Christoph Rzymski, Sebastian Bank, Michael Cysouw, Harald Hammarström, Martin Haspelmath, Gereon A. Kaiping & Russell D. Gray
    2018 Cross-linguistic data formats, advancing data sharing and re-use in comparative linguistics. Scientific Data5(1). 180205. 10.1038/sdata.2018.205
    https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.205 [Google Scholar]
  17. François, Olivier
    2016 Running structure-like population genetic analyses with R. R tutorials in population genetics, University of Grenoble-Alpes, 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Frichot, Eric & Olivier François
    2015 LEA: An R package for landscape and ecological association studies. Methods in Ecology and Evolution6(8). 925–929. 10.1111/2041‑210X.12382
    https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12382 [Google Scholar]
  19. Good, Jeff & Michael Cysouw
    2013 Languoid, doculect, and glossonym: Formalizing the notion “language”. Language Documentation & Conservation7. (scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/4606) (Accessed31-08-2021.)
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Greenhill, Simon J., Q. D. Atkinson, A. Meade & Russell D. Gray
    2010 The shape and tempo of language evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences277(1693). 2443–2450. 10.1098/rspb.2010.0051
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0051 [Google Scholar]
  21. Greenhill, Simon J., Paul Heggarty & Russell D. Gray
    2020 Bayesian phylolinguistics. InR. D. Janda, B. D. Joseph & B. S. Vance (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, vol.2, 226–253. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118732168.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118732168.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  22. Grünthal, Riho
    2015 Livonian at the crossroads of language contacts. InSanteri Junttila (ed.), Baltic languages and white nights (Uralica Helsingiensia 7), 12–67. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2019 Canonical and non-canonical patterns in the adpositional phrase in Western Uralic: Constraints on borrowing. SUSA/JSFOu97. 9–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Grünthal, Riho, Volker Heyd, Sampsa Holopainen, Juha A. Janhunen, Olesya Khanina, Matti Miestamo, Johanna Nichols, Janne Saarikivi & Kaius Sinnemäki
    . 2022. Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread. Diachronica1–35. John Benjamins. 10.1075/dia.20038.gru (Accessed31-08-2021.)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.20038.gru [Google Scholar]
  25. Gulya, János
    1977 Megjegyzések az ugor őshaza és az ugor nyelvek szétválása kérdéséről [Comments on the issue of the separation of the Ugric homeland and the Ugric languages]. InBartha, Antal (eds.), Magyar őstörténeti tanulmányok, 115–121. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hajdú, Péter
    1952 Az ugor kor helyének és idejének kérdéséhez [On the question of the place and time of the Ugric age]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények54. 264–269.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank
    2021Glottolog 4.4. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. 10.5281/zenodo.4761960, available online atglottolog.org (Accessed31-08-2021.)
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4761960 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haspelmath, Martin
    2001 The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. InMartin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 20.2), 1492–1510. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110171549.2.14.1492
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110171549.2.14.1492 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hausenberg, Anu-Reet & Paul, Kokla
    1988 Unificirovannaja sistema opisanija dialektov v primenenii k komi i marijskim glagolʹnym formam [A unified system applied in dialect description of Komi and Mari verb forms]. Soviet Finno-Ugric Studies24. 19–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Havas, Ferenc
    2010 The Uralic typology database project. Paper presented at theEleventh International Congress of Finno-Ugric Studies, Piliscsaba, Hungary, 9–14 August 2010. (https://slidetodoc.com/the-uralic-typology-database-project-ferenc-havas-budapest/) (Accessed28-11-2021.)
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Havas, Ferenc, Márta Csepregi, Nikolett F. Gulyás & Szilvia Németh
    2015Typological Database of the Ugric Languages. Budapest: ELTE Finnugor Tanszék. (utdb.elte.hu) (Accessed09-06-2021.)
