Adnominal possessive constructions in Narym, Vasjugan and middle-ob dialects of Selkup.
The paper deals with the adnominal possessive constructions in Southern Selkup. The Selkup language is the sole living representative of the Southern Samoyedic group of the Uralic family. It is represented in the area of the Jamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug of the Tjumen Oblast in the Krasnosel'kup District (Krasnosel'kup, Sidorovsk, Caselka, Tol'ka, Ratta, Kikkiakki) and in the Purovsk District (Tarko-Sale, Bystrinka); in the Turuchansk District of the Krasnojarsk Krai (Farkovo, Turuchansk, Sovetskaja Recka); in the Kargasok, Parabel', Verchneketskijand Kolpasevo Districts of the Tomsk Oblast. See Figs. 1-2.
The Selkup language is a conglomerate of dialects whose differences are obviously marked. The Selkup dialects can be divided into two clusters: Northern Selkup dialects and Southern-Central Selkup dialects ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2013: 53). In the present paper we use Southern Selkup to describe both Southern and Central dialects. Our typological analysis is mostly based on language data from the Vasjugan, Narym and Middle-Ob dialects. All three dialects are highly endangered and lesser studied. The communicative energy of the Selkup language is dangerously diminishing due to the influence of the Russian cultural and linguistic environment that the Selkup live in. Their children and youth are predominantly educated in Russian.
Possession is a linguistic concept that conveys the idea of appurtenance between a possessor and a possessed (possessum, possessee), for the expression of which there is a diverse inventory of means in the language systems of the world (Broschart 2001).
On the morphosyntactic level, possessive constructions are traditionally divided into those of adnominal (my dog, the woman's dog), predicative (she has a dog, the dog belongs to me, the dog is mine) and external possession (Koptjevskaya-Tamm 2002). External possession is illustrated in example (1).
(1) French Je l u i ai pris la main I 3SG.DAT have taken the hand 'I took his hand'
The adnominal possessive construction corresponds to a noun phrase and is opposed to the predicative possessive construction and to the external possessive construction (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2002: 765; Filchenko 2014 : 83; Potanina 2014; Budzisch 2015: 45; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2015). External possessive constructions code the possessor as a core grammatical relation of the verb and in a constituent separate from the one containing the possessed item (Payne, Barshi 1999). In predicative possession the relations of possession are construed in the main predication of a clause or sentence, that is, the possessed item is predicated of a possessor (Stassen 2013). Predicative possession encodes the possessive relationship between possessor and possessee either in the form of a transitive construction (Habeo-possessive constructions) or an intransitive one (existential sentences or Essepossessive constructions) (Stassen 2013). With regard to habeo- or esseverbs, there is the verb eqo 'to be' in Selkup and the "predicative possession is essentially based on existential constructions" (Budzisch 2015: 45, Honti 2008: 173). The present article, however, focuses on the Selkup adnominal possessive constructions alone.
In adnominal possession, a possessive construction involves two elements, a possessor and a possessee, that jointly constitute a noun phrase (NP)--a possessive NP (PNP) (Koptevskaja-Tamm 2001). The possessor can be either pronominal or nominal, thus we deem it is appropriate to talk about the pronominal possessive construction and the nominal possessive one. Additionally, a PNP may contain construction markers (CMs) whose function is to mark explicitly the exact type of relation between the possessor and the possessee (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2002). In a PNP construction markers can be morphologically bound either to the possessor (dependent-marking), to the possessee (head-marking), or to both (double-marking), or they can function as unbound elements (Koptevskaja-Tamm 2001). In languages of the world the concept of possession (represented by numerous semantic categories) in a PNP is either morphologically marked (e.g. by case-markers, possessive markers, prepositions, prefixes, linking pronouns) or not (e.g. compounding, juxtaposing); in the former case, the CMs can be found either in pre- or post-position to the marked element (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2002, 2001; Potanina, Filchenko 2015). Both word-order typologies, i.e., possessee--possessor and possessor--possessee are found with an almost equal frequency in the language systems of the world (Kopt'evskaja-Tamm 2001).
The languages in Europe preferentially use dependent-marking PNPs. In the eastern and southeastern periphery of Europe double-marked and prepositional PNPs tend to be common (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003). Globally (Bickel, Nichols 2005), dependent-marking PNPs and their analytic counterparts are the preferred PNP types. Head-marked possessive NPs are common in the Americas and the Pacific. Juxtaposition is, in general, quite uncommon (Bickel, Nichols 2005).
