Negation in Uralic languages
Symposion at the 11th International Congress of Finno-Ugric Studies (CIFU11)
Piliscsaba, Hungary, August 9-14, 2010
Organizers:
Matti Miestamo <matti.miestamo_AT_helsinki.fi>
Anne Tamm <anne.tamm_AT_unifi.it>
Beáta Wagner-Nagy <beata.wagner-nagy_AT_univie.ac.at>
URL: <http://uralicnegation.pbworks.com/>
The Uralic language family is known for its negative auxiliary verbs, but the negation systems of
the Uralic languages are interesting in many other ways as well. All types of negative markers –
negative verbs, particles, affixes – are found, and negation interacts in intricate ways with
phenomena such as focus, quantifiers, word order, case marking, tense, mood and aspect. These
issues have not been systematically explored in the Uralic languages.
The workshop brings together scholars working on negation in Uralic languages and/or in a
typological perspective. The goal is to reach a more systematic and typologically informed picture
of negation in Uralic. The main focus is on the description/analysis of the systems of negation in
these languages, especially from a typological perspective, but the workshop is open to all
theoretical approaches. We encourage the following viewpoints:
– The description/analysis of the system of negation in one (or more) Uralic languages
– The description/analysis of a particular negation-related phenomenon (e.g. negation of a specific
clause type, negative polarity, interaction between negation and case/TAM etc.) in several Uralic
languages or across the whole Uralic family.
– Typology (or other theoretical approaches) and Uralic languages: what the Uralic data can
contribute to our understanding of negation or what typology (or other theoretical approaches) can
contribute to our understanding of negation in Uralic.
Johan van der Auwera
Antwerp
Revisiting the typology of negative indefinites
A work of major importance for the typology of indefinites and thus also of negative indefinites is
Haspelmath (1997). A central hypothesis in that work is the semantic map shown in (1).
question
(1)
specific
known
specific
unknown
indirect
negation
direct
negation
irrealis
non-specific
conditional
comparative
free choice
But there problems, specifically also concerning negative indefinites. Here are three. First, the
‘direct negation’ region is to take care of both nothing and anything, as in (2).
(2)
a.
I haven’t seen anybody.
b.
I have seen nobody.
This decision does not distinguish between the inherently negative nobody and the negatively polar
anybody. Second, it is not obvious how the map can account for the (3b) reading of not … any.
(3)
I do not give money to any charity.
a.
There is no charity that I give money to.
b.
I give money to only specific charities, which may be so specific that they don’t exist.
Third, in a language such as Dutch a negative indefinite can be used both for direct negation (4) and
question (5), but not for indirect negation.
(4)
Ik heb niemand gezien.
I
have nobody seen
‘I have seen nobody.’
(5)
Was er niemand
was
op
het
there nobody at the
feest?
party
a.
‘Wasn’t there anybody at the party?’
b.
‘Was there nobody at the party?’
I will argue, with examples from more languages, that the interplay between the indefiniteness
marker as such (e.g. anybody or nobody) and the context (e.g. positive declarative in (2b) and (4),
negative declarative in (3), positive interrogative in (5)) is too complex for the format of the
‘simple’ two-dimensional map in (1) and will work towards a more complex format.
Andrey Filchenko
Tomsk
Eastern Khanty Negation
The paper deals with the system of negation in Eastern Khanty, an endangered western Siberian
language. Eastern Khanty negative clauses code propositions, whose truth value is asserted as false
in opposition to the regular indicative active-direct clauses. The most common effect of the use of
negation in the available Eastern Khanty data is only for a portion of the negative proposition to fall
under the scope of negation, being asserted as false, while the rest remains true, being the part of the
proposition containing presupposed information:
(1)
män-nə
əʃo
1SG- LOC again...
joɣo-ta
əntə
uspet
wer-s-äm
shoot-INF
NEG
"be on time"
do-PST2-1SG
'I didn't have time to shoot again'
The matrix ‘I was in time’ asserted as false, while the verb complement ‘to shoot’ is not affected by
negation being presupposed, typologically a fairly common pattern (Givon 2001: 379).
Formally, negation is coded by the negative particle ‘əntə’, typically placed immediately
preposed to the part of the proposition that is negated. Eastern Khanty uses the negation of the verb
phrase strategy, thus leaving outside of the negation scope other clause constituents.
(2)
mɨŋ jiɣ-i
əntə qol-waɣta-wəl
1PL 3PL-ELL NEG hear-ATTEN-PRS.3SG
‘We won’t be hearing from them’
The negative particle occurs immediately preceding the part of the proposition that is asserted as
false, thus delineating the scope of negation (preceding verbal predicate in 1-3, expressing the false
assertion and leaving Agent and Locatives outside the scope of negation, referring to the
presuppositional part of the proposition).
(3)
jal-l-əw
küm
əntə
stand-PRST-1PL
outside NEG
laɣɨl-wəl
look-PRST.3SG
‘We wait, it does not look out’
This construction is also used for coding negation of physical/cognitive ability; of
obligation/necessity (4); of desire; of allowed event coded by the verbal predicate of weak
manipulation ‘let’ (6); of projected event coded by the verbal predicate ‘go’ in the adverbial clause
with purpose relation (7); of hypothesized/desired event serving as a condition for another event,
coded by the conditional verbal predicate (8).
(4)
ta-l-a
ɨlɨl-ta
əntə mas-l-i
there-ILL walk-INF NEG need-PRST-PS.3SG
‘One mustn’t go there’
(5)
qaləw
fish.net
əntə, wajaɣ qän-tʃä
NEG
animal
əntə
sil-wəl-t
search-INF
NEG let-PRST-3PL
‘No fishing nets, they don’t let us track game’
(6)
n’än’ toɣor-s-ɨm,
bread
kör oɣpɨ
toɣor-s-ɨm,
ʃar
küm
əntə mən-t-äl-ä
close-PST2-1SG oven door close-PST2-1SG heat outside NEG
go-IMPP-3SG-
ILL
‘(I) closed the bread, closed the oven door, so that the heat would not escape’
(7)
jöɣ
wal-ŋ-al
töŋ,
3SG live-COND-3SG COND
timint
DET
wer
əntə
wal-ɣas
business NEG
be-PST1.3SG
‘If (s)he were alive, such a thing would not have happened’
(Gulya 1966)
Eastern Khanty may also express negative ability by lexical negation, i.e. the use of lexical unit
with inherent negative semantics of ‘lack of ability’:
(8)
nuɣ-pa porɨslə-wəl,
küm
lüɣä-tä
kürɣt-äɣi
up-ALL scramble-PRST.3SG outside get.out-INF cannot-PST0.3SG
‘(S)he scrambles up, (but) cannot get out’
Apart from the verb phrase negation strategy, Eastern Khanty also uses individual constituent
negation strategy placing the negative particle immediately before the negated element (negating
the assertion of the adverbial rather than the whole of the verb phrase): adverbials of time and
direction; adverbials of condition/manner and purpose (12); in preposition to predicates of finite
relative clauses (13); predicates of finite adverbial clauses (14);
(9) tʃu
l’änə əj-əm
kit-əm
qu-j-t
əntə qoɣ noməɣsək-min
DET time young-ATTR thing-ATTR man-EP-PL NEG long think-CNV
‘Then not thinking much…,’
(10) mä
1SG
kɨtʃ-əm
əntə
rutJ
want-1SG
NEG
Russian man-ILL
iki-ja
mən-ta
go-INF
‘I don't want to go to (marry) the Russian man’
(11) əntə
NEG
mən- ŋwöɣ-nӛ
go-COND-2SG force-COM
tul-uj-ən
take-PS.2SG
'If you are not going (to marry), you'll be taken by force'
(12) n’an’ jɨɣata-s-ɨm,
qotʃ-aɣɨ
ili
bread check-PST2-1SG/SG burn-PST0.3SG “or”
(Tereskin 1961)
əntə qotʃaɣɨ.