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Heikkilä, Mikko
    2011 Huomioita kantasaamen ajoittamisesta ja paikantamisesta sekä germaanisia etymologioita suomalais-saamelaisille sanoille [Remarks on the timing and location of the native Sámi and Germanic etymologies for Finnish-Sámi words]. Virittäjä1. 68–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Helimski, Eugene
    2003 Areal groupings (Sprachbünde) within and across the borders of the Uralic language family: a survey. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények100. 156–167.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Honkola, Terhi, Outi Vesakoski, Kalle Korhonen, Jüri Lehtinen, Kaj Syrjänen & Niklas Wahlberg
    2013 Cultural and climatic changes shape the evolutionary history of the Uralic languages. Journal of Evolutionary Biology26. 1244–1253. 10.1111/jeb.12107
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12107 [Google Scholar]
  35. Honkola, Terhi, Kalle Ruokolainen, Kaj Syrjänen, Unni-Päivä Leino, Ilpo Tammi, Niklas Wahlberg & Outi Vesakoski
    2018 Evolution within a language: environmental differences contribute to divergence of dialect groups. BMC Evolutionary Biology18(1), [132]. 10.1186/s12862‑018‑1238‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1238-6 [Google Scholar]
  36. Honkola, Terhi, Jenni Santaharju, Kaj Syrjänen & Karl Pajusalu
    2019 Clustering lexical variation of Finnic languages, based on Atlas Linguarum Fennicarum. Linguistica Uralica55(3). 161–184. 10.3176/lu.2019.3.01
    https://doi.org/10.3176/lu.2019.3.01 [Google Scholar]
  37. Honti, László
    1979 Features of Ugric languages (Observations on the question of Ugric unity). Acta Linguistica Academia Scientiarum Hungaricae29. 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1997Az ugor alapnyelv kérdéséhez [On the question of the Ugric protolanguage]. (Budapesti Finnugor Füzetek 7). Budapest: ELTE BTK Finnugor Tanszék.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Isanbaev, Nikolaj Isanbaevič
    1994 Marijsko-tjurkskie jazykovye kontakty. Častʹ vtoraja. [Mari-Turkic language contacts. Part Two.] Joškar-Ola: Marijskij naučno-issledovatelʹskij institut jazyka, literatury i istorii im. V. M. Vasilʹeva.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Johanson, Lars
    2000 Linguistic convergence in the Volga area. InDicky Gilberts, John A. Nerbonne & Jos Schaecken (eds.), Languages in contact (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 28), 165–178. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Klumpp, Gerson, Lidia Federica Mazzitelli & Fedor Rozhanskiy
    2018 Typology of Uralic languages: Current views and new perspectives. Introduction to the special issue of ESUKA – JEFUL. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics9 (1). 9–30. 10.12697/jeful.2018.9.1.01
    https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2018.9.1.01 [Google Scholar]
  42. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Bernhard Wälchli
    2001 The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. InÖsten Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic languages: Typology and contact. Volume 1: Grammar and typology (Studies in Language Companion Series 55), 615–750. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.55.15kop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.55.15kop [Google Scholar]
  43. Kowalik, Richard
    . (forthcoming). A grammar of spoken South Saami. Stockholm University doctoral dissertation.
  44. Laakso, Johanna
    2020 Contact and the Finno-Ugric languages. InRaymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 2nd edition, 519–535. Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119485094.ch26
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119485094.ch26 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lehtinen, Jyri, Terhi Honkola, Kalle Korhonen, Kaj Syrjänen, Niklas Wahlberg & Outi Vesakoski
    2014 Behind family trees. Language Dynamics and Change4(2). 189–221. 10.1163/22105832‑00402007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00402007 [Google Scholar]
  46. Magga, Ole Henrik
    2014 Lullisámegiela muohtasánit [South Saami snow terminology]. Sámi dieđalaš áigečála1. 27–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Miestamo, Matti
    2018 On the relationship between typology and the description of Uralic languages. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics9(1). 31–53. 10.12697/jeful.2018.9.1.02
    https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2018.9.1.02 [Google Scholar]
  48. Miestamo, Matti, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy
    (eds.) 2015Negation in Uralic languages (Typological Studies in Language 108). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.108
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.108 [Google Scholar]
  49. Nichols, Johanna
    2021 The origin and dispersal of Uralic: Distributional typological view. Annual Review of Linguistics7(1). 351–369. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011619‑030405
