Article published in:
Diachronica
Vol. 33:3 (2016) ► pp. 330–366

The ongoing eclipse of possessive suffixes in North Saami

A case study in reduction of morphological complexity

North Saami is replacing the use of possessive suffixes on nouns with a morphologically simpler analytic construction. Our data (>2K examples culled from >.5M words) track this change through three generations, covering parameters of semantics, syntax and geography. Intense contact pressure on this minority language probably promotes morphological simplification, yielding an advantage for the innovative construction. The innovative construction is additionally advantaged because it has a wider syntactic and semantic range and is indispensable, whereas its competitor can always be replaced. The one environment where the possessive suffix is most strongly retained even in the youngest generation is in the Nominative singular case, and here we find evidence that the possessive suffix is being reinterpreted as a Vocative case marker.
Keywords: possessive suffix, North Saami, vocative, morphological simplification, minority language, language contact
Published online: 15 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.33.3.02jan
References
Abuladze, Lia & Andreas Ludden
2013 The vocative in Georgian. In Barbara Sonnenhauser & Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna (eds.), Vocative! Addressing between system and performance (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 261), 25–42. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aikio, Ante, Laura Arola & Niina Kunnas
2015 Variation in North Saami. In Dick Smakman & Patrick Heinrich (eds.), Globalising sociolinguistics: Challenging and expanding theory, 243–255. Oxford: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning
2012 The new Russian vocative: Synchrony, diachrony, typology. Scando-Slavica 511. 122–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antonsen, Lene, Laura A. Janda & Berit Anne Bals Baal
2012 Njealji davvisámi adposišuvnna geavahus. The use of four North Saami adpositions. Sámi dieđalaš áigečála 2012(2). 7–38. Online at: http://​site​.uit​.no​/aigecala​/sda​-2​-2012​-antonsen​-ja​-janda​-ja​-baal/Google Scholar
Antonsen, Lene & Laura A. Janda
2015 Oamastanráhkadusat davvisámi girjjálašvuođas. The