Volume 45, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Seto is an exceptional language in the Uralic family due to its systematic use of postverbal negation, although preverbal and double negation marking are also used. Postverbal negation is still the most frequent and unmarked pattern occurring in about 74% of negative clauses in Seto. This paper analyzes variation between pre- and postverbal negation in East Seto (spoken in present-day Russia), based on data gathered during fieldwork trips in 2010–2013. By applying quantitative methods that are used in variationist studies (regression modelling, conditional inference trees, and random forests), we determine the variables affecting the choice between pre- and postverbal negation. Marked preverbal negation occurs more likely with first and third person, cognition verbs, and present tense, all of which are often used in fixed expressions like . We also found a strong structural persistence effect in the data and remarkable differences between individual speakers.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baayen, R. Harald, Anna Endresen, Laura A. Janda, Anastasia Makarova & Tore Nesset
    2013 Making choices in Russian: Pros and cons of statistical methods for rival forms. Russian Linguistics37. 253–291. 10.1007/s11185‑013‑9118‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-013-9118-6 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. Harald, Doug Davidson & Douglas Bates
    2008 Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language59. 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Breiman, Leo
    2001 Random Forests. Machine Learning45. 5–32. doi:  10.1023/A:1010933404324
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324 [Google Scholar]
  4. Dahl, Östen
    1979 Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics17. 79–106. 10.1515/ling.1979.17.1‑2.79
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.1-2.79 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010 Typology of negation. InLaurence R. Horn (ed.), The expression of negation, 9–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dryer, Matthew S.
    1992 The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language68(1). 81–138. doi:  10.1353/lan.1992.0028
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0028 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013 Order of negative morpheme and verb. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: wals.info/chapter/143 (last access29 June 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, & Charles D. Fennig
    (eds.) 2020Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 23rd edn.Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: www.ethnologue.com (last access29 June 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Erelt, Mati & Helle Metslang
    2006 Estonian clause patterns – from Finno-Ugric to Standard Average European. Linguistica UralicaXLII(4). 254–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Grünthal, Riho
    2015Vepsän kielioppi [The grammar of Veps] (Apuneuvoja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten opintoja varten 17). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank
    2020 Glottolog 4.2.1. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Available at: https://glottolog.org/ (last access29 June 2021).
  12. Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis
    2006a Unbiased recursive partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics15(3). 651–674. 10.1198/106186006X133933
    https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hothorn, Torsten, Peter Buehlmann, Sandrine Dudoit, Annette Molinaro & Mark Van Der Laan
    2006b Survival Ensembles. Biostatistics7(3). 355–373. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxj011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxj011 [Google Scholar]
  14. Huumo, Tuomas
    1993 Suomen ja viron kontrastiivista sanajärjestysvertailuja [‘Contrastive comparison of Estonian and Finnish word order’]. Valma Yli-Vakkuri (ed.), Studia comparativa linguarum orbis Maris Baltici 1. Tutkimuksia syntaksin ja pragmasyntaksin alalta (Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 43), 97–158. Turku: Turun yliopisto.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Huumo, Tuomas & Liina Lindström
    2014 Partitives across constructions: on the range of uses of the Finnish and Estonian “partitive subjects”. InSilvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 54), 153–176. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110346060.153
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346060.153 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jääts, Indrek
    1998 Setude etnilise identiteedi ajalugu [‘History of the Ethnic Identity of Setos’]. Akadeemia6–7. 1127–1152, 1520–1546.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2000 Ethnic identity of the Setus and the Estonian–Russian border dispute. Nationalities Papers28(4). 651–670. doi:  10.1080/00905990020009665
