1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Uralic Linguistics
  4. Volume 2, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2772-3720
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3739
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Juxtaposition as a machinery of building noun phrases is well-known to be widespread in Uralic languages: the modifier is left-adjoined to the head and does not bear any morphological marker of syntactic dependency. This strategy is used to attach adjectives, cardinals and modifying nominals to nouns (like in Beserman ‘goose meat’), and to build constructions with measure nouns (like Beserman ‘one basket of mushrooms’, lit. one basket mushroom). However, there remains a question whether all these constructions share the same syntactic structure. We consider pseudopartitive constructions with measure nouns in comparison with NPs containing non-marked modifying nominals and NPs with adjectives, showing that they do not share the same syntactic structure. Constructions with unmarked modifying nominals show properties of compounding, while pseudopartitives arguably have a measure phrase (a cardinal with a measure noun) and a noun phrase (the quantified nominal), which is the head of the pseudopartitive construction. The syntactic properties we analyze include constituent properties, branching, pronominalization, fragment questions, linear ordering restrictions, particular properties of head ellipsis, and information structure effects.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00018.ser
2023-11-16
2024-09-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jul.00018.ser
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abbott, Barbara
    1996 Doing without a partitive constraint. InJacob Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives: Studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions, 25–56. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908985.25
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908985.25 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou
    2007 Semi functional categories: the N-of-N construction and the pseudo-partitive construction. InArtemis Alexiadou, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou (eds.), Noun phrase in the generative perspective, 395–472. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110207491
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207491 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arkhangelskiy, Timofey & Maria Usacheva
    2018 Case compounding in Beserman Udmurt. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics91. 111–138. 10.12697/jeful.2018.9.1.05
     https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2018.9.1.05 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arkhangelskiy, Timofey
    2018 Konstrukcija s sopolezhenijem v besermjanskom [A juxtaposition construction in Beserman]. Talk given at Pervaja konferencija po uraljskim, altajskim i paleoaziatskim jazykam pamjati A.P. Volodina [The first conference on Uralic, Altaic and Paleo-Siberian languages in memory of A.P. Volodin]. Saint-Petersburg: Institute of Linguistic Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Arkhangelskiy, Timofey & Maria Usacheva
    . n.d.Beserman multimedia corpus. Available atmultimedia-corpus.beserman.ru/search (accessed02.2022 – 04.2023)
  6. Arkhangelskiy, Timofey, Olga Biryuk, Natalia Serdobolskaya & Maria Usacheva
    . n.d.Beserman corpus of oral texts. Available atbeserman.ru/corpus/search/?interface_language=en (accessed02.2022 – 04.2023)
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bisetto, Antonietta & Sergio Scalise
    2005 The classification of compounds. Lingue e linguaggio41. 319–332.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1933 Language. New York: Henry Holt.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brasoveanu, Adrian
    2007 Measure noun polysemy and monotonicity: evidence from Romanian pseudopartitives. InProceedings of the North East Linguistic Society381. 139–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Byzova, Anna A.
    2023 Konstrukcii s imennym sopolozheniem v finno-ugorskih jazykah [Nominal juxtaposition constructions in Finno-Ugric languages]. A course paper. Lomonosov Moscow State University. Ms.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cavirani-Pots, Cora
    2020 Roots in progress: Semi-lexicality in the Dutch and Afrikaans verbal domain. PhD dissertation, LOT Dissertation series.
  12. Dékány, Éva K.
    2011 A profile of the Hungarian DP: The interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence. PhD dissertation. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.
  13. De Hoop, Helen
    1997 A semantic reanalysis of the partitive constraint. Lingua1031. 151–174. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(97)00018‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00018-1 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2003 Partitivity. InLisa Lai Shen Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds.), The second Glot international state-of-the-article book, 179–212. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110890952.179
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110890952.179 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fejes, László
    2005 Összetett szavak finnugor nyelvekben [Compound words in the Finno-Ugric languages], PhD dissertation, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Budapest.