Turning to semantics, PNPs typologically refer to legal relations of ownership (prototypical instance of alienable possession) and to kinship relations or body-part relations (prototypical instance of inalienable possession) (Kopt'evskaja-Tamm, 2001). The relations of legal ownership, body-parts and kinship relations are taken as crucial in identifying adnominal possession across languages. Linguistic possession involves diverse meanings expressed by possessive construction types. In the majority of cases, the possessee of a PNF is characterized via the possessor. They may be involved with:
1) anchoring relations--legal ownership (the magician's hat), kinship (Mark's niece), body-part (John's lips), author or organization (Lizzy's song), disposal (Mary's offices), carrier of properties (magician's dexterity), social relations (my friend's neighbor) and many others even with inanimate possessor: partitive relations (the hilltop), temporal relations (autumn concert), locative relations (Omsk museum);
2) non-anchoring relations--duration (a year's trip, material (a stone tabletop) (Heine 1997; Koptevskaja-Tamm 2001; Potanina, Filchenko 2015).
Apart from some studies regarding possession in Selkup or in the ObYenisei languages (Potanina, Filchenko 2015; Filchenko 2014; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2015; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2015; Budzisch 2015), a comprehensive and detailed analysis of PNPs found in the southern vernaculars of Selkup has not yet been conducted. The purpose of the paper is to analyze the structural types of the adnominal possessive constructions in three southern dialects of Selkup. To this end, we will first describe the structural types of the nominal possessive constructions in Selkup, and then the pronominal ones.
The sources of the data for analysis are the electronic text corpora that were created by A. Filchenko, O. Potanina, E. Krjukova, D. Tokmashev, A. Bajdak, B. Wagner-Nagy, S. Kovylin, V. Varda, and P. Phelana and others at the Tomsk Department of Indigenous Languages of Siberia as a result of many years of fieldwork ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2010; 2012; 2013; 2015).
The examples are borrowed from the texts: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (How a grouse turns into a human): Southern Selkup, Middle-Ob dialect, speaker Sycina, recorded in Ivankino 1980, Kim, Maksimova, glossed-translated 2010, Bajdak, Maksimova, Fedotova, Tomsk State Pedagogical University (TSPU) Field Archive; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (The mistress of the fire): Southern Selkup, Vasjugan dialect, speaker Cinina, recorded in Kargosok 1983, Maksimova, Iljasenko; glossed-trans lated 2012; Bajdak, Maksimova, Kurganskaja, Kovylin, TSPU Field Archive; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (A girl and ice): Southern Selkup, Vasjugan dialect, speaker Cinina, recorded in Kargosok 1983, Maksimova, Iljasenko glossedtranslated 2013, Bajdak, Maksimova, Fedotova, Kovylin, TSPU Field Archive; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (2-A story about life): Southern Selkup, Narym dialect, speaker A. I. Soispajeva, recorded in Nelmac 1984, Iljasenko, glossed-translated 2015, Bajdak, Maksimova, Kovylin, TSPU Field Archive; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (A story about life): Southern Selkup, Narym dialect, speaker A. G. Saispajeva, recorded in Nelmac 1984-1985, Maksimova, Iljasenko, glossed-translated 2015, Bajdak, Maksimova, Kovylin, TSPU Field Archive.
Nominal possessive construction
The most frequent types of nominal possessive constructions (where the possessor is named by a noun) are presented in the following models (1-2):
Model (1). Dependent Marking in NP
Model (2). Double Marking Locus in NP
[sup.N]dependent-[NP.sub.possessor] (genitive)-[sup.N]head-[NP.sub.possessed] (possessive suffixes)
In Model (1) the locus of marking is on the dependent. The possessor, in preposition to the zero-marked possessed, is explicitly formed by the genitive marker -n,-t. In Model (2) the locus of marking is found on both elements--the dependent and the head. Semantically, Model (2) demonstrates a typical structure for coding inalienable possession. According to preliminary analysis, affixation is obligatory in Southern Selkup for expressing inalienable possession. It is illustrated by examples (2)-(4):
(2) Narym Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2015: 138) tabe-t kobi [kw.sup.j][edz.sup.j]-a squirrel-GEN skin be beautiful-3SG.sub 'Squirrel's skin is beautiful'
(3) Vasjugan Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2012: 80) el'made-l'ika-p tu-t haj am-b-ad child-DIM-ACC fire-GEN eye eat-PSTN-3sG.ob 'The fire's spark burnt the baby'
(4) Vasjugan Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2012: 94) uced'e-lika-n amba-d uruk cur-ely-mb-a boy-DIM-GEN mother-PX.3sG loud weep-INCH-PSTN-3sG.sub 'The mother of the boy began to weep noisily'
The locative marker can rarely be used to mark possessive relations in nominal possessive constructions ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1995: 78). In Vasjugan Selkup the genitive and the locative can overtly mark a noun possessor. The marker of the locative is regularly added after the genitive one. While Selkup is an agglutinative language, where every morpheme has a particular grammatical function, it is possible that the genitive and locative markers express different shades of meaning of possession.