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030405 [Google Scholar]
  50. Norvik, Miina, Yingqi Jing, Michael Dunn, Robert Forkel, Terhi Honkola, Gerson Klumpp, Richard Kowalik, Helle Metslang, Karl Pajusalu, Minerva Piha, Eva Saar, Sirkka Saarinen & Outi Vesakoski
    2021Uralic Typological database – UraTyp. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.5236365
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5236365 [Google Scholar]
  51. Pajusalu, Karl, Kristel Uiboaed, Péter Pomozi, Endre Németh & Tibor Fehér
    2018 Towards a phonological typology of Uralic languages. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics9(1). 187–207. 10.12697/jeful.2018.9.1.08
    https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2018.9.1.08 [Google Scholar]
  52. Piha, Minerva
    2018 Combining Proto-Scandinavian loanword strata in South Saami with the Early Iron Age archaeological material of Jämtland and Dalarna, Sweden. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen64. 118–233. 10.33339/fuf.66694
    https://doi.org/10.33339/fuf.66694 [Google Scholar]
  53. Piha, Minerva & Jaakko Häkkinen
    2020 Eteläsaamesta kantaeteläsaameen. Lainatodisteita eteläsaamen varhaisesta eriytymisestä [From Proto-Saami to Southern Proto-Saami. Loan evidence of the early drift of South Saami]. Sananjalka62. 102–124. 10.30673/sja.95727
    https://doi.org/10.30673/sja.95727 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pritchard, Jonathan K., Matthew Stephens & Peter Donnelly
    2000 Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics155. 945–59. 10.1093/genetics/155.2.945
    https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/155.2.945 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rantanen, Timo, Outi Vesakoski, Jussi Ylikoski & Harri Tolvanen
    2021Geographical database of the Uralic languages. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.4784188
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4784188 [Google Scholar]
  56. Reesink, Ger, Ruth Singer & Michael Dunn
    2009 Explaining the linguistic diversity of Sahul using population models. PLoS biology7(11). e1000241. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000241
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000241 [Google Scholar]
  57. Róna-Tas, András
    1988 Turkic influence on the Uralic languages. InDenis Sinor (ed.), The Uralic languages. Description, history and foreign influences, 742–780. Leiden, New York, København, Köln: E. J. Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Saarinen, Sirkka
    1997 Language contacts in the Volga region: Loan suffixes and calques in Mari and Udmurt. InHeinrich Ramisch & Kenneth Wynne (eds.), Language in time and space. Studies in honour of Wolfgang Viereck on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 388–396. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Skirgård, Hedvig, H. J. Haynie, Harald Hammarström, D. E. Blasi
    Grambank data reveal global patterns in the structural diversity of the world’s languages. Submitted manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Syrjänen, Kaj
    2021 Quantitative language evolution: Case studies in Finnish dialects and Uralic languages. Tampere University doctoral dissertation. (https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/132864) (Accessed12-08-2021.)
  61. Syrjänen, Kaj, Terhi Honkola, Kalle Korhonen, Jyri Lehtinen, Outi Vesakoski & Niklas Wahlberg
    2013 Shedding more light on language classification using basic vocabularies and phylogenetic methods: A case study of Uralic. Diachronica30(3). 323–352. 10.1075/dia.30.3.02syr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.02syr [Google Scholar]
  62. Syrjänen, Kaj, Terhi Honkola, Jyri Lehtinen, Antti Leino & Outi Vesakoski
    2016 Applying population genetic approaches within languages: Finnish dialects as linguistic populations. Language Dynamics and Change6 (2), 235–283. 10.1163/22105832‑00602002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00602002 [Google Scholar]
  63. Veenker, Wolfgang
    (ed.) 1985Dialectologia Uralica. Materialen der ersten internationalen Symposium zur Dialektologie der uralischen Sprachen 4.–7. September 1984 in Hamburg [Dielectologia Uralica. Materials of the first international symposium on the dialectology of Uralic languages, 4–7 September 1984, Hamburg] (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 20). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Wilkinson, M. D., M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg, G. Appleton, M. Axton, A. Baak, N. Blomberg
    2016 The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data3 (1). 160018. 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
    https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 [Google Scholar]
  65. Ylikoski, Jussi
    2016 The origins of the western Uralic s-cases revisited: Historiographical, functional-typological and Samoyedic perspectives. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen63. 6–78. 10.33339/fuf.86120
    https://doi.org/10.33339/fuf.86120 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error