NEG burn-PST0.3SG
‘I checked the bread, if it burned or not’
(13) koji əntə ropiltə-wəl,
əntə li-wəl
who NEG “work”-PRST.3SG NEG eat-PRST.3SG
‘(S)he, who does not work, does not eat’ (Gulya 1966)
(14) män-nə tu-ɣas-ɨ
töŋ, jöɣ-ən män-ä əntə mə-ɣäs-i
1SG-LOC bring-PST1-PS.3SG Cond 3SG-LOC 1SG-ILL NEG give-PST1-PS.3SG
‘I should have brought it, but he did not give it to me’
(Gulya 1966)
The negation of state is typically coded by perfective participle of əntə. This participial nominal
predicate is often affixed with the predicator/adverbializer affix /-äki-/. Here, the negative
nominalization is acting as a regular nominal predicate, requiring the predicator affix /-äki-/,
compare ((15)-(16)) vs. the stative nominalization predicate ‘be loaded’ in (17):
(15) män-nə
tʃimläli tʃi-näm joɣo-s-im,
tʃut-na-pa
ənt-im-äki
1SG-LOC little
there-ALL shoot-PST2-1SG DET-COM-TOP NEG-PP-PRD
‘I shoot there a little, and nothing happens’
(16) qrugom welkältä-l-im, mətä
around walk-PRST-1SG which
nöɣös lök ənt-im-äki
sable
track NEG-PP-PRD
‘I walk around, there is no sable track’
(17) nu pötʃkän-äm
əntə pon-am-aki
well gun-1SG
NEG load-PP-PRD
‘Well, my gun is not loaded’
In cases where the referent whose existence is asserted as false is plural in number, the negative
participle əntim is used with the plural form of the predicator affix /-ätə/:
(18) ämp-ät ʃəräɣ-wəl-t,
tʃu taɣɨ
dog-PL noise-PRST-3PL DET place
jəɣ-näm
morta toɣɨ wer-il poro-min i
all
away
do-3PL step-CNV and
ənt-im-ätə
3PL-RFL NEG-PP-PL
‘The dogs are noisy, (they) stepped all over that place and themselves are not there’
As in other nominal predicates, the non-existence participle form of the negative particle əntə may
also be used without the predicator affix. Thus ((19)) contain two reiterated propositions, where the
first case of negative has the predicator affix, and the second does not:
(19) noməɣsələ-l-əm, wajaɣ lök ənt-im-aki, jəlk-i
think-PRST-1SG
jəlkämtä-s-im: wajaɣ lök ənt-im
animal track NEG-PP-PRD around-ILL circle-PST2-1SG animal track NEG-PP
‘(I) think: “There is no animal track”, (I) walked around: “No animal track”’
It should be noted, that there are a number of examples where the negative perfective participle
unaffixed with /-äki/ is not a reiteration, but is an independent proposition as in (21) below. There
are no attested examples of the opposite reiteration, that is, where the affixed negative participle
follows the unaffixed one. However, there are rare examples of the reduplicated predicator affix
following the negative participle ((20)):
(20) toɣɨ-j-əɣ-ɨ
juŋa-s-əm,
mətali ənt-im-äki-iki,
ənt-im wəl-käl
there-ADV-ELL get-PST2-1SGs omething NEG-PP-PRD-PRD NEG-PP be-PST1.3SG
‘I got there, there is nothing there, it wasn’t there’
Expectedly, negation strongly interacts with the pragmatic features of the referent(s). Negative
assertion of existence is coded by the negative nominalization uninflected with predicative affix /äki-/
if
the
referent,
whose
non-existence
is
predicated,
is
high
in
pragmatic
identifiability/activation, that is, more available in the discourse universe (21). The adverbializertopicalizer particle /p(ə)/ also interacts with negation, postposed to the topical referent.
(21) mä-nə
1SG-LOC
məta pötᶘkän-p ənt-im,
kötᶘək-p
ənt-im,
any gun - ADV NEG-PP knife-ADV NEG-PP
jajəm-p ənt-im
axe-ADV NEG-PP
‘I have no gun of any kind, no knife, no axe’
The whole proposition may also fall under the scope of negation, when the whole of the proposition
is asserted as false (refutation-answers, rejection replies) (23):
(22) əntə,
NEG
pəskäri
fast
mas-wəl
need-PRST.3SG
‘No, I have to hurry’
Typically for Ugric languages, Eastern Khanty has a special negative particleäl coding the negative
imperatives/prohibition utterances or negative requests:
(23) män-oɣ
qoq-qə-pa äl
1SG-PRL far-PRD-ALL NEG
mən-ä
go-IMPR.2SG
‘Don’t go far away from me!’
Eastern Khanty imperatives, being the non-declarative strong manipulative speech acts, are
associated with the scope of irrealis, as they refer to the states-of-affairs whose event-time will
follow the speech-time, i.e. which are projected to occur in the future. The scope of negation in
these cases extends over the whole of the proposition, thus eliciting the non occurrence of an action.
The existence of the special negation pattern for imperatives is though rare but a well attested
typological pattern.
Valentin Gusev
Moscow
Use of negative forms to express assertion in Nganasan
Along with neutral assertive forms, Nganasan has morphologically or semantically negative
constructions which are used for assertion. Basically, there are two types of such constructions: a)
consisting of the negative verb in the Interrogative (or Potential) form, and b) consisting of a verbal
noun or participle plus the postposition mantə ‘like’ (or maybe its homonym). These constructions
will be discussed here.
1. Negative + Interrogative: rhetorical questions
A frequent way to report some event is to use a negative question. These are often emphatic
assertions, as in the followings examples:
(1)
Maδə-mtə
ńi-ŋi̮-rə
ďeruďə-ˀ.
tent-Acc.2Sg
Neg-Interr-2Sg.o ignore-CN
‘You do know your tent.’
(2)
Ti̮ti̮ďa-ti̮
bəbəəďəə-tə ńi-hi̮
uncle-Gen3Sg place-Lat
ŋətəδi̮ˀkə-ˀ.
Neg-InterrPast shamanise-CN
‘Of course she shamanised instead of her uncle.’
(3)
Ńa-ťi
ńi-ntə-ŋi̮-ri
koδuˀ
əhi̮!
counterpart-Acc2Du Neg-Interr-2Du.s kill-CN Ptcl
‘You will kill each other [if you continue like this]!’
There can be, however, non-emphatic uses as well — at least, not overtly emphatic:
(4)
Ńi-ŋi̮-ni̮ˀ
munu-ru-ˀ əhi̮: “Ti̮ŋ-gümü-ndüˀ Franci-ďa büüˀki-ˀə-ruˀ.”
Neg-Interr-1Pl.r say-Pass-CN Ptcl 2-Ptcl-2Pl
France-All go-Pf-2Pl
‘We have been told: “You will go to France”.’
(5)
Taa-tu
ŋuəďəə
ńanti̮-ďi təndə
ńüə-gi
reindeer-Gen3Sg
trace
follow-Infthat.Gen
child-GenDu
maδə
na
ńi-ŋi̮ tuu-ˀ.
tent.Gen
to
Neg-Interr come-CN
‘Following the trail of the reindeer, he came to the these children’s tent.’
Of course, this construction is highly reminiscent of English tag-questions, though is used much
more freely. Similar uses are typical for other North Samoyedic languages (Enets and Nenets), but
not for Selkup, nor for the majority of Siberian languages. Recently we have found a very similar
construction in Ulcha, but the geographical distance makes us be very cautious about possible areal
explanation of this similarity.
A very close construction in Nganasan uses Potential (also called Prohibitive; this form denotes
uncertainty of the speaker about the fact) instead of Interrogative:
(6)
...munu-munu-ťü: “Tə-tə, maa, tuuˀ
ńili̮.”
say-Aud-3Sg
well what come-CN Neg-Pot
‘(he) says: “Well, he will probably come”.’
(7)
Najbəgəə ńili̮
long
ŋuəˀ
əhi̮,
Neg-Pot be-CN Ptcl,
ŋüniarbaˀa-gümü.
rich-Ptcl
‘Of course, (his string of sledges) will be long, he is rich.’
2. Verbal noun / participle + mantə: ‘as if it were true’
The second type of “inversive negative” constructions is typical for Nganasan. It uses either one of
the verbal nouns or the Present or Past Participle plus the postposition mantə ‘like’. More rarely
other nominal forms can also be used. The peculiarity of this construction is that the noun always
bears a possessive marker (which is not at all obligatory in case of the “ordinary” mantə). Note,
that normally mantə is only used attributively (it is complementary with its synonym -rəki̮, which
is used with predicates), so this construction seems to be its unique predicative use.
(8)
Ma-küə-mtu
deru-tu-tu
mantə,
mantə
tent-Ptcl-Acc3Sg ignore-VN-Gen3Sg
taa-ťə
ŋuə-ťə-bü-tü.
reindeer-Emph
be-Emph-Cond-3Sg
‘It knows his home, even if it’s a reindeer.’
(Compare with mantə in its usual meaning:
(9)
…maa-güə ďeru-tuə
what-Ptcl ignore-PtPraes
mantə.
mantə
‘[he speaks] as if he does not know anything.’)
(10)
Honə-nta-ˀku-gəj,
ńaagəə-məni̮ i-śüə-ti
be.hungry-PtPraes-Dim-Du
good-Prol
mantə.
be-PtPraet-3Du mantə
‘They are hungry, because you know, they did not live well.’