(5) Vasjugan Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2015: 136) amba-n-nan kot kibamar-la-t kod-at ku-mb-at mother-GEN-LOC ten little child-PL-PX.3SG be ill-3PL die-PSTN-3PL 'Ten mother's children were ill, died' The occurrences with the nominal possessor marked for the locative are very limited, the genitive case is by far the most prominent and common marker for nominal PNPs.
Pronominal possessive construction
Southern Selkup pronouns have an extended case paradigm corresponding to relations: genitive, accusative, lative, locative, ablative, comitative, abessive. The case paradigms of the Middle-Ob Selkup pronouns in the singular and plural are done to illustrate the declension system, see Tables 1-2 ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1994: 28-29; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1995: 69-97).
Tables 1-2 demonstrate that the Middle-Ob Selkup case paradigm lacks the genitive case marker for the pronouns in the 1st and 2nd persons. Other southern dialects also have the genitive markers -t-, -n- only for the pronouns of the 3rd person for coding possessive relations. Inflectional genitive forms of pronouns have the same markers for genitive as the inflectional genitive forms of nouns ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1995: 79-80). Besides, in Southern Selkup it is common to use different CMs for coding possessive relations and different types of NP with a pronominal possessor of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons.
The most important means of coding the relations between the possessed and the possessor in a pronominal possessive construction are (a) marking the possessed on the head with the possessive suffixes if the possessor is coded for the 1st or 2nd person and (b) marking the possessor for the genitive, if it is coded for the 3rd person, the possessed is unmarked. In the first option the locus of marking is on the head, in the second--on the dependent.
The pronominal possessive NPs described above can be schematically represen ted by Models (3)-(4):
Model (3). Head Marking in NP
[sup.1st or 2nd Pr.]dependent-[NP.sub.possessor] - [sup.N]head-[NP.sub.possessed] (possessive suffixes)
Model (4). Dependent Marking in NP
[sup.3rd Pr.]dependent-[NP.sub.possessor] (genitive) - [sup.N]head-[NP.sub.possessed]
There is a full paradigmatic set of possessive suffixes in the Selkup language system which codes the person and the number of the possessor. The genitive markers are -n, -t in Southern Selkup. There is a range of examples to illustrate the discussed material (6)-(8):
(6) Narym Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2015: 128) man ara-m ku-m-ba 1sg husband-PX.1SG die-PSTN-3SG.sb 'My husband died'
(7) Vasjugan Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2012: 78) mi tedo-my-p ab-y-l-d-e 1pl things-PX.1PL-ACC eat-EP-OPT-3SG.ob-PART '(She) will burn our things'
(8) Middle-Ob Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2010: 153) nenna-la-t ser-b-at mat, t a b l a-n n e nn a sisters-PL-PX.3SG enter-PSTN-3PL home 3pl-gen sister targu-s mat-qut be absent-PST home-LOC 'Their sister was not at home'
Though the possessor controls the possession, the possessor can be coded implicitly with the mandatory possessive affixation on the head-noun. Omission of the possessor in NP is possible because Selkup is considered as a pro-drop or partially pro-drop language. The ellipsis of the possessor is appropriate in the language system which employs a full range of affixes for coding the number and person of the possessor. The possessive suffix on the head agrees with the implied possessor. The implicit possessor is easily recoverable from the context and semantically NPs with implicit possessor predominantly code inalienable possession (body parts and kinship).