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00905990020009665 [Google Scholar]
  18. Janda, Laura A., Tore Nesset & R. Harald Baayen
    2010 Capturing correlational structure in Russian paradigms: A case study in logistic mixed-effects modeling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory6(1). 29–48. 10.1515/cllt.2010.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2010.002 [Google Scholar]
  19. Janhunen, Juha
    1982 On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen44. 23–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Janitza, Silke, Carolin Strobl & Anne-Laure Boulesteix
    2013 An AUC-based Permutation Variable Importance Measure for Random Forests. BMC Bioinformatics14. 119. doi:  10.1186/1471‑2105‑14‑119
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-14-119 [Google Scholar]
  21. Juhkason, Grethe, Andreas Kalkun, Liina Lindström & Helen Plado
    2012 Petserimaa setodest ja nende keelest 2010.–2011. aasta välitööde põhjal [‘On Pechory district Setos and their language based on fieldwork conducted in 2010 & 2011’]. InJüvä Sullõv (ed.), Õdagumeresoomõ piiriq (Võro Instituudi toimõndusõq 26), 11–29. Võro: Võro Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kährik, Aime
    1978 Das Problem der Herkunft des verneinenden Präteritums im Wepsischen [‘The problem of the origin of the negating past tense in Veps’]. Sovetskoje Finno-ugrovedenije / Soviet Finno-Ugric Studies14(3). 161–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kallio, Petri
    2012 The prehistoric Germanic loanword strata in Finnic. InRiho Grünthal & Petri Kallio (eds.), A linguistic map of prehistoric Northern Europe, 225–238. Helsinki: SKS.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2014 The diversification of Proto-Finnic. InJoonas Ahola & Clive Tolley (eds.), Fibula, fabula, fact. The Viking age in Finland, 155–168. Helsinki: SKS.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    2003Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on ‘I think’. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kask, Arnold
    1984Eesti murded ja kirjakeel [Estonian dialects and the standard language]. Tallinn: Valgus.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Keem, Hella & Inge Käsi
    2002Võru murde tekstid. Eesti murded VI [Texts from Võro dialect]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Keevallik, Leelo
    2006 From discourse pattern to epistemic marker: Estonian (ei) tea ‘don’t know’. Nordic Journal of Linguistics29(2). 173–200. doi:  10.1017/S0332586506001570
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586506001570 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2011 The terms of not knowing. In: Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds). The morality of knowledge in conversation, 184–206. Cambridge: University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kehayov, Petar
    2017The fate of mood and modality in language death: Evidence from Minor Finnic. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110524086
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110524086 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kehayov, Petar, Eva Saar, Miina Norvik & Andres Karjus
    2013 Hääbuva kesklüüdi murde jälgedel suvel 2012 [‘In the footsteps of vanishing Central Lude in summer 2012’]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat58 (2012) 58–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kettunen, Lauri
    1943Vepsän murteiden lauseopillinen tutkimus [Syntactic investigation of Veps dialects] (Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 86). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Klaus, Anneliis
    2009 Eitus eesti murretes [Negation in Estonian dialects]. Tartu: University of Tartu MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Klavan, Jane, Maarja-Liisa Pilvik & Kristel Uiboaed
    2015 The use of multivariate statistical classification models for predicting constructional choice in spoken, non-standard Varieties of Estonian. SKY Journal of Linguistics28. 187–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Künnap, Ago
    2007 Veel läänemeresoome ja eesti eituspartiklite ei, ep, es päritolust [‘More on Finnic and Estonian negation particles ei, ep, and es’]. Keel ja Kirjandus12. 968–975.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Laan, Triin
    2009 Eitus Räpina murrakus [Negation in Räpina]. Tartu: University of Tartu BA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Laanest, Arvo
    1975Sissejuhatus läänemeresoome keeltesse [Introduction to Balto-Finnic languages]. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lehtinen, Tapani