(11)
Ńomu-güə, maa-δu
hare-Ptcl
i-ťə-ŋu,
bi̮δə
kunsi̮-məni̮
what-3Sg be-Fut-Interr water.Gen inside-Prol
ďotür-ü-tü
mantə.
walk-VN-Gen3Sg mantə
‘[He thinks: Well, I’ll catch the hare], it is only a hare, it does not walk in water.’
(12)
Ŋukəgəə kiriba ńakələ-si̮δə-ni̮ˀ
much
bread
mantə,
mantə
take-PtFut-Gen.1Pl
baďa-ńüˀ tanuaˀa-ˀ.
money-Pl1Pl little-Pl
‘We won’t buy much bread, we have too little money.’
It is not very easy to derive this use of mantə from its primary meaning. Note that it is also used
with interrogative words in the sense of a rhetorical question; cf. examples below:
(13)
Təə
ťühə-ni̮ maa
that.Gen time-Loc what
məŋkə-tu
mantə.
lack-Gen3Sg mantə
‘Then we had all [we needed: nails, hammers, skins]’ (lit. ‘what were we lacking?’).
(14)
Təniˀa mandaťa-ˀmuə-tə-tu, maa
ŋəmsaˀ-tu-tu
so
eat-VN-Gen3SG mantə
roll.up-VN-Lat-3Sg
what
mantə?
‘While he’s so lying rolling up, what does he eat?’
One could probably argue that it is “another” mantə, which has never meant ‘like’ in these
constructions. Formally it is possible to derive mantə from a pronominal root with a very broad
meaning — something like ‘thing’ —, conserved, e.g. in Selkup my; and the Lative ending. So, N
mantə may have originally meant ‘to(ward) something of N’, ‘to N-ness’, whence both of its
present meanings have been derived: both ‘like N’ and ‘what of N’ → ‘no N’.
Arja Hamari
Helsinki
The negation of stative relation clauses in the Mordvin, Mari and Permic
languages
In many Uralic languages, there are special negative markers that are used in the negation of e.g.
existential and possessive clauses and/or in clauses with a nominal predicate. No such markers can
be reconstructed in the Uralic or Finno-Ugric protolanguage, which means that they must be
regarded as relatively recent innovations. (Bartens 1996, Hamari 2007: 88–91.) In my presentation,
I will consider these markers especially in the Mordvin, Mari and Permic languages.
The clause types that I am dealing with can be characterised as stative relation clauses. To my
knowledge, the term stative relation was first used by Pajunen (2000: 37), when referring to the six
basic semantic types of nominal predications and related constructions classified by T. E. Payne
(1997: 111–128) as proper inclusion, equation, attribution, location, existence and possession (see
also Dik 1989: 161–180; 1997: 214). Payne's English examples of these types will serve as an
illustration:
(1) English (Payne, T. E. 1997: 111–112, 114):
a) Proper inclusion: Frieda is a teacher.
b) Equation: He is my father.
c) Attribution: John is tall.
d) Location: The book is on the table.
e) Existence: There is a book on the table.
f) Possession: Sally has nineteen cats. / The book is John's.
The clauses expressing possession can be further divided in the types of 'have'-possession (as in
Sally has nineteen cats) and 'belong'-possession (as in The book is John's), according to the
terminology of Heine (1997: 29–33).
In accordance with T. E. Payne's classification and Heine's division of possessive clauses, I have
used the term stative relation clause, when treating the negation of these clause types in the
Mordvin languages (Hamari 2007). In my study, it was shown that in both Erzya and Moksha, the
first three clause types (a–c) as well as the possessive clauses of the 'belong'-type are negated in the
present tense by using the negative particles of the standard negation: Erzya a and Moksha af (for
the definition of standard negation see Payne, J. R. 1985: 198, 206–207 and especially Miestamo
2005: 42). However, there is an additional negative particle avo in Erzya that is only used in this
function. In clauses of existence and 'have'-possession, other special negators are employed – these
are ara in Erzya and aš in Moksha. The clauses expressing location, on the other hand, form a kind
of a transitional category, where both standard negation particles (and Erzya avo ) and the negators
of existence and 'have'-possession are possible, although with certain semantic differences.
Moreover, the inflectional characteristics of the Moksha marker aš are slightly different depending
on whether we are dealing with a prototypical locative clause with a definite subject or with a
prototypical existential or 'have'-possessive clause with an indefinite subject.
Within the Uralic language family, the Mordvin languages have one of the most diverse patterns
of negation when it comes to the negation of stative relation clauses. However, this kind of a system
is not unusual. For example in Eastern Mari two special negative markers are employed in the
negation of stative relation clauses that differ from the markers of standard negation; in existential
and 'have'-possessive clauses a negative noun uke 'is not; doesn't exist' is used, while in other subtypes a negative marker occurs that agrees with the person and number of the subject, e.g. oməl 'I
am not', otəl 'you (sg.) are not' etc. (Alhoniemi 1985, 116, Bartens 1996: 73–76). In Komi and
Udmurt one special negative marker appears; in Komi, the inflectional characteristics of the marker
abu 'is not; doesn't exist' vary depending on the sub-category of the stative relation clause, while in
Udmurt the marker övöl 'is not; doesn't exist' cannot be inflected (Bartens 1996: 71–73).
Cross-linguistically, the existence of this kind of markers is not unusual; special negative markers
tend to develop especially in existential clauses (e.g. Kahrel 1996, 71). Croft (1991) has studied the
cyclic development that can be detected in many non-related languages in which new negative
existential markers have developed through the fusion of negative markers and affirmative
existentials. What is noteworthy in e.g. Mari and Mordvin languages, however, is that similar cyclic
development seems to have taken place in stative relation clauses other than existential expressions,
while the negative existentials in these languages are of unclear origin. In the Permic languages,
Komi and Udmurt, on the other hand, the development of abu and övöl seems to follow the cycle
outlined by Croft, but in these languages the functional domain of the negative markers ranges
beyond existential clauses. (For the etymology of the negative markers see Bartens 1996.)
In my presentation, I will analyse the functions of the negative markers of stative relation clauses
in Mordvin, Mari and Permic languages, but references will be made to other Uralic languages as
well. As the use of these markers most typically covers only the present tense indicative mood, I
will mostly focus on this kind of constructions. However, the negation of other tenses and moods
will also be touched upon, when necessary.
References
ALHONIEMI, ALHO 1985: Marin kielioppi. Apuneuvoja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten
opintojavarten X. Helsinki.
BARTENS, RAIJA 1996: Die positive und negative Existentiale in den finnisch-ugrischen
Sprachen. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher. Band 14. Göttingen.
CROFT, WILLIAM 1991: The evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics 27. Cambridge.
DIK, SIMON C. 1989: The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: The Structure of the
Clause.Functional Grammar Series 9. Dordrecht.
-------1997: The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause.
Second, revised edition. Functional Grammar Series 20. Edited by Kees Hengeveld.
Berlin.
HAMARI, ARJA 2007: The negation of stative relation clauses in the Mordvin languages.
Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 254. Helsinki.
HEINE, BERND 1997: Possession. Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization.
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 83. Cambridge.
KAHREL, PETER 1996: Aspects of Negation. Meppel.
MIESTAMO, MATTI 2005: Standard Negation. The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main
Clauses in a Typological Perspective. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31.
Berlin – New York.
PAJUNEN, ANNELI 2000: Suomen ominaisuuspredikaatio ja tyyppi olla sairaana. In Anneli
Pajunen (ed.): Näkökulmia kielitypologiaan. Suomi 186. Helsinki.
PAYNE, JOHN R. 1985: Negation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.): Language Typology and
Syntactic Description. Volume I. Clause Structure. Cambridge.
PAYNE, THOMAS E. 1997: Describing morphosyntax. A guide for field linguists. Cambridge.
Ago Künnap
Tartu
Uralic Back-vocal Negation Words
It is reasonable to suppose that the primary Uralic negative auxiliary verb was only front-vocal
(?*e-). Namely, its possible equivalents in a number of Altaic and Paleo-Siberian languages are also
front-vocal. The a and 6 of the Common-Uralic/Proto-Uralic reconstructions in the two principal
Uralic etymological dictionaries – “e ~ ä (? FU) ~ a (? FU) (Verneinungspartikel )
Verneinungsverb U” (Rédei 1986–1988: 68) and “Sam. [Samoyedic] i- ~ e- ~ 6- verbum negativum
~ suom.-perm. [Finno-Permic] ?*e- id. … < ural. [Uralic] ?*e (~ *6-) verbum negativum”
(Janhunen 1981: 269) – are a sheer nonsense.
