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
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

The paper discusses the syntax of postpositional constructions in Meadow Mari (Uralic, Morkinsko-Sernur dialect; head-final, SOV). Building upon existing approaches to postpositions in the world’s languages, I propose that PPs in Mari may have one of two underlying structures depending on the nature of the dependent but not on the nature of the adposition. PPs with a pronominal dependent involve possession between the Ground and a nominal. In PPs with a non-pronominal dependent the Ground is merged directly into the complement position of a P head. I further expand the dataset and show that the two configurations successfully capture the distribution of reflexive pronouns in PPs. The proposed analysis accounts for all the relevant data: examples with independent and affixal postpositions and referential and pronominal dependents.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00021.bur
2023-11-16
2024-09-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jul.00021.bur
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jul.00021.bur.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00021.bur&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ahn, Byron & Laura Kalin
    2018 What’s in a (English) reflexive?InNELS 48: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society11. 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis
    2003 Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today561. 167–188. 10.1075/la.56.12ale
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.56.12ale [Google Scholar]
  3. Arkhangelskiy, Timofey
    2019 Corpora of social media in minority Uralic languages. Proceedings of the fifth Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Uralic Languages, 125–140. Tartu, Estonia, January 7 – January 8, 2019. Meadow Mari corpus, online: meadow-mari.web-corpora.net/ (accessed onJanuary 12, 2023) 10.18653/v1/W19‑0311
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-0311 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arkhangelskiy, Timofey & Maria Usacheva
    2015 Syntactic and morphosyntactic properties of postpositional phrases in Beserman Udmurt as part-of-speech criteria. SKY Journal of Linguistics281. 103–137.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 2022 Grammaticalization of relational nouns in Permic languages. Talk presented atCongressus XIII Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Vienna, Austria, August 21–27, 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Asbury, Anna
    2008 The morphosyntax of Case and adpositions. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Asbury, Anna, Berit Gehrke & Veronika Hegedűs
    2007 One size fits all: Prefixes, particles, adpositions and cases as members of the category P. InCem Keskin (ed.), Uil OTS yearbook 2006, 1–17. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Asbury, Anna, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen
    2008 Syntax and semantics of spatial P. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.120
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.120 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker, Mark C.
    2015 Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107295186
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107295186 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bartos, Huba
    1999 Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció: A magyar inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere [Morphosyntax and interpretation: The syntactic background of Hungarian inflectional phenomena]. Ph.D. dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
  11. 2000 Az inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere [The syntactic background of inflectional phenomena]. InFerenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan III. Morfológia, 653–761. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg & Johan Roxendal
    2012 Korp – the corpus infrastructure of Språkbanken. Online: gtweb.uit.no/u_korp/?mode=mhr#?lang=en (accessed onJanuary 11, 2023)
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Borise, Lena & Katalin É. Kiss
    2022 The emergence of conjunctions and phrasal coordination in Khanty. Journal of Historical Linguistics, online first. 1–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Botwinik-Rotem, Irena
    2008 Why are they different? An exploration of Hebrew locative PPs. InAnna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 331–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.120.17bot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.120.17bot [Google Scholar]
  15. Bradley, Jeremy & Johannes Hirvonen
    2022 Null subjects in Mari. InGréte Dalmi, Egor Tsedryk & Piotr Cegłowski (eds.), Null subjects in Slavic and Finno-Ugric: Licensing, structure and typology, 281–306. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501513848‑010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501513848-010 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bradley, Jeremy, Alexandra Kellner & Niko Partanen
    2018 Variation in word order in Permic and Mari varieties: A corpus-based investigation. InA. M. Ivanova & E. V. Fomin (eds.), Jazykovyje kontakty narodov povolžja [Language contacts of the peoples of the Volga region], 238–244. Cheboksary, Russia: I. N. Ulianov Chuvash State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Burukina, Irina
    2021 Profile of reflexives in Hill Mari. Folia Linguistica551. 127–162. 10.1515/flin‑2020‑2072
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2020-2072 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2022 On dative subjects and agreement with infinitives licensed by an external P head. InPratley Breanna (ed.), NELS 52: Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 105–118. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2023 Deriving rationale clauses: Dative infinitives, embedded imperatives, and modality. Talk presented at theOlomouc Linguistics Colloquium (Olinco), Olomouc, Czech Republic. 8–10 June 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. . To appear. Lexical reflexives and intensifiers. InEgor Kashkin ed. Grammatika gornomarijskogo jazyka [Descriptive grammar of Hill Mari].
