Article published In: Journal of Uralic Linguistics
Vol. 3:1 (2024) ► pp.4–29
Existential, locative and possessive predication in Kamas
Published online: 14 May 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00024.dab
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00024.dab
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.
Keywords: Kamas, Samoyedic, syntax, non-verbal predication
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Preliminaries
- 2.1Theoretical background
- 2.2Language and data
- 3.Existential, locative and possessive clauses in Kamas
- 3.1Standard patterns
- 3.2Full Kamas vs. Reactivated Kamas
- 3.3Kamas within a broader context
- 3.4Typological implications
- 4.Conclusion and outlook
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Abbreviations
References
References (50)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2020. Language
contact and endangered languages. In Anthony P. Grant (ed.), The
Oxford handbook of language
contact, 241–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ajanki, Rigina, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik. 2022. Nominal
predication. In Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), Oxford
guide to the Uralic
languages, 981–995. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Andrews, Avery D. 2007. The major functions of the noun
phrase. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language
typology and syntactic description. 2nd edition. Volume 1: Clause
structure, 132–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Bentley, Delia, Francesco Maria Ciconte & Silvio Cruschina. 2015. Existentials
and locatives in Romance dialects of
Italy. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Grammatical
relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The
Oxford handbook of linguistic
typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Budzisch, Josefina. 2017. Locative,
existential and possessive sentences in Selkup dialects. Finnisch-Ugrische
Mitteilungen 411. 45–61.
. 2021a. Definitheit im Selkupischen [Definiteness in
Selkup] (Studia Uralo-Altaica
55). Szeged: University of Szeged, Department of Altaic Studies, Department of Finno-Ugrian Philology.
. 2021b. Marking
strategies of attributive possession in Selkup: A study of frequency and types of
possession. Finnisch-Ugrische
Forschungen 661. 51–84.
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.
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.
Clark, Eve. 1978. Locationals:
Existential, locative and possessive constructions. In Eve Clark & Joseph Greenberg (eds.), Universals
of human
language. Vol. 41. Syntax, 85–126. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Creissels, Denis. 2019. Inverse-locational
predication in typological perspective. Italian Journal of
Linguistics 311. 37–106.
Däbritz, Chris Lasse. 2020. Focus position in SOV ~ SVO
varying languages: Evidence from Enets, Nganasan and Dolgan. Eesti ja soome ugri keeleteaduse
ajakiri 121. 99–118.
. 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.
. 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.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory. Volume 1:
Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Clause
types. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language
typology and syntactic description. 2nd edition. Volume 1: Clause
structure, 224–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional
sentence perspective in written and spoken
communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gusev, Valentin, Tiina Klooster & Beáta Wagner-Nagy. 2019. INEL
Kamas Corpus. Version 1.0. Publication
date 2019-12-15. [URL]
Haspelmath, Martin. 2022. Nonverbal
clause constructions. Submitted manuscript. Lingbuzz/006673. [URL], last
accessed: 22.06.2022.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession:
Cognitive sources, forces, and
grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal
predication: Theory, typology, diachrony. (Functional Grammar Series
15). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Janhunen, Juha. 1977. Samojedischer Wortschatz: Gemeinsamojedische Etymologien [Samoyedic
vocabulary: Common Samoyedic etymologies]. (Castrenianumin toimitteita
17). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
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.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition
of subject. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject
and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
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.
Koch, Peter. 2012. Location,
existence, and possession: A constructional-typological
exploration. Linguistics 501. 533–603.
Laakso, Johanna & Beáta Wagner-Nagy. 2022. Existential,
locational and possessive clauses. In Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), Oxford
guide to the Uralic
languages, 970–980. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyons, John. 1967. A
note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of
Language 31. 390–396.
Mathesius, Vilém. 1939. O tak zvaném aktuálním členění věty [About the so-called
functional sentence perspective]. Slovo a
slovesnost 51. 171–174.
Mikola, Tibor. 2004. Studien zur Geschichte der samojedischen Sprachen [Studies in the
history of Samoyedic languages]. Edited and published posthumously by Beáta Wagner-Nagy. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem Finnugor Tanszék.
Milsark, Gary L. 1974. Existential Sentences in
English. PhD Thesis. Cambridge MA: MIT.
Paducheva, Elena V. 2008. Locative and existential meaning
of Russian быть. Russian
Linguistics 321. 147–158.
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas:
Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic
Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shluinsky, Andrey. 2020. Morfologicheskie osobennosti neleksicheskikh glagolov v ėnetskom yazyke [Morphological features of non-lexical verbs in Enets]. Acta Linguistica
Petropolitana 161. 669–686.
Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How
language structures space. In Herbert L. Pick Jr. & Linda P. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial
orientation: Theory, research, and
application, 225–282. New York & London: Plenum Press.
Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2001. Language contact: An
introduction. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2006. Language
endangerment and language revitalization: An introduction. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2011. On
the typology of negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic languages. SUST
262. Helsinki: SUS.
. 2020. Predicative
possessive constructions in Selkup dialects. In Gréte Dalmi, Jacek Witkoś & Piotr Cegłowski (eds.), Approaches
to Predicative
Possession, 211–226. London: Bloomsbury.