  16. Hoeksema, Jacob
    1996 Introduction. InJacob Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives: Studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions, 1–24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908985.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908985.1 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ihsane, Tabea & Elisabeth Stark
    2020 Introduction: Shades of partitivity: Formal and areal properties. Linguistics581. 605–619. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0078
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0078 [Google Scholar]
  18. Klumpp, Gerson
    2008 Differentielle Objektmarkierung & Informationsstruktur in Dialekten des Komi. Ms, Munich.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
    2001 “A piece of the cake” and “a cup of tea”: Partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages. InÖsten Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages: Volume 2: Grammar and Typology, 523–568. 10.1075/slcs.55.11kop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.55.11kop [Google Scholar]
  20. 2009 A lot of grammar with a good portion of lexicon: Towards a typology of partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions. InWalter Bisang, Hans H. Hock & Werner Winter (eds.), Form and function in language research, 329–347. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216134.6.329
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216134.6.329 [Google Scholar]
  21. Koryakov, Yuri B., Tatiana I. Davidyuk, Anastasia P. Evstigneeva & Arzhaana A. Syuryun
    2022 Spisok jazykov Rossii [List of languages of Russia]. Available atjazykirf.iling-ran.ru/list_2022.shtml
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kubinyi, Katalin & Anne Tamm
    2022 Partitivity in Uralic languages without a designated partitive marker. Talk given at theCIFU III, August 21–27, Vienna.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuznetsova, Ariadna I.
    2003 Kumulacia grammaticheskix znachenij v agglutinativnyx pokazatelax: Deikticheskie funkcii posessiva v uralskix jazykax [Several grammatical meanings in agglutinative markers: Deictic functions of possessive markers in Uralic]. InAriadna I. Kuznetsova & Natalia V. Serdobol’skaya & Svetlana YU. Toldova & Sergey S. Saj & Elena YU. Kalinina (eds.), Finno-ugorskije jazyki: fragmenty grammaticheskogo opisanija. Formalnyj i funkcionalnyj podkhody [Finno-Ugric languages: Fragments of grammatical description. Formal and functional approaches], 250–262. Moscow: Russkije slovari.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Luraghi, Silvia & Tuomas Huumo
    2014 Partitive cases and related categories (EALT 54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346060
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346060 [Google Scholar]
  25. Nikolaeva, Irina A.
    2003 Possessive affixes as markers of information structuring: evidence from Uralic. InPirkko Suihkonen & Bernard Comrie (eds.), International symposium on deictic systems and quantification in languages spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Collection of papers, 130–145. Izhevsk & Leipzig: Udmurt State University & Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Pereltsvaig, Asya
    2006 Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory241. 433–500. 10.1007/s11049‑005‑3820‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-005-3820-z [Google Scholar]
  27. Pleshak, Polina
    2021 The exponence of caseless NPs in Moksha. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America61. 628–640. 10.3765/plsa.v6i1.4999
     https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v6i1.4999 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pleshak, Polina & Maria A. Kholodilova
    2018 Imennaja gruppa [The Noun Phrase.] InSvetlana J. Toldova & Maria A. Kholodilova (eds.), Elementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 272–310. Moscow: Buki Vedi.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Polinsky, Maria
    2018 Freezing and phi-feature agreement: On the role of [PERSON]. InJutta M. Hartmann, Marion Jäger, Andreas Kehl, Andreas Konietzko & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Freezing: Theoretical approaches and empirical domains [Studies in Generative Grammar 130], 284–316. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501504266‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504266-009 [Google Scholar]
  30. Privizentseva, Mariia
    2020 Nominal ellipsis reveals concord in Moksha Mordvin. Paper presented at the38th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Schlachter, Wolfgang
    1960 Studien zum Possessivsuffix des Syrjänischen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Schwarzschild, Roger
    2002 The grammar of measurement. InBrendan Jackson (ed.), Proceedings of SALTXII1, 225–245, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 10.3765/salt.v12i0.2870
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v12i0.2870 [Google Scholar]
  33. Selkirk, Elizabeth
    1977 Some remarks on noun phrase structure. InPeter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Akmajian Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax: Papers from the MSSB-UC Irvine conference on the formal syntax of natural language, 285–316. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Serdobolskaya, Natalia V.