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cinque, Guglielmo
    2010 Mapping spatial PPs: an introduction. InGuglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures61, 3–25. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi
    (eds) 2010 Mapping spatial PPs. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Collins, Chris
    2007 Home sweet home. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics11. 1–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Martina Wiltschko
    2002 Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry331. 409–442. 10.1162/002438902760168554
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168554 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dékány, Éva
    2011 A profile of the Hungarian DP. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 2018 The position of case markers relative to possessive agreement: Variation within Hungarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory361. 365–400. 10.1007/s11049‑017‑9379‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9379-7 [Google Scholar]
  27. Dékány, Éva & Veronika Hegedűs
    2015 Word order variation in Hungarian PPs. InKatalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi & Éva Dékány (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba conference, 95–120. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/atoh.14.04dek
     https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.04dek [Google Scholar]
  28. Diewald, Gabriele
    1997 Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110946673
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110946673 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dikken, Marcel den
    2010 On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. InGuglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures61, 74–126. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2018 Case, P and Number in Mari possessive noun phrases. Ms. Budapest, Hungary.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig
    2021 Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 24th edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1999 Mi tartozik a névutók osztályába? [What belongs to the category of postpositions?]. Magyar nyelvjárások371. 167–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2002 The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511755088
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755088 [Google Scholar]
  34. É. Kiss, Katalin & Veronika Hegedűs
    (eds.) 2021 Syntax of Hungarian: Postpositions and postpositional phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. É. Kiss, Katalin & Nikolett Mus
    2022 The reflexive cycle: From reflexive to personal pronoun in Uralic. Journal of Uralic Linguistics11. 43–66. 10.1075/jul.00003.kis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00003.kis [Google Scholar]
  36. Embick, David & Rolf Noyer
    2001 Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry321. 555–595. 10.1162/002438901753373005
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Frascarelli, Mara
    2007 Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory251. 691–734. 10.1007/s11049‑007‑9025‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9025-x [Google Scholar]
  38. 2018 The interpretation of pro in consistent and partial null-subject languages: A comparative interface analysis. InFederica Cognola & Jan Casalicchio (eds.), Null subjects in generative grammar: A synchronic and diachronic perspective, 211–239. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Galkin, I. S.
    1985 Istoričeskaja grammatika marijskogo jazyka. Morfologija [Historical grammar of Mari: Morphology]. Yoshkar-Ola: Marijskoje Knižnoe Izdatel’stvo.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Grünthal, Riho
    2019 Canonical and non-canonical patterns in the adpositional phrase of Western Uralic: constraints of borrowing. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne971. 11–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Guseva, Elina & Philipp Weisser
    2018 Postsyntactic reordering in the Mari nominal domain. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory361. 1089–1127. 10.1007/s11049‑018‑9403‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9403-6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Harris, James & Morris Halle
    2005 Unexpected plural inflections in Spanish: Reduplication and metathesis. Linguistic Inquiry361. 196–222. 10.1162/0024389053710710
     https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389053710710 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hartmann, Jutta M.
    2016 The syntax and Focus structure of specificational copular clauses and clefts. University of Tübingen.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Hegedűs, Veronika
    2006 Hungarian spatial PPs. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics331. 220–233.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Jackendoff, Ray
    1983 Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kayne, Richard S.
    2012 A note on grand and its silent entourage. Studies in Chinese Linguistics331. 71–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kettunen, Lauri & Lauri Posti
    1932 Näytteitä vatjan kielestä [Samples of the Votic language]. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Klamer, Marian
    1998 A grammar of Kambera. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110805536
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805536 [Google Scholar]
  49. Koopman, Hilda
    2010 Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. InGuglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures61, 26–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  50. König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund
    2000a Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. InZygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.40.03kon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.40.03kon [Google Scholar]
  51. 2000b The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica171. 39–84. 10.1075/dia.17.1.04kon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.17.1.04kon [Google Scholar]
  52. Kornfilt, Jaklin
    1984 Case marking, agreement and empty categories in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
  53. Lohninger, Magdalena
    2022 On the distribution of composite probes and A-feature percolation into CP. Talk presented at the24th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, August 12–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Lohninger, Magdalena, Iva Kovač & Susi Wurmbrand
    2022 From prolepsis to hyper-raising. Philosophies71. 32. 10.3390/philosophies7020032
     https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies7020032 [Google Scholar]
  55. Luutonen, Jorma
    1997 The variation of morpheme order in Mari declension (Memoires de la Societé Finno-Ougrienne 226). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Lyskawa, Paulina & Rodrigo Ranero
    2021 Optional agreement as successful/failed AGREE: Evidence from Santiago Tz’utujil (Mayan). Linguistic Variation221. 209–267. 10.1075/lv.20013.lys
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.20013.lys [Google Scholar]
  57. Lyutikova, Ekaterina & Asya Pereltsvaig
    2015 The Tatar DP. Canadian Journal of Linguistics601. 289–325. 10.1017/S0008413100026232
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100026232 [Google Scholar]