    1992 Suomen ja viron verbiloppuisista sivulauseista. [‘On verb-final subordinated clauses in Finnish and Estonian’] InTapani Lehtinen, Jyrki Kalliokoski & Kirsti Siitonen (eds.) Nordens språk i Baltikum. Pohjoismaiden kielet Baltiassa. Baltian maiden yliopistojen pohjoismaisten kielten opettajien kokous, Riika 26.–30.11.1991 (Nordisk språksekretariats rapporter 18), 70–82. Oslo: Nordisk språksekretariat.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lindström, Liina
    1997 Eitus Võru murde suulises kõnes [‘Negation in Spoken Võro’]. InKarl Pajusalu & Jüvä Sullõv (eds.), Läänemeresoome lõunapiir (Võro Instituudi toimõtiseq 1), 143–154. Võro: Võro Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2005Finiitverbi asend lauses. Sõnajärg ja seda mõjutavad tegurid suulises eesti keeles [The position of the finite verb in a clause: Word order and the factors affecting it in spoken Estonian]. (Dissertationes philologiae estonicae universitatis tartuensis 16). Tartu: Tartu University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2017a Lause infostruktuur ja sõnajärg. [‘Information structure and word order]. In: Mati Erelt, Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks (Eesti keele varamu 3), 537–565. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2017b Partitive subjects in Estonian dialects. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics8(2). 191–231. doi:  10.12697/jeful.2017.8.2.07
    https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2017.8.2.07 [Google Scholar]
  43. . To appear. Seto lause põhijooned [‘Main features of Seto syntax’]. InAndreas Kalkun, Karl Pajusalu & Ergo-Hart Västrik eds. Setomaa3. Keel, rahvaluule ja tänapäeva kultuur.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Lindström, Liina, Maarja-Liisa Pilvik, Mirjam Ruutma & Kristel Uiboaed
    2015 Mineviku liitaegade kasutusest eesti murretes keelekontaktide valguses. [‘The use of the compound past tenses in Estonian dialects in light of language contacts’]. InJüvä Sullõv (ed.) Aig õdagumeresoomõ keelin. Time and tense in Finnic languages. (Võro Instituudi toimõndusõq 29), 39–70. Võro: Võro Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2019 On the use of perfect and pluperfect in Estonian dialects: frequency and language contacts. InSofia Björklöf & Santra Jantunen (eds.), Multilingual Finnic – Language contact and change, 155–193. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lindström, Liina & Kristel Uiboaed
    2017 Syntactic variation in ‘need’-constructions in Estonian dialects. Nordic Journal of Linguistics40(3). 313–349. doi:  10.1017/S0332586517000191
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586517000191 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lonn, Varje & Ellen Niit
    2002Saarte murde tekstid. Eesti murded VII [Texts from insular dialects. Estonian dialects VII]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lõuna, Kalle
    2003Petserimaa. Petserimaa integreerimine Eesti vabariiki 1920–1940 [Integration of the Petseri District into the Estonian Republic in 1920–1940]. Tallinn: Eesti Entsüklopeediakirjastus.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Metslang, Helle, Karl Pajusalu & Tiit-Rein Viitso
    2015 Negation in Livonian. InMatti Miestamo, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy (eds.), Negation in Uralic languages, 433–456. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.108.16met
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.108.16met [Google Scholar]
  50. Miestamo, Matti
    2005Standard negation. The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2007 Negation – An overview of typological research. Language and Linguistic Compass1/5. 552–570. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00026.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00026.x [Google Scholar]
  52. 2011 A typological perspective on negation in Finnish dialects. Nordic Journal of Linguistics34(2). 83–104. doi:  10.1017/S0332586511000126
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586511000126 [Google Scholar]
  53. Miestamo, Matti, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy
    2015 Negation in Uralic languages – Introduction. InMatti Miestamo, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy (eds.), Negation in Uralic languages, 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.108.01int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.108.01int [Google Scholar]
  54. Paas, Friedrich-Eugen
    1927Sega-abielud ja nende mõju rahvusele piiriäärsetes maakondades Eestis [Mixed marriages and their impact on nation in border counties in Estonia]. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pajusalu, Karl
    . To appear. Seto South Estonian. InMarianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik eds. Oxford guide to the Uralic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Pajusalu, Karl, Tiit Hennoste, Ellen Niit, Peeter Päll & Jüri Viikberg
    2009Eesti murded ja kohanimed [Estonian dialects and place names]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Payne, John R.