I think that all Uralic negation words (incl. negative auxiliary verbs) with a back-vocal stem can
possibly be derived from the Altaic negation words. The Mordvin negative particles Ersa a (? <
*aβ), Moksha af ‘no, not’, af … af ‘neither … nor’ comes assumingly from Turkic, cf. Middle
Turkic aw ‘no’, ab … ab ‘neither … nor’ (Räsänen 1969: 1a, see also Künnap 2002: 36). It may be
possible that the latter is related to the Komi abu, ab+ etc. ‘it is not, not’ (Rédei 1986–1988: 68),
similarly to Kamass Koibal dialect ab+ ‘not’ (Janhunen 1977: 26). A Turkic word ›ōk etc. ‘no, not’
is found in Kamass (see in more detail Künnap 2002: 36).
Hartmut Katz supposed reasonably that the Samoyedic Selkup back-vocal negative particle
aš(š(a)), as(s(a)), aha, ā, a etc. is borrowed to Selkup from the neighbouring Tungusic Even
negative verb a˜˜š(a) ‘not to be/exist’ (Katz 1970: 149–150, see also Rédei 1986–1988: 69,
Künnap 2007). In case of the back-vocal variants of the Ob-Ugric negative particles Mansi at, āt,
ā½, oati etc. and Hanti at, ant, anty, anta etc. (see e.g. Collinder 1940: 64) we could also
principally consider an Tungusic influence, cf. e.g. Tungusic Even at, aćća, ać, Evenki at, ači
‘without, -less’, Nanai ati, ača ‘no, without’, Udihe aňći ‘without, -less’ (Castrén 1856: 58–60,
Ramstedt 1924: 197, Menges 1968: 39–40, 90, 128, 163–164, 241–242, Jazyki 1997: 160, 275).
The Mari uke, ukej, uki ‘not’ descends from Mongolic uguj ‘absence, non-possession’ (Toivonen
1953: 127–128, Galkin 1980: 125), cf. e.g. Monguor uguī ‘imperfect of negative auxiliary’ (Poppe
1987: 289, 291). A similar stem may have given rise to back-vocal negative auxiliary verbs in Mari,
Komi and Udmurt (particularly clearly in the cases with the verbal personal (*)k-markers), e.g.,
Meadow Mari о-м луд ‘I don’t read’ : o-к луд ‘s/he doesn’t read’, Hill Mari a-м лыд ‘I don’t
read’ : a-к лыд ‘s/he doesn’t read’, Komi o-г мун ‘I don’t go’, Udmurt у-г мынüськы ‘I don’t go’
: у-г мыны ‘s/he doesn’t go’ (Kovedjaeva 1976: 62, Tepljašina, Lytkin 1976: 173, 175, 178, Rédei
1986–1988: 68).
The same Mongolic word may have given rise to front-vocal variants of the auxiliary verb in the
Komi preterite, e.g. э-з (dial. и-з) мун ‘s/he didn’t go’, where in this case the front position of the
vowel-material is seen as a trace of the preterite suffix *i. Mongolic-type back-vocality has
obviously been generalized also into such forms of negative auxiliary verb where (*)k is lacking,
e.g. Komi o-g mun ‘I don’t go’ → o-n mun ‘you don’t go’: o-z mun ‘s/he doesn’t go’.
Uralic l-type negation forms are used only in the imperative and include the alternation of front
and back vowels, e.g., Finnish älä ~ Veps aлa (~ Estonian ära) ‘don’t’. One should not forget that
equivalents to those Uralic l-type prohibitive forms may be (partly back-vocal) negation words such
as in Yukaghir El, el(e), Mongolic ül(ü), ülä-, Caucasian ar(a), Dravidian al(a), all(a), al-, il-, etc.
Thus the Uralic l-type form *VlV may through its roots extend so far into time and space that it is
not possible to find out whether we are or are not concerned with further development of the vocal
stem *V- here. Also it is impossible to know whether that stem was originally front- or back-vocal.
That is why I leave it out of my observation.
References
C o l l i n d e r, B. 1940, Jukagirisch und Uralisch (Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1940:8),
Uppsala–Leipzig.
G a l k i n, I. S. 1980, K voprosu o mongolizmah v marijskom jazyke. – Voprosy grammatiki i
leksikologii, Joškar-Ola, 119–126.
J a n h u n e n, J. 1981, Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta. – Journal de la Société FinnoOugrienne 72, 219–274.
Jazyki mira. Mongol’skie jazyki. Tunguso-man’čurskie jazyki. Japonskij jazyk. Korejskij jazyk 1997,
Moskva.
K a t z, H. 1970, Zwei Etymologien. – Nyelvtudományi Közlemények LXXII 1, pp. 147–150.
K o v e d j a e v a, E. I. 1976, Marijskij jazyk. – Osnovy finno-ugorskogo jazykoznanija. Marijskij,
permskie i ugorskie jazyki, Moskva, 3–96.
K ü n n a p, A. 2002, Some Features of the Finno-Ugric Verbal Negation in the Volga Area. –
Volgan alueen kielikontaktit. Symposiumi Turussa 16.–18.8.2001 (Turun yliopiston suomalaisen
ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 70), Turku, 35–39.
M e n g e s, K. H. 1968, Die tungusichen Sprachen. – Tungusologie (Handbuch der Orientalistik.
Erste Abteilung V 3), Leiden/Köln, 21–256.
P o p p e, N. 1987, Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies. Second Impression (Mémoires
de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 110), Helsinki.
R a m s t e d t, G. J. 1924, Die verneinung in den altaischen sprachen. Eine semasiologische studie.
– Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne LII, 196–215.
R ä s ä n e n, M. 1969, Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen,
Helsinki.
R é d e i, K. 1986–1988, Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch I–III, Budapest.
T e p l j a š i n a, T. I., V. I. L y t k i n 1976, Permskie jazyki. – Osnovy finno-ugorskogo
jazykoznanija. Marijskij, permskie i ugorskie jazyki, Moskva, 97–228.
T o i v o n e n, Y. H. 1953, Wortgeschichtliche Streifzüge 181–189. – Finnisch-Ugrische
Forsungen XXXI 1–2, Helsinki, 124–132.
Larisa Leisiö
Tampere
Admonitive sense in Nganasan
I will introduce an admonitive sense in Nganasan (Northern Samoyedic), demonstrate four ways of
expression of this sense and point out connections between negative and admonitive senses.
Nganasan has a rich inventory for expression of negation. The speaker’s choice depends on
morphosyntactic structure of the expression and pragmatic factors effecting it.
In addition,
Nganasan has possibilities to express a sense close to negation. This sense, which in other
languages is called admonitive, is previously unidentified in Nganasan.
Admonitive means a threat, warning to beware of the situation indicated by the content verb.
Admonitive is distinguished, e.g. in indigenous languages of Melanesia, Australia and Americas.
Admonitive is usually considered as a mood. Admonition is functionally close to negation. In
certain syntactic contexts, negation inventory can be involved to express admonitive sense.
E. Helimski (1998:503, 506) labels the marker –LI- as ‘prohibitive’, indicating its meaning as
“warning against action”.
Prohibitive is used to indicate negative imperative expression
(http://wals.info/feature/description/71). Applied for the Nganasan marker –LI-, this term is
misleading because negative auxiliary n’i- forms regular negative imperative (Ex.1). The speakers
use forms with the marker –LI- in order to characterize the content situation as deleterious (Ex.2).
These forms can be considered admonitive. They depict situations as dangerous, unpleasant, or
undesirable for other reasons. To the best of my present knowledge, in the finite verb, –LI- can
only be followed by person markers, and all three persons are possible, while tense markers cannot
be expressed. The verb marked with –LI- always indicates the future from the point of view of the
expression. –LI- marked verb predicating the matrix clause (as it mostly does), the situation
indicates the future from the viewpoint of both the speech situation and the situation of the
expression.
Another way to express admonitive sense is with the marker –KEE, labeled by Helimski (1998:
506) admissive/cohortative (Ex. 3). Using grams of opposite sense for admonitive has also been
attested in other languages (Bybee, Perkins, Pagliuca 1994: 211). A Nganasan speaker supports this
expression of the admonitive meaning by intonation (strong fall on a penultima syllable) and the
emphatic particle –KELIT’E, which is placed between the verbal stem and the suffix–KEE (Ex. 4).
Otherwise the particle can be added to some other word, resulting in a verb-external negative
emphasizer (Ex. 5).
The emphatic particle –KELIT’E is possible in affirmation, but it is mostly used in the context
of negation, for the emphasis of the negation and as a conjunction of negated elements
(Tereschenko 1979: 307-308, 260-261). It also functions as a word-forming suffix, when added to
interrogative pro-words for production of the negative ones: kun’i”ia ‘how’, ‘where to’, kun’ii”iagel’it’i ‘to nowhere’; sili ‘who’, siligel’it’e ‘nobody’. Interspersed between the stem and formbuilding suffixes, this particle can be used on most elements of the clause which are in the scope of
negation. This participle is on its way of grammaticalization as a negative and admonitive marker,
being on the early stage 2 of Jespersen’s cycle (term coined by Dahl 1979). Expressed via
admissive, admonitive seems to be possible only in the 2nd person.
