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

Abstract

Abstract

This paper describes and analyses existential, locative and possessive predications in Kamas. Starting from a functional-semantic perspective, we show that the three types of predications share many features, but they also exhibit some important differences. Given that two layers of Kamas can be distinguished, we demonstrate that the reactivated Kamas of the last speaker, Klavdiya Plotnikova, exhibits some peculiarities which can be explained partly by Russian influence. The most important result of the study is that the boundaries between the three predication types are rather fluid in Kamas, whereas the distinction between affirmative and negative clauses is morphosyntactically unambiguously manifested. This polarity split, given that it is seldom recognised in the general literature, may provide important implications for linguistic typology and theory.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00024.dab
2024-05-14
2025-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jul.00024.dab
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2020 Language contact and endangered languages. InAnthony P. Grant (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language contact, 241–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199945092.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199945092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ajanki, Rigina, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik
    2022 Nominal predication. InMarianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 981–995. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0052
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0052 [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrews, Avery D.
    2007 The major functions of the noun phrase. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. 2nd edition. Volume 1: Clause structure, 132–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.003 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arkhipov, Alexandre, Chris Lasse Däbritz & Valentin Gusev
    2020 User’s Guide to INEL Kamas Corpus. (Working Papers in Corpus Linguistics and Digital Technologies: Analyses and Methodology 3). Szeged & Hamburg: University of Szeged, Department of Finno-Ugric Studies & Universität Hamburg, Zentrum für Sprachkorpora. 10.14232/wpcl.2020.3
     https://doi.org/10.14232/wpcl.2020.3 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bentley, Delia, Francesco Maria Ciconte & Silvio Cruschina
    2015 Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198745266.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198745266.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bickel, Balthasar
    2010 Grammatical relations typology. InJae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Budzisch, Josefina
    2017 Locative, existential and possessive sentences in Selkup dialects. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen411. 45–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2021a Definitheit im Selkupischen [Definiteness in Selkup] (Studia Uralo-Altaica 55). Szeged: University of Szeged, Department of Altaic Studies, Department of Finno-Ugrian Philology. 10.14232/sua.2021.55
     https://doi.org/10.14232/sua.2021.55 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2021b Marking strategies of attributive possession in Selkup: A study of frequency and types of possession. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen661. 51–84. 10.33339/fuf.97373
     https://doi.org/10.33339/fuf.97373 [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell, Lyle
    1994 Language death. In: R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 4, 1960–1968. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Castrén 1857 = Anton Schiefner
    (ed.) 1857 M. Alexander Castrén’s Versuch einer koibalischen und karagassischen Sprachlehre nebst Wörterverzeichnissen aus den tatarischen Mundarten des minussinschen Kreises [M. Alexander Castrén’s attempt at a Koibal and Karagas grammar, accompanied by word lists of Tatar varieties from the Minussink region]. Saint Peterburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, Eve
    1978 Locationals: Existential, locative and possessive constructions. InEve Clark & Joseph Greenberg (eds.), Universals of human language. Vol.41. Syntax, 85–126. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Creissels, Denis
    2019 Inverse-locational predication in typological perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics311. 37–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Däbritz, Chris Lasse
    2020 Focus position in SOV ~ SVO varying languages: Evidence from Enets, Nganasan and Dolgan. Eesti ja soome ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri121. 99–118. 10.12697/jeful.2020.11.2.04
     https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2020.11.2.04 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2021 Topik, Fokus und Informationsstatus. Modellierung am Material nordwestsibirischer Sprachen [Topic, focus, and information status: Modelling based on material from North-Western Siberian languages] (Language, Context & Cognition 17). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2022 On the typology of locative predication in Samoyedic languages. In: Kaisla Kaheinen, Larisa Leisiö, Riku Erkkilä & Toivo E. H. Qiu (eds.), Hämeenmaalta Jamalille. Kirja Tapani Salmiselle, 53–68. Helsinki: Helda Open books. 10.31885/9789515180858.5
     https://doi.org/10.31885/9789515180858.5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    2010 Basic linguistic theory. Volume 1: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dorian, Nancy C.
    1977 The problem of the semi-speakers in language death. Linguistics1911. 23–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dryer, Matthew S.
    2007 Clause types. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. 2nd edition. Volume 1: Clause structure, 224–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.004 [Google Scholar]
  20. Firbas, Jan
    1992 Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597817
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597817 [Google Scholar]
  21. Freeze, Ray
    1992 Existentials and other locatives. Language681. 553–595. 10.2307/415794
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415794 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gusev, Valentin, Tiina Klooster & Beáta Wagner-Nagy
    2019 INEL Kamas Corpus. Version 1.0. Publication date2019-12-15. hdl.handle.net/11022/0000-0007-DA6E-9
  23. Haspelmath, Martin