    1985 Negation. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. I: Clause structure, 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Pinheiro, José C. & Bates, Douglas M.
    2002Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Plado, Helen, Liina Lindström & Sulev Iva
    . To appear. South Estonian Võro. InDaniel Abondolo & Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi eds. The Uralic languages. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sammallahti, Pekka
    1977 Suomalaisten esihistorian kysymyksiä [‘Questions about the prohistory of Finns’]. Virittäjä81. 119–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sang, Joel
    1975 Eitus Kihnu murrakus [‘Negation in Kihnu’]. Keel ja Kirjandus3. 155–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Strobl, Carolin, James Malley & Gerhard Tutz
    2009a An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging and random forests. Psychological Methods14(4). 323–348. 10.1037/a0016973
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016973 [Google Scholar]
  63. Strobl, Carolin, Torsten Hothorn & Achim Zeileis
    2009b Party on! A New, Conditional Variable Importance Measure for Random Forests Available in the party Package. Technical Reportno.050. Department of Statistics, University of Munich.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
    2005 Language users as creatures of habit: a corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory1. 113–149. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113 [Google Scholar]
  65. Tael, Kaja
    1990An approach to word order problems in Estonian. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia humanitaar- ja ühiskonnateaduste osakond. Preprint KKI-66.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Tagliamonte, Sali & R. Harald Baayen
    2012 Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change24(2). 135–178. 10.1017/S0954394512000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  67. Tamm, Anne
    2015 Negation in Estonian. In: Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy (eds.), Negation in Uralic languages, 399–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.108.15tam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.108.15tam [Google Scholar]
  68. Tamminga, Meredith
    2016 Persistence in phonological and morphological variation. Language Variation and Change28(3). 335–356. doi:  10.1017/S0954394516000119
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394516000119 [Google Scholar]
  69. Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Catherine E. Travis
    2019 Variationist typology: Shared probabilistic constraints across (non-)null subject languages. Linguistics57(3). 653–692. doi:  10.1515/ling‑2019‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0011 [Google Scholar]
  70. Travis, Catherine E.
    2007 Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change19(2). 101–135. doi:  10.1017/S0954394507070081
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394507070081 [Google Scholar]
  71. Uiboaed, Kristel
    2013Verbiühendid eesti murretes [Verb constructions in Estonian dialects] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 34). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. van der Auwera, Johan
    2006 Why languages prefer prohibitives. Journal of Foreign Languages1. 2–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. van der Auwera, Johan & Ludo Lejeune (with Valentin Goussev
    ) 2013 The prohibitive. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: wals.info/chapter/71 (last access29 June 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Viitso, Tiit-Rein
    1985 Läänemeresoome murdeliigenduse põhijooned [‘Main features of Finnic dialect classification’]. Keel ja Kirjandus7. 399–404.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 2003 Põhiverbi muutumine eitussõna järel, lingua franca ja algkeel. [‘Inflection of the Main Verb after a Negation Word, the Protolanguage and Lingua Franca’]. Keel ja Kirjandus1. 24–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Vilkuna, Maria
    1989Free word order in Finnish. Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 1998 Word order in European Uralic. InAnna Siewierska (ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe, 173–233. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110812206.173
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110812206.173 [Google Scholar]
  78. Vossen, Frens
    2016 Towards a typology of the Jespersen Cycles. Antwerp: University of Antwerp PhD dissertation.
  79. Weatherall, Ann
    2011 I don’t know as a prepositioned epistemic hedge. Research on Language and Social Interaction44(4). 317–337. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2011.619310
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.619310 [Google Scholar]
  80. Zaikov, Pekka M.
    2000Glagol v karel’skom jazyke (grammaticeskie kategorii lica-cisla, vremeni i naklonenija) [Verb in Karelian]. Petrozavodsk: Izdatelstvo Petrozavodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta.
    [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