Negative purposive construction is admonitive in situ, - a semantic point which promotes
overlap of negative and admonitive. In Nganasan, negative purposive subordinate clause can be
expressed in two ways. First, an ablative form of event-nominalized verb can be used, d’örelemung-kete-tu start.crying-NZ-ABL-PX3 ‘in order him not to cry’ (Tereschenko 1973: 262). Second,
the same sense can be expressed with the supin form of the negative auxiliary: ni-nage-ti dömtukə-”
NEG-SUP-PX3 start.curse-CNG ‘in order him not to curse’.
To conclude, in Nganasan the admonitive sense has its own gram -LI. In addition, negators and
negative polarity items can be used to build and to support this sense.
EXAMPLES
Ex.1
ni-nte
m’endi-”
NEG-IMP.2>SG touch-CNG
Ex.2
m´enti-li-re
touch-ADM-2>SG
don’t you dare touch him/her/it (only try to touch, and you see what will happen – nothing good for
you)
Ex.3
tuj-kee-ng
come-ADS-2
Please, come (it would be good if you come)
Ex.4
tuj-kelit´e-kee-ng
come-PTCL-ADS-2
don’t you dare come! (only come – you’ll see what will happen!)
Ex.5
ngoj-kelit´e
m´endi-kee-re
one-PTCL touch-ADS-2>SG
do not touch him/her/it even once! (threat: touch him even once – and you’ll see what will happen!)
TRANSCRIPTION MARKS, GLOSSING
Double quotation mark is used for glottal stop; ng stays for the velar nasal η.
singular is indicated only for the object in objective conjugation, e.g.2[agent] >SG [object];
1,2,3, = 1st, 2nd,3rd person; ADM = admonitive, ADS = admissive; CNG = connegative; IMP =
imperative, NR = nominalizer, PTCL = particle.
LITERATURE
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, & William Pagliuca (1994): The evolution of grammar: Tense,
aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago
Press.
Dahl, Östen (1979): Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17.79-106.
Jespersen, Otto (1917): Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A. F.
Høst.
Jespersen, Otto (1924): The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Helimski, Eugen (1998): Nganasan, in Abondolo, Daniel M. (ed.): The Uralic Languages, London,
New York: Routledge, 480–515.
Tereschenko, Natalia Mitrofanovna (1979): Nganasankij jazyk. Leningrad: Nauka.
Tereschenko, Natalia Mitrofanovna (1973): Sintaksis samodijskih jazykov. Leningrad: Nauka.
Matti Miestamo
Helsinki
Negation: An overview of typological research and a questionnaire
This presentation has two aims: to give a state-of-the-art overview of typological research on
negation and to propose a typologically based questionnaire that can be used for describing the
domain of negation in a language.
Typological research on negation has mostly focused on standard negation, i.e. the negation of
declarative main clauses with verbs as predicates. Dahl (1979), Payne (1985) and Dryer (1988,
2005) have paid attention to the morphosyntactic status of the negative marker – whether it is a
particle, an affix or a verb – and to its position vis-à-vis the finite verb or the whole clause. Givón
(1978, 2001), Forest (1993), Honda (1996), Miestamo (2005abc) and Miestamo & van der Auwera
(in press) have looked at the structural differences between negatives and affirmatives, and
Miestamo (2005a) has proposed a classification of negative structures into symmetric and different
types of asymmetric negation according to whether and how negatives differ structurally from
affirmatives.
Clausal negation strategies used in imperatives, existentials and nonverbal clauses often differ
from standard negation. Van der Auwera (2006) and van der Auwera & Lejeune (2005) looked at
negative imperatives (prohibitives) in second person singular and proposed a four-way typology
according to whether or not the marking of negation differs from the marking of negation in
declaratives on the one hand and whether or not the marking of the imperative differs from its
marking in positive imperatives. Miestamo & van der Auwera (2007) looked at the similarities and
differences between negative declaratives and negative imperatives.
Erikson (2005) and Veselinova (2007) have examined negation in non-verbal and existential
predications and the latter has focused on the relationship between the negation strategies used in
verbal, non-verbal, and existential clauses.
As observed by Dahl (1979), Bernini and Ramat (1992), Kahrel (1996) and Haspelmath (1997,
2005), the interaction between (negative) indefinite pronouns and standard negation shows
interesting cross-linguistic variation in terms of whether standard negation co-occurs with the
indefinite and whether the indefinite is inherently negative.
Van der Auwera (2001) and de Haan (1997) have approached the interaction between negation
and modality from a cross-linguistic perspective; these studies have, however, not been based on
typological language samples. Subdomains of negation where sample-based typological work is
completely lacking to date include the interaction between negation and focus (although Dahl 1979
has made some preliminary observations), negation in subordinate clauses and in nominalized verb
forms, negation on nouns (abessive case marking) and derivational negation more generally.
This paper will give a brief overview of the observed cross-linguistic variation in the domain of
negation (see also Miestamo 2007), and propose, on the basis of this typological knowledge, a
questionnaire to be used in describing the negation system of a language (the questionnaire will
naturally try to cover such areas, too, that have not been properly typologically studied yet). Special
attention will be paid to issues that are relevant in describing the domain of negation in Uralic
languages.
References
Auwera, J. van der. 2001. On the typology of negative modals. In J. Hoeksema, H. Rullmann, V. SánchezValencia & T. van der Wouden (eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items, 23–48. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Auwera, J. van der. 2006. Why languages prefer prohibitives. Journal of Foreign Languages 1. 1–25.
Auwera, J. van der & L. Lejeune. 2005. The prohibitive. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie
(eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 290–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bernini, G. & P. Ramat. 1992. La frase negativa nelle lingue d'Europa. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Dahl, Ö. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17. 79–106.
Dryer, M. 1988. Universals of negative position. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.), Studies in
syntactic typology, 93–124. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Dryer, M. 2005. Negative morphemes. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie (eds.), The world
atlas of language structures, 454–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eriksen, P. 2005. On the typology and the semantics of non-verbal predication. Oslo: University of Oslo
dissertation.
Forest, R. 1993. Négations: essai de syntaxe et de typologie linguistique. Paris: Klincksieck.
Givón, T. 1978. Negation in language: Pragmatics, function, ontology. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and
semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, 69–112. New York: Academic Press.
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax, an introduction, vol. I. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Haan, F. de. 1997. The interaction of modality and negation: A typological study. New York: Garland.
Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haspelmath, M. 2005. Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D.
Gil & B. Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 466–469. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Honda, I. 1996. Negation: A cross-linguistic study. Buffalo: SUNY dissertation.
Kahrel, P. 1996. Aspects of negation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.
Miestamo, M. 2005a. Standard negation: the negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological
perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Miestamo, M. 2005b. Symmetric and asymmetric standard negation. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil &
B. Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 458–461. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miestamo, M. 2005c. Subtypes of asymmetric standard negation. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil & B.
Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 462–465. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miestamo, M. 2007. Negation – an overview of typological research. Language and Linguistics Compass 1
(5). 552-570. (DOI:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00026.x)
Miestamo, M. & J. van der Auwera. 2007. Negative declaratives and negative imperatives: similarities and
differences. In A. Ammann (ed.), Linguistics festival, May 2006 Bremen, 59–77. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Miestamo, M. & J. van der Auwera. In press. Negation and perfective vs. imperfective aspect. In W. De
Mulder, J. Mortelmans & T. Mortelmans (eds.), Proceedings of Chronos 7, Antwerp, September 2006
(Cahiers Chronos). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Payne, J. 1985. Negation. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume I, Clause
structure, 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Veselinova, L. 2007. Towards a typology of negation in non-verbal and existential sentences. Paper given at
ALT 7, Paris. http://www.ling.su.se/staff/ljuba/Negation_in_non-verbal_and_existential_sentences/
index.html.
Fedor Rozhanskij
Moscow
Negative pronominal forms in Luuditsa Votic1
The presentation focuses on the system of negative pronouns in Luuditsa Votic. The Luuditsa
dialect developed its own system that differs from those described in Votic grammars. In [Ariste
1968: 61] negative pronounced are described as having a suffix -iD. [Alhqvist 1856] does not
consider negative pronouns, but the collection of texts in this grammar contains such examples as
mitäitä 'what:PART:NEG' and četäitä 'what:PART:NEG' (compare with the affirmative forms mitä
'what:PART' and četä 'what:PART'). The still living Jõgõperä sub-dialect has a similar system.