(9) Vasjugan Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2013: 156) undo-d qand-ed'i-mb-a ulyo-nd beard-PX.3SG freeze-iNTNS-PSTN-3SG.sub ice-ILL '(His) beard frozen to the ice'
The salience of the Selkup language is that the object in the canonical SOV pattern can be expressed by a zero-marked noun for accusative ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1980: 172). The accusative marker in the case paradigm of nouns is -m. When a possessee in an NP is the object of a sentence, it is morphologically difficult to distinguish whether it is marked by an accusative declensional suffix or by the possessive suffix of the 1st person. The feature is illustrated by the examples (10)-(11):
(10) Vasjugan Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2012: 91) tab man w a n d o -m ped'-e padas-s-yt 3SG 1SG face-POSS.1SG/acc axe-INSTR chop-PST-3SG.ob 'She chopped my face with an axe'
(11) Vasjugan Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2013: 166) tat mat tar-m taq puz-ed 2SG 1SG fleece-POSS.1SG/ACC away chop-IMP.2SG.ob 'You cut my fleece off'
The following examples (12)-(14) illustrate the cases in which the pronominal possessors are marked for the locative. The locative marker--nan is used for coding possession in a pronominal construction, the marking of the possessee with a possessive affix is obligatory. The locus of marking of the possession is on both the head and the dependent.
(12) Narym Selkup (2-[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2015: 117). man-nan adza-m ku-m-ba 1SG-LOC father-PX.1SG die-PSTN-3SG.sb 'My father died'
(13) Middle-Ob Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2010: 141) tab-nan nagur n e-t 3SG-LOC three daughter-PX.3SG 'He has got three daughters'
(14) Middle-Ob Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2010: 152) tab-nan ara-t e-z-a pege 3SG-LOC husband-PX.3SG be-PSTN-3SG hazel-grouse 'Her husband was a hazel-grouse'
There is an example (15) from Vasjugan Selkup in which the pronominal possessor in the form of the 3rd person is marked for both cases: the genitive and the locative, while the possessed noun is also marked by a possessive affix.
(15) Vasjugan Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2012: 91) taby-n-nan qobo-dy tu caby-mb-a 3SG-GEN-LOC skin-PX.3SG fire burn-DUR-3SG.sub 'Her skin burns in fire'
In the latest examples (13)-(15) the locus of marking of the possession is on both the head and the dependent. It is represented schematically by Models (5)-(6):
Model (5). Double Marking in NP
[sup.1st,2nd or 3rd Pr.] dependent-[NP.sub.sessor] (locative) - [sup.N]head-[NP.sub.possessed] (possessive suffixes)
Model (6). Double Marking in NP in Vasjugan Dialect
[sup.3rd Pr.]dependent-[NP.sub.possessor] (genitive + locative) - [sup.N]head-[NP.sub.possessed] (possessive suffixes)
Another means of coding the pronominal possessor in Southern Selkup is the reflexive pronoun with the stem on-, the possessed also takes an overt morphological possessive marking (see example (16)). There is an opinion, though challenged (Budzisch 2015: 47), that some Selkup pronominal roots originate from the same stem on-. In actual speech these pronouns can be used to convey various meanings (similar to, e.g., Russian cam, cama 'by oneself', [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'one's own', [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'self', [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'to oneself'), each is coded on the morphological and syntactical levels ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1995: 87).
(16) Middle-Ob Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2010: 150) pege onz kobo-m-d te naggy-mb-at, hazel-grouse REFL skin-ACC-PX.3SG away put off-PSTN-3SG.ob azy-mb-a qu-t taredyk become-PSTN-3SG.sub man-GEN like 'A grouse put off his skin, turned into a man'
In Middle-Ob Selkup there is a set of the 1st and 2nd pronouns showing the explicit possessive-like properties: mannani 'my', minnani 'our', tannani 'your', tinnani 'your'. They are formed with the suffix -nani and bound to the possessee marked by a possessive suffix (example (17)). These pronouns are likely to have developed under the influence of Russian since they function as possessive pronouns even independently, which is exemplified in (18).
(17) Middle-Ob Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2010: 142) tinnani ne-m-d kyg-a i-gy 2PL daughter-ACC-PX.2SG want-3SG.sub take-INF '(He) wants to take your daughter '
(18) Middle-Ob Selkup ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2013: 158) aza ud-enz-al, tannani e-nz-a NEG let go-FUT-2SG.ob 2SG to be-FUT-3SG.sub 'Don't let (him) go, he will be yours'
The typological analysis of the adnominal constructions in Southern Selkup enables the following conclusions:
1. The adnominal possessive constructions can be differentiated into pronominal and nominal ones. The possessor of the pronominal possessive construction is frequently coded implicitly, the possessed is obligatorily marked. As a rule, NP with the implicit possessor code inalienable possession.