    2017 Invariant opredelennosti i differencirovannoe markirovanie pryamogo dopolneniya v besermyanskom udmurtskom [The concept of definiteness and differential object marking in Beserman Udmurt]. InVladimir A. Plungyan, Roman V. Ron’ko, Anton V. Cimmerling (eds.), Issledovaniya po teorii grammatiki [Studies in the theory of grammar]. Vyp.81: Differencirovannoe markirovanie argumentov: materialy k tipologii [Differential object marking: materials to the typology], 76–122. Saint Petersburg: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Serdobolskaya, Natalia, Maria Usacheva & Timofey Arkhangelskiy
    2019 Grammaticalization of possessive markers in the Beserman dialect of Udmurt. InLars Johanson, Irina Nevskaya & Lidia F. Mazzitelli (eds.) Linguistic possession: New insights from the languages of Europe and North and Central Asia (Studies in Language Companion Series), 291–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.206.14ser
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.206.14ser [Google Scholar]
  36. Serdobolskaya, Natalia
    2020 A corpus analysis of differential object marking in Beserman Udmurt. InLinguistica Uralica561. 275–308. 10.3176/lu.2020.4.03
     https://doi.org/10.3176/lu.2020.4.03 [Google Scholar]
  37. Serdobolskaya, Natalia, Maria Usacheva, Timofey Arkhangelskiy, Ruslan Idrisov & Vladimir Ivanov
    . n.d.Besermjanskij Slovar’ [The Beserman dictionary]. Available atbeserman.ru/?page=dictionary
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Seržant, Ilja A.
    2012 The pragmatics and semantics of the bare partitive genitive in Ancient Greek. STUF651. 113–136. 10.1524/stuf.2012.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2012.0008 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2021 Typology of partitives. Linguistics591. 881–947. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0251
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0251 [Google Scholar]
  40. Simonenko, Alexandra
    2014 Microvariation in Finno-Ugric possessive markers. InProceedings of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS)431. 127–140.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Simonenko, Alexandra P. & Alexey P. Leontiev
    2012 Morfosintaksis imennogo kompleksa v finno-permskih yazykah: analiz v ramkah gipotezy minimalizma [Morphosyntax of the nominal complex in Finno-Permic languages: A minimalist analysis]. InAriadna I. Kuznetsova & Natalia V. Serdobol’skaya & Svetlana YU. Toldova & Sergey S. Saj & Elena YU. Kalinina (eds.), Finno-ugorskije jazyki: Fragmenty grammaticheskogo opisanija. Formalnyj i funkcionalnyj podxody [Finno-Ugric languages: Fragments of grammatical description. Formal and functional approaches], 262–340. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kultur.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Soloveva, Anita V.
    2019 Sintaksis i semantika partitivnykh i psevdopartitivnykh kostrukcij v gornomarijskom yazyke [Partitive and pseudo-partitive constructions in Hill Mari: Syntax and semantics]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana151. 298–339. 10.30842/alp2306573715211
     https://doi.org/10.30842/alp2306573715211 [Google Scholar]
  43. Stickney, Helen
    2007 From pseudopartitive to partitive. InAlyona Belikova & Luisa Meroni & Mari Umeda (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), 406–415. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Tamm, Anne
    2014 The partitive concept versus linguistic partitives: from abstract concepts to evidentiality in the Uralic languages. InSilvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.) Partitive cases and related categories, 89–153. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346060.89
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346060.89 [Google Scholar]
  45. Usacheva, Maria, Maria Brykina, & Anna Leontyeva
    2022 Adjective plural marker in Beserman: two markers, several constructions. Talk given atSyntax of Uralic Languages 4 (SOUL 4), Saint Petersburg/Budapest (online).
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Usacheva, Maria
    2016 Atributivy na -o v besermjanskom udmurtskom [Attributivizers with -o in Beserman Udmurt]. Talk given at13th Conference on Typology and Grammar for Young Scholars, Saint Petersburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Yadroff, Michael
    1999 Formal properties of functional categories: The minimalist syntax of Russian nominal and prepositional expressions. PhD dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.
  48. Yaroslavtseva, Maria
    2018 Typology of partitive constructions. Master’s thesis. The National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Zubova, Julia
    2019 Conjunctive and comitative noun phrase coordination in Beserman Udmurt. Linguistica Uralica551. 285–301. 10.3176/lu.2019.4.04
     https://doi.org/10.3176/lu.2019.4.04 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00018.ser
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): juxtaposition; partitivity; Permic; pseudopartitive; syntax; Uralic

Most Cited

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