Negative pronouns in this sub-dialect are derived with a suffix -it/-(a)jt/-(ä)jt. However, there is no
similar suffix in the Luuditsa sub-dialect.
Luuditsa negative pronouns can be grouped into three classes (we also list negative adverbs that
are formed in the same way):
a) A negative form is derived by means of gemination of the stem consonant. Such forms are
mittä ‘what:PART:NEG’ (from mitä ‘what:PART’), mikkä ‘what:NOM:NEG’ (from mikä ‘what:NOM’),
tšettä ‘who:PART:NEG’ (from tšetä ‘who:PART’), tšenni ‘who:NOM:NEG’ (from tšen ‘who:NOM’),
kuhhe̮ ‘where to:NEG’ (from kuhe̮ ‘where to’), kuzza ‘where:NEG’ (from kuza ‘where’). Compare,
for example: - mitä siä näed? ‘What:PART do you see? - miä mittä en näe ‘I don't see anything
(=what:PART:NEG)’.
b) A negative form is derived by adding -a/-ä that replaces the final vowel of the original
affirmative form, if it ended in a vowel. These forms are tšellä ‘who:ADALL:NEG’ (from tšellə
‘who:ADALL’), tšeltä ‘who:ABL:NEG’ (from tšeltə ‘who:ABL’), kussa ‘where from:NEG’ (from kussə
1
Supported by Russian Foundation for Humanities project 08-04-00172a.
‘where from’), ke̮nsa ‘when:NEG’ (from ke̮ns ‘when’). For example, - tšellə siä anniD rahha?
‘Whom (=who:ADALL) did you give money to?’ - en tšellä ‘To no one (=who:ADALL:NEG)’.
c) A negative form is the same as the affirmative form. For example, - tšenessə tǖ pajatittə
‘Whom (=who:ELAT) did you speak about?’ - emmə tšenessə ‘About no one (=who:ELAT:NEG)’.
The described system of negative forms raises a number of interesting questions:
1. Why are there several ways to derive a negative form, and what are the principles of
choosing a concrete variant for a concrete lexeme?
2. How should negative forms be combined into a paradigm, and where is the border between
different lexemes and different forms of the same lexeme?
3. Why is the Luuditsa system different from other western Votic sub-dialects?
The conducted analysis allows making the following observations.
1. The distribution of negative forms into the first two groups correlates with their phonological
structure. If an affirmative form has a single consonant in the stem this consonant is geminated in
the negative form. (mikä ‘what:NOM’ – mikkä ‘what:NOM:NEG’, kuza ‘where’ – kuzza ‘where:NEG’).
If an affirmative form already contains a geminate (kussə ‘where from’ – kussa ‘where from:NEG’,
tšellə ‘who:ADALL’ – tšellä ‘who:ADALL:NEG’) or a cluster (tšeltə ‘who:ABL’ – tšeltä
‘who:ABL:NEG’, ke̮ns ‘when’ – ke̮nsa ‘when:NEG’), then gemination can not be used and the vowel
-a/-ä is added instead. As for the third type, where the negative form is the same as the affirmative
(which can also be interpreted as there is no special negative form), it concerns more rare forms and
probably indicates that the system is still developing. There is also variation at some instances, for
example, the negative form from tšene ‘who:GEN’ is usually tšenne (with a geminated consonant),
but it can also be tšene (the same as the affirmative). It should be noted that there is no variation
between the first and second group; neither is gemination ever combined with the marker -a/-ä,
although there are no formal restrictions to that in forms like kuhhe̮ ‘where to:NEG’.
2. The question of organizing negative forms into a paradigm is posed first of all for an author
of a Votic grammar or dictionary. Affirmative pronouns are combined into paradigms similar to
nouns (although they may contain some irregular markers and stems). But there is no obvious way
to construct a paradigm of negative pronouns. For example, if we compare forms like tšenni
‘who:NOM:NEG’, tšettä ‘who:PART:NEG’, tšellä ‘who:ADALL:NEG’ and tšeltä ‘who:ABL:NEG’, we will
find irregular markers for Partitive, Adessive-Allative, and Ablative: -ttä instead of usual -tə, -a/-ä
or a more archaic -tä, -llä instead of -llə, -ltä instead of -ltə. If we consider each negative form as an
independent lexeme, it would challenge the usual way of organizing a grammar of a language,
where new lexemes are derived by means of derivational suffixes, and each lexeme has a number of
forms that constitute its paradigm. Instead of the usual scheme we would have separate lexemes that
are derived from pronominal case forms by different means (tšenni would be derived from tšen,
tšettä – from the Partitive form tšetä, tšellä from the Adessive-Allative form tšellə, etc.).
The only acceptable way to solve this problem is to use the notion of "operation". In this case a
pronoun would have a paradigm with: a) a number of affirmative forms; b) a number of negative
forms that are built either via a special marker -a/-ä or through the operation of geminating.
3. The described system of negative forms was probably borrowed from Ingrian. In Soikkola
Ingrian (which was not influenced by Votic) we find forms like mikkä̀ ‘what:NOM:NEG’, mittä̀
‘what:PART:NEG’, miššä̀ ‘what:INESS:NEG’, kellä̀ ‘who:ADESS:NEG’, keltä̀ ‘who:ABL:NEG’, kušštà
‘where from:NEG’ konššà ‘when:NEG’. Here we can observe both the gemination and the final
vowel -à/-ä̀ , which are sometimes combined in the same form. In Ingrian negative forms are never
the same as affirmative, thus the system seems complete but not developing. The Lower Luga
Ingrian has a similar system. Thus, we can state that Votic borrowed it form Ingrian and not vice
versa. It could be noted also that in the Kukkozi dialect, which is a mixed Votic-Ingrian idiom, the
system of negative pronouns is quite similar, for example: mittä̀ ‘what:PART:NEG’, kuhhè̮ ‘where
to:NEG’, konsà ‘when:NEG’.
Abbreviations
ablative
adessive-allative
allative
elative
genitive
inessive
negative form
nominative
partitive
ABL
ADALL
ALL
ELAT
GEN
INESS
NEG
NOM
PART
References
Ahlqvist A. 1856. Wotisk grammatik jemte språkprof och ordförteckning. Helsingfors - Acta
Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae, V I. Helinsgforsiae.
Ariste P. 1968. A grammar of the Votic language. Bloomington - The Hague (Indiana
University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 68).
Sirkka Saarinen
Turku
Negation in Mari
The Mari language uses a negative auxiliary in standard negation. The Mari negative auxiliary takes
modal, temporal and personal suffixes, whereas the main verb is in its connegative form. The stem
of the negative auxiliary goes back to Proto-Uralic and it consists of one syllable, or to be more
exact, of one vowel. This (stem) vowel differs in tenses and modi (as in the Permic languages).
In the Meadow-Eastern Mari literary language the connegative form of the main verb is the pure
stem in the present tense and in first preterit:
Sg.1. o-m tol
Pl.1.
NEG-SG1 come(-CONN)
o-na ~ o-g- ə̑na tol
NEG-(PRS).PL1 come(-CONN)
Sg.2. o-t tol
Pl.2.
NEG-SG2 come(-CONN)
o-da ~ o-g- ə̑da tol
NEG-(PRS).PL2 come(-CONN)
Pl.3.
Sg.3. o-k ~ o-g-e š tol
NEG-(PRS).SG3 come(-CONN)
o-g- ə̑t tol
NEG-(PRS).PL come(-CONN)
As can be seen above, there is an element k ~ g which functions as a secondary suffix of the present
tense on the one hand, and as the suffix of the third person singular on the other.
In the Western literary language (or HillMari) the present tense conjugation is identical except for
the stem vowel, which is a-. Here the longer forms of the negative auxiliary (with -g-) are not used.
In the third person plural the connegative form of the main verb takes a special suffix -ep; in this
case no plural suffix is needed in the auxiliary:
Sg.1. a-m tol
Pl.1.
NEG-SG1 come(-CONN)
Sg.2. a-t tol
NEG-PL1 come(-CONN)
PL.2. a-da tol
NEG-SG2 come(-CONN)
Sg.3. a-k tol
a-na tol
NEG-PL1 come(-CONN)
Pl.3.
NEG-SG3 come(-CONN)
a-k tol-ep
NEG-SG3 come-CONN
In the first preterit the stem of the negative auxiliary is MariE Ə̑, MariW ə. This is followed by the
tense suffix š which is used with verbs of the second conjugation. In both Mari literary languages
the original stem is lost in the first and second persons singular, in Western Mari also in the plural:
Sg.1. š- Ə̑ m tol / W š-əm tol
Pl.1.
(NEG)-PST.SG1 come
Sg.2.