    2022 Nonverbal clause constructions. Submitted manuscript. Lingbuzz/006673. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/006673, last accessed: 22.06.2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Heine, Bernd
    1997 Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511581908
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581908 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hengeveld, Kees
    1992 Non-verbal predication: Theory, typology, diachrony. (Functional Grammar Series 15). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110883282
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883282 [Google Scholar]
  26. Janhunen, Juha
    1977 Samojedischer Wortschatz: Gemeinsamojedische Etymologien [Samoyedic vocabulary: Common Samoyedic etymologies]. (Castrenianumin toimitteita 17). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 1998 Samoyedic. InDaniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 457–479. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Johanson, Lars
    2021 Turkic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139016704
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704 [Google Scholar]
  29. Joki, Aulis
    1944 Kai Donners Kamassisches Wörterbuch nebst Sprachproben und Hauptzügen der Grammatik [Kai Donner’s Kamas dictionary with speech samples and main characteristics of the grammar]. (Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae 8). Helsinki: SUS.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Keenan, Edward L.
    1976 Towards a universal definition of subject. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Klumpp, Gerson
    2022 Kamas. In: Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 817–843. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0039
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0039 [Google Scholar]
  32. Koch, Peter
    2012 Location, existence, and possession: A constructional-typological exploration. Linguistics501. 533–603. 10.1515/ling‑2012‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  33. Laakso, Johanna & Beáta Wagner-Nagy
    2022 Existential, locational and possessive clauses. InMarianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 970–980. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0051
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0051 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lyons, John
    1967 A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language31. 390–396.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mathesius, Vilém
    1939 O tak zvaném aktuálním členění věty [About the so-called functional sentence perspective]. Slovo a slovesnost51. 171–174.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mikola, Tibor
    2004 Studien zur Geschichte der samojedischen Sprachen [Studies in the history of Samoyedic languages]. Edited and published posthumously byBeáta Wagner-Nagy. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem Finnugor Tanszék.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Milsark, Gary L.
    1974 Existential Sentences in English. PhD Thesis. Cambridge MA: MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Paducheva, Elena V.
    2008 Locative and existential meaning of Russian быть. Russian Linguistics321. 147–158. 10.1007/s11185‑008‑9027‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-008-9027-2 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pustet, Regina
    2003 Copulas: Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199258505.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199258505.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Shluinsky, Andrey
    2020 Morfologicheskie osobennosti neleksicheskikh glagolov v ėnetskom yazyke [Morphological features of non-lexical verbs in Enets]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana161. 669–686. 10.30842/alp2306573716320
     https://doi.org/10.30842/alp2306573716320 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sorokina, Irina P. & Darya S. Bolina
    2005 Ėnetskie teksty [Enets texts]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Stassen, Leon
    1997 Intransitive predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198236931.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198236931.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2009 Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199211654.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199211654.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Talmy, Leonard
    1983 How language structures space. InHerbert L. Pick Jr. & Linda P. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, 225–282. New York & London: Plenum Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9325‑6_11
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9325-6_11 [Google Scholar]
  45. Thomason, Sarah Grey
    2001 Language contact: An introduction. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Tsunoda, Tasaku
    2006 Language endangerment and language revitalization: An introduction. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110896589
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896589 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta
    2011 On the typology of negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic languages. SUST 262. Helsinki: SUS.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2020 Predicative possessive constructions in Selkup dialects. InGréte Dalmi, Jacek Witkoś & Piotr Cegłowski (eds.), Approaches to Predicative Possession, 211–226. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350062498.ch‑010
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350062498.ch-010 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta & Sándor Szeverényi
    2022 Samoyedic: General introduction. In: Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 659–673. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0034
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0034 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta & Márta Sarolta Viola
    2009 Typology of affirmative and negative non-verbal predicates in the Ugric and Samoyedic languages. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen601, 117–159.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00024.dab
Loading
Existential, locative and possessive predication in Kamas
Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3, 4 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00024.dab
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00024.dab
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00024.dab
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Kamas; non-verbal predication; Samoyedic; syntax

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