  58. Majtinskaja, Klara E.
    1964 Mestoimenija v mordovskix i marijskix jazykax [Pronouns in the Mordvin and Mari languages]. Moscow: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 1982 Služebnyje slova v finno-ugorskix yazykax [Functional words in Finno-Ugric languages]. Moscow: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Marácz, László
    1986 Dressed or naked: The case of the PP in Hungarian. InAbraham Werner & Sjaak de Meij (eds), Topic, Focus and configurationality, 223–252. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.4.12kar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.4.12kar [Google Scholar]
  61. Marantz, Alec
    1991 Case and licensing. InGerman Westphal, Benjamin Ao & Hee-Rahk Chae (eds.), Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 234–253. Baltimore: University of Maryland, Ohio State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. McFadden, Thomas
    2004 The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
  63. Moseley, Christopher
    (ed.) 2010 Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. 3rd edition. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Noonan, Máire
    2010 À to zu. InGuglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures61, 161–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  65. Öztürk, Balkiz & Eser Erguvanlı Taylan
    2016 Possessive constructions in Turkish. Lingua1821. 88–108. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  66. Pantcheva, Marina
    2011 Decomposing Path. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.
  67. Perelstvaig, Asya
    2006 Small nominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory241. 433–500. 10.1007/s11049‑005‑3820‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-005-3820-z [Google Scholar]
  68. Pleshak, Polina
    2019 Morfosintaksis imennoj gruppy v finno-ugorskix jazykax Povolžja [Morphosyntax of noun phrase in Finno-Ugric languages of the Volga Region]. Master thesis, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 2020 Oblique phrases as contexts for small nominals: Evidence from Moksha. Talk presented atECO-5, Harvard University, April 16.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 2022 Severing Case from agreement: Non-finite subjects in Hill Mari. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics281. Article 18.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Postal, Paul M.
    1969 On so-called “pronouns” in English. InDavid Reibel & Sanford Schane (eds.), Modern studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar, 201–224. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall [1966].
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Riemsdijk, Henk C. & Riny Huybregts
    2002 Location and locality. InMarc van Oostendorp & Elena Anagnostopoulou (eds.), Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg, 1–23. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Riese, Timothy, Jeremy Bradley & Tatiana Yefremova
    2022 Mari: An essential grammar for international learners. [Draft version] Vienna: University of Vienna. Published online atgrammar.mari-language.com
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Ritter, Elizabeth
    1995 On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory131. 405–443. 10.1007/BF00992737
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992737 [Google Scholar]
  75. Sadakane, Kumi & Masatoshi Koizumi
    1995 On the nature of the “dative” particle ni in Japanese. Linguistics331. 5–34. 10.1515/ling.1995.33.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  76. Serebrennikov, B. A.
    1967 Istoričeskaja morfologija mordovskix jazykov [Historical morphology of Mordvinic languages]. Moscow: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Simonenko, Аleksandra P. & Аleksandr P. Leontjev
    2012 Morfosintaksis imennogo kompleksa [Morphosyntax of the noun complex]. InAriadna I. Kuznecova (ed.), Finno-ugorskije jazyki: fragmenty grammatičeskogo opisanija. Formalnyj i funkcionalnyj podxody [Finno-Ugric languages: Fragments of grammatical description: formal and functional approaches], 259–337. Moskva: Russkije slovari.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Surányi, Balázs
    2009 Adpositional preverbs, chain reduction and phases. InMarcel den Dikken & Robert M. Vago (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 11: Papers from the 2007 New York Conference, 217–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/atoh.11.10sur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.11.10sur [Google Scholar]
  79. Svenonius, Peter
    2010 Spatial P in English. InGuglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures61, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  80. Terzi, Arhonto
    2005 Locative prepositions as possessums. InMarina Mattheoudakis & Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey (eds.), Selected papers from the 16th International Symposium on theoretical and applied linguistics, 133–144. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Toldova, Svetlana Yu, Maria A. Kholodilova, Sergey G. Tatevosov, Egor V. Kashkin, Alexey A. Kozlov, Lev S. Kozlov, Anton V. Kuhto, Maria Yu. Privizentseva, Ivan A. Stenin
    (eds.) 2018 Elementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha languages from a typological perspective]. Moscow: Buki Vedi.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Tóth, Ildikó
    2000 Inflected infinitives in Hungarian. Tilburg: Tilburg University dissertation.
  83. Tsedryk, Egor
    2015 Deriving null pronouns: A unified analysis of subject drop in Russian. InMałgorzata Szajbel-Keck, Roslyn Burns & Darya Kavitskaya (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 23: The first Berkeley meeting, 342–361. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta
    1992 The definite determiner in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry231. 595–652.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Volkova, Anna
    2014 Licensing reflexivity: Unity and variation among selected Uralic languages. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Ylikoski, Jussi
    2011 A survey of the origins of directional case suffixes in European Uralic. InSeppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 235–280. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.99.09yli
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.99.09yli [Google Scholar]
  87. Zwarts, Joost & Yoad Winter
    2000 Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information91. 169–211. 10.1023/A:1008384416604
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008384416604 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00021.bur
Loading
On the syntax of postpositional phrases in Mari
Journal of Uralic Linguistics 2, 158 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00021.bur
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00021.bur
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00021.bur
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agreement; dative; locative; Mari; possession; postposition; spatial case; 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