š- ə̑ č tol / W š-ə tol
NEG-PST come
š-na tol / W š-ənä tol
NEG-PST.PL1 / (NEG)-PST.PL1 come
Pl.2.
(NEG)-PST.SG2 come
Sg.3. ə̑ - š tol / W ə- š tol
Ə̑
ə̑ - š-ta tol / W š-ədä tol
NEG-PST.PL2 / (NEG)-PST.PL2 come
Pl.3.
ə̑ - š-t tol / W ə- š tol-ep
NEG-PST.PL / NEG-PST come-CONN
The second preterit originated as a compound, formed from the gerund of the main verb and the
verb 'be'. Synchronically, its structure is no longer transparent in the affirmative forms in the Mari
literary languages. In the Meadow-Eastern literary language, however, the stem (= the connegative
form) of the verb ulam 'be' is attached to the negative auxiliary after the personal suffix in the
negation of the second preterit:
Sg.1. tol- ə̑ n o-m- ə̑ l
Pl.1.
come-GER NEG-SG1-be
Sg.2. tol- ə̑ n o-t- ə̑ l
come-GER NEG-PL1-be
Pl.2.
come-GER NEG-SG2-be
Sg.3. tol- ə̑ n o-g- ə̑ l
tol- ə̑ n o-na-l
tol- ə̑ n o-da-l
come-GER NEG-PL2-be
Pl.3.
come-GER NEG-SG3-be
tol- ə̑ n o-g- ə̑ t- ə̑ l
come-GER NEG-PL3.PL-be
Western Mari uses a different strategy, whereby the negative form of the second preterit is not built
on the affirmative gerund as in Eastern Mari but, rather, on the negative gerund, which then takes
the inflected forms of the verb ə̑ lam 'be', except in the third person singular, where only the
negative gerund without any suffixes is used:
Sg.1. tol-te-l-am
Pl. 1. tol-te-l-na
come-ABE-be-SG1
Sg.2. tol-te-l-at
come-ABE-be-PL1
Pl.2.
come-ABE-be-SG2
Sg.3. tol-te
come-ABE
tol-te-l-da
come-ABE-be-PL2
Pl.3.
tol-te-l- ə̑t
come-ABE-be-PL
In the imperative the negative auxiliary has yet another form: i- in the second persons and Ə̑ -, W ə
in the third persons. This takes only the personal markers. The main verb is not inflected, for
example, i-t tol (NEG-SG2 come) 'do not come'.
In the desiderative the negative auxiliary takes the form ə̑ , W ə, and the modus suffix with the
personal marker are attached to it, for example, ə̑ -ne-m tol (NEG-DES.SG1 come) 'I do not want to
come', ə̑ -ne-št tol (NEG-DES.PL3 come) 'they do not want to come'.
In existential and possessive sentences the word uke is used, which is of unknown origin. Its
sentence constituent value is obscure (as are that of many Finno-Ugric negative or affirmative
existentials), because it can also occur in a nominal position with corresponding suffixes. For
instance, jerə̑ -štə̑ kol uke (lake-INE fish NEG) 'there are no fish in the lake'
Constituent negation and negation in stative relation clauses is expressed with the negative
auxiliary, to which the verb 'be' is attached as a suffix.
Sachiko Sosa
Helsinki
The pragmatic functions of negative clauses in Surgut Khanty
In Surgut Khanty, õntõ negates a part of clause and õntem existence (Csepregi 1998: 41):
(1)
owpi aj, owpiji õntõ >Àpõ>. (ibid. 66)
door, small, door-ABL., NEG, fit-PRS.3SG
‘The door is small, he can’t enter from the door.’
(2)
pa pÀlkõ> tôt õntem. (ibid. 90)
another/other, part/side-SG.3SG., there, NEG.EX.
‘There isn’t another side.’
In addition to these, ənti is also found in the material which I collected from native speakers:
(3)
kÒtnat ənti katəλλi.
hand-COMINS, NEG, catch-PRS.PASS.3SG
‘It isn’t caught by hand.’
The material used for this study comprises narrative texts (e.g. Csepregi 1998, Csepregi and Sosa
2009). With regard to general frequency criteria (Miestamo [1999] 2006), negation occurs less than
affirmative in my materials on Surgut Khanty. In this paper, I will discuss the tendencies of the
pragmatic functions of negative clauses in the discourse of Surgut Khanty. I will show the
preferential distribution of the appearance of the subject and object of negative clauses in the
discourse of Khanty in terms of information structure and flow. I will especially pay attention to the
introduction of new and given information into discourse and topic (referent) continuity in sequence
discourse. I will show some examples of the mechanism of information structure and flow.
Even though Khanty has no special morpho-syntactic devices to represent categories of
information (e.g. new/given information, topic/focus) despite its rich morpho-syntactic system,
some tendencies are visible in discourse, especially through referent continuity. My pilot analyses
of the affirmative clauses of Surgut Khanty have shown results in the same line as the preceding
studies of information flow in different languages have suggested (e.g. Cumming and Ono 1998,
Brown and Yule 1983); a full NP appears at the boundary of episodic/thematic units in discourse
and functions as reactivated information; The subject is motivated strongly as a topic; topicalized
referents tend to be expressed as a pronoun or zero anaphoric pronoun with verb inflection; word
order has some pragmatic functions in discourse; the morpho-syntactic choice by speaker is related
to the topic continuity in spontaneous discourse, etc. I will compare how negative clauses are
different from affirmative ones in terms of information structure and flow. I will also compare the
results of my study with the previous typological study, which shows that negative clauses are not
used to introduce new information into discourse, nor are they used to introduce new referential
participants into the discourse ‘file’ (Givón 1984:333). How the use of negation in Surgut Khanty
may influence Khanty’s own context and presupposition will be also discussed.
The theoretic flame is based on the discourse functional approach. The main methods
employ John W. Du Bois’s and Talmy Givón’s discourse-based studies; the Preferred Argument
Structure (PAS) theory (Du Bois 1987 – ) and topic continuity in discourse (Givón 1983a, b).
According to the PAS theory, certain argument structures are systematically preferred in
spontaneous discourse rather than other grammatical alternatives. Earlier studies using the PAS
theory have shown that the theory is more suitable for narrative text than conversation (e.g.
Kärkkäinen 1998).
References
Ashby, William, J, John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf 2003: Preferred Argument Structure.
Grammar as architecture for function. John Benjamins.
Brown, Gillan & George Yule1983: Discourse analysis. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.
Cambrige university press.
Csepregi, Márta 1998:Szurguti osztják chrestomathia. Studia urolo-altaica 6. József Attila
Tudományegyetem.
Csepregi, Márta & Sachiko Sosa 2009: The comparable samples from Surgut Khanty. Journal de la
Société Finno-Ougrienne 92:193-208.
Cumming, Susanna and Tsuyoshi Ono 1997: Discourse and grammar. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.)
Discourse as structure and Process: 112-137. Sage.
Du Bois, W. John 1987: The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63:805-855.
Givón, Talmy 1983a : Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch-reference. In
Hainam, John ja Pamela Munro (ed.): Switch reference and universal grammar. pp. 51-82. John
Benjamins.
--- 1983b (ed.): Topic Continuity in Discourse: A quantitative Cross-Language Study. John
Benjamins.
--- 1984: Syntax, a functional typological introduction. John Benjamins.
Kärkkäinen, Elise 1996: Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English
conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 675-701.
Miestamo, Matti. [1999] 2006: Negation. Handbook of Pragmatics Online. Verschueren, Jef, JanOla Östman, Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen (eds.).
Anne Tamm
Budapest/Florence
Uralic abessives and caritives
Uralic abessive and caritive negation appears in almost all Uralic languages with considerable
variation in its categorial and morphosyntactic status, but with a strikingly similar cluster of
meanings. Abessive-caritive negation is frequently more discourse linked than auxiliary negation, it
interacts with affirmative possession or with TAM, especially with past and perfect tenses
(depending on whether it marks in the more nominal or verbal domain). Abessive negation, as part
of a system with other types of negation, enables the semantically and pragmatically graded
expression of negation in the system. As an illustration from Estonian, sentences (1) and (2)
represent the assertion that the bed is not made, and sentences (3) and (4) assert that Mary has not
eaten. In order to illustrate the contrasts between different negations in a succinct way, the abstract
contains only native-speaker’s constructed examples.
(1)
Voodi
bed[NOM]
ei
ole
tehtud.
NEG
be.CNG
make-PST.PASS.PTCP
‘The bed is not made.’
(2)
Voodi
on
bed[NOM]
tegemata.
be.3S make-M_ABE
‘The bed is not made.’
(3)
Mari
ei ole
söönud.
m[NOM] NEG be.CNG
eat-PST.ACT.PTCP
‘Mary has not eaten.’