2. In a pronominal possessive construction the locus of marking the possession depends on the possessor. Two scenarios are possible: the possessor is coded by the 1st or 2nd person pronouns, possessive relations are marked on the head with possessive suffixes; the possessor is coded by the 3rd person pronoun, the locus of marking is on the dependent. It is marked by the genitive marker.
3. The possessive relations in pronominal constructions may be coded by the locative on the dependent in combination with the possessive suffix on the head. The genitive and locative are parallelly used to code the 3rd person possessor in Vasjugan Selkup. One more way to code the possessor in the pronominal possessive constructions is by means of reflexive pronouns with the stem on- and personal pronouns with possessive-like properties in Middle-Ob Selkup. The possessed nouns take an overt possessive marking.
4. The most typical nominal possessive constructions are the ones where the possessor is encoded for the genitive and the possessed noun is either marked by a possessive affix or zero-marked (unmarked). With inalienable possession the possessed is, as a rule, marked to convey information about the possessor.
5. In the Southern Selkup dialects all four types of the locus of marking in PNPs are possible: head-marking, dependent-marking, double marking and zero-marking.
Foreign Languages Department
Institute of Power Engineering
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
Telephone: (3822) 701-777 (ext. 3413)
Foreign Languages Department
National Research Tomsk State University
Institute of Power Engineering
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
Institute of Power Engineering
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
1--first person, 2--second person, 3--third person, ACC--accusative, CM--construction markers, COM--comitative, DIM--diminutive, DU--dual, DUR--durative, EP--epenthetic vowel, FUT--future, GEN--genitive, ILL--illative, INTNS--intensive-perfective, INCH--inchoative, LAT--lative, LOC--locative, NEG--negative, N--noun, NP--noun phrase, ob.--objective conjunction, OPT--optative, PART--particle, Pr--personal pronoun, PL--plural; PST--past, PSTN--resultative and narrative past, PX--possessive suffix, PRS--present, SG--singular, sub.--subjective conjunction.
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
Broschart, J. 2001, Possession (Linguistic).--International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, [Oxford], 11831-11834.
Budzisch, J. 2015, Possessive Constructions in Southern Selkup Dialects.--Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology 4 (10), 45-50.
Filchenko, A. 2014, Possession in Eastern Khanty.--Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology 1(3), 83-95.
Heine, B. 1997, Possession. Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization, Cambridge.
Honti, L. 2008, 'Habere' in Uralic.--LU XLIV, 161-177.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 2001, Adnominal Possession.--Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2, Berlin, 960-970.
--2002, Adnominal Possession in the European Languages: Form and Function.
--Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 55 2, 141-172.
--2003, Possessive Noun Phrases in the Languages of Europe.--Noun Phrase
Structure in the Languages of Europe, Berlin--New York, 621-722.
Nichols, J., Bickel, B. 2013, Locus of Marking in Possessive Noun Phrases. --M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig. http://wals.info/chapter/24.
Payne, D., Barshi, L. 1999, External Possession: What, Where, How, and Why.--External Possession, Amsterdam, 3-29.
Potanina, O., Filchenko, ?. 2015, A Theory and Typology of Possession in Ob-Yenissei Languages.--Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences 206, 76-84.
Stassen, L. 2013, Predicative Possession.--M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig. http://wals.info/ chapter/117.
Table 1 Case paradigm of the Middle-Ob Selkup pronouns in the singular Case 1sg 2sg 3sg NOM mat tat tab GEN mat tat tabyt(~n) ACC masep(~m) tastyp(~m) tabyp(~m) LAT ???? t'eKa tabyn LOC mannan tannan tabnan ABL mannando tannando tabnandykti COM masse tasse tabse ABES matkalyk tatkalyk tabytkalyk Table 2 Case paradigm of the Middle-Ob Selkup pronouns in the plural Case 1PL 2PL 3PL NOM mi ti tabla GEN mi t'i tablan ACC migyt t'igynt tablap LAT miqynut t'iqyndyt tabland LOC minan t'inan tablanan ABL minando t'inando tablanando COM mize t'ize tablaze ABES mikalk t'ikalk tablakalk
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Vorobeva, Victoria; Novitskaya, Irina; Girfanova, Ksenia; Vesnin, Vitaliy|
|Date:||Mar 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||Grammaticalization of new cases in Beserman Udmurt.|
|Next Article:||In memoriam Ojars Buss 28.04.1944-03.01.2017.|