(4)
Mari
on
bed[NOM]
söömata.
be.3S eat-M_ABE
‘Mary has not eaten.’
What is the difference between abessive and auxiliary negation? In sentences (1) and (3) with a
negative auxiliary, the presuppositions do not contain a strong condition that the bed could or
should be made in the given situation, or that Mary could or should have eaten. Instead, the
presuppositions contain a low degree of expectation of a bed being made and of Mary having eaten.
In examples (2) and (4), these expectations are of a much higher degree; in addition, several modal
conditions are in force. For instance, imagine a stone statue of Mary in a messy bed carved of stone.
With the abessive negation—but not with the auxiliary negation—it is obligatory that Mary should
be a person who can eat. Abessive negation is odd, for instance, if applied to a statue with no ability
of eating. Also, the bed should be a bed that can be made, which is not possible with, for instance, a
hypothetical stone bed with a stone blanket. Although it is true that stone statues have not eaten, or
stone beds have not been made, the situation cannot be referred to with the abessive negation, but
by means of the negative auxiliary, as in (5) and (6). The formation of sentences with the abessive
negation is grammatically correct, but odd (with the stone participants). The hash mark “#” in (7)
and (8) reflects the ill-formedness judgment.
(5)
Kivist
voodit
stone-ELA bed.PTV
ei ole
NEG
be.CNG
tehtud.
make-PST.PASS.PTCP
‘A stone bed has not been made.’
(6)
Marmorkuju
marble.statue[NOM]
ei
NEG
ole
be.CNG
söönud.
eat-PST.ACT.PTCP
‘The marble statue has not eaten.’
(7)
#Kivist
voodi
on
stone-ELA bed[NOM] be.3S
tegemata.
make-M_ABE
‘The stone bed has not been made.’
(8)
#Marmorkuju
marble.statue[NOM]
on
söömata.
be.3S eat-M_ABE
‘The marble statue has not eaten.’
The presuppositions associated with the abessive negative form about the ability/possibility cannot
be accommodated in the discourse, since our knowledge about stone statues and whether they can
eat or be made in order blocks these presuppositions. Diverse Uralic abessive-caritive negations
have grammaticalized the exact relationships differently.
Anne Tamm
Budapest/Florence
Prosody and types of negation in some Uralic languages
Uralic grammars combine several forms of negation. Many languages have alternative ways of
expressing negation, and it’s especially common that different clause types (imperatives, non-verbal
and existential clauses) get negated in ways different form standard negation.
This talk will not concentrate on the behaviour of the types of negation in different sentence types,
but on the interaction of variously expressed negative forms within one sentence (as in example
(2)), more specifically, on some aspects of the semantics and pragmatics in the interaction of
several forms. I will show how negative forms encode information at various levels of grammatical
description: syntax, morphology, semantics, pragmatics, and prosody.
Negation and accented constituents or stressed syllables tend to co-occur in languages. An
examination of languages where many types of negation interact can tease apart the phenomena that
are generally not well understood and that are in need of further research. For instance, the
understanding of the relationships between negation, scope, focus, accent, and their relatedness to
semantics, pragmatics, or syntax (Dahl 1979, Payne 1985) is likely to be improved on the basis of
the Uralic data. Consider the interplay of focus and negation in Example (2) in Estonian. The object
case in negation is generally restricted to partitive (1). However, in interaction with focus, indicated
by the focussing negation particle mitte and accent, the object case is not necessarily partitive in
negative sentences. If the event itself is not negated but only the identity of the object is negated (cf.
also some subtypes of metalinguistic negation, Horn 1989), then the case marking of the accented
and focused object can display variation with boundable verbs (10) (compare the case marking in
affirmative sentences in (3)).
(1) Mari
ei teinud
viga.
m[NOM] NEG make-CNG mistake.PTV
‘Mary did not make a mistake.’
(2)
Mari
ei teinud
(mitte)
m[NOM] NEG make-CNG
vaid
just
õige
vea,
NEG.PTC mistake.ACC-TOT
sammu.
but exactly right.ACC-TOT step.ACC-TOT
‘Mary did not make a mistake, she made exactly the right step instead.’
(3)
Mari
tegi
vea.
m.[NOM] make.3S mistake.ACC-TOT
‘Mary made a mistake.’
The question in these and many examples is the exact complex relationship between the form
and meaning. The illustrations of the abstract are from Estonian, but my talk will discuss Hungarian
and relate what is found in Hungarian to phenomena of lesser-known Uralic languages.
Beáta Wagner-Nagy
Hamburg
Negation of predicative possession in Samoyedic Languages
The typology of possessive negation is a fairly uncharted field to date. It can be observed that,
generally speaking, possessive structures do not have a dedicated negation element, but use an
element that also appears in other sentence types. Often it is the morpheme used in standard
negation, but almost as often the negation predicate of the existential sentences. Naturally, based on
the languages in question it is impossible to set up a comprehensive typological classification. One
of the reasons is that only eight languages were included in this study, and another that these
languages are closely related. Nevertheless, a classification will be given that can be used as a
starting point for further research.
The aim of this paper is to examine the structures of negation of predicate possession by means
of three main questions:
1) How many constructions for possession are used in total in the given language?
2) Does the negation of the possessive structures correspond with other negational sentence types
and if so, which are they?
3) Are there several ways to negate possessive structures?
Two main groups can be established: In the languages of group A) possession can only be
expressed in one, in those of group B) in several ways.
A short description of the subgroups:
Type A1: one possessive construction - one negative element
There is only one2 negative element, which is also used for the negation of possessive structures.
Type A2: one possessive construction - two negative elements: functions of neg. elements kept
separate
Two negative elements can be used: one for standard negation and one for possessive and
existential negation. In this group, it is an important criterion that the standard negative element
cannot be used for the negation of possessive structures of any tense category and that the
existential negative element does not express standard negation.
Type A3: one possessive construction - two negative elements: functions penetrating into oneanother's realm
This group differs from group A2 inasmuch as the existential negative verb or the standard
negative element penetrates into the paradigm of the other element. Among others, Hungarian and
Selkup belong to this group. In Hungarian for instance, the possessive structure has to be negated by
the negative existential verb nincs. However, this verb's paradigm is incomplete and, therefore, the
past tense forms can only be expressed with the standard negative element (nem).
Type B1: two possessive construction - two negative element: functions penetrating into oneanother's realm
In these languages, there are two different possessive structures. One is negated by the standard
negative element, while the other by the existential negative verb. However, the existential verb can
also be used as standard negative element.
Type B2: two possessive construction - two negative element: functions of neg. elements kept
separate
This group differs from group B1 inasmuch as the two negative elements are completely separated,
i.e. none of them penetrates the other's paradigm. Nganasan belongs to this group.
The following table demonstrates the categorization of the investigated languages.
Type A
one possessive construction
one
negative
element
A1
one-one
2
Type B
more than one poss. construction
two negative elements
A2
one-two
A3
one -two
B1
two - two
B2
two - two
In this case, the imperative elements will not be considered, since they never correlate with other sentence types.
functions of neg.
elements kept
separate
Finnish,
Estonian
Kamas,
Non-Northern
Selkup
functions
penetrating
into oneanother's
realm
Hungarian,
Taz-Selkup,
Nenets,
Enets
functions
penetrating
into oneanother's
realm
Mansi, Khanty
functions of neg. elements
kept separate
Nganasan
References
Bartens, Raija 1991: Die positive und negative Existentiale in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprache,
Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, Neue Folge 14, 58–97.
Erdélyi, István 1969: Selkupisches Wörterverzeichnis: Tas-Dialekt. Budapest.
Klumpp, Gerson 2001: Alte Negation und neue Tempora im Kamassischen, in Eichner, Heiner –
Peter-Arnold Mumm – Oswald Panagl – Eberhard Winkler: Fremd und Eigen, Edition Preasens,
Wien, 117–128.
Nyenyang, M. A. [Ненянг, М. А.] 2005: Русско-ненецкий разговорник, Изд. Дрофа, СанктПетерсбург
Solovar, V. N. – M. I. Cheremisina [Соловар, В. Н. – черемисина, М. И.] 1994: Выражение
отрицания в хантыйском языке, Linguistica Uralica 30, 35–46.
Stassen, Leon 2001: Predicative Possession, in Haspelmath, M. – E. König – W. Oestrreicher – W.
Raible (eds.): Language Tapology and Language Universals, v. 2., Berlin, de Gruyter, 954–960.
Stassen, Leon 2008: Predicative Possession, In Haspelmath, Martin – Dryer, Matthew S. – Gil,
David – Comrie, Bernard (eds.): The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Munich, Max
Planck Digital Library, chapter 117. Available online at http://wals.info/feature/117 [Accessed on
2008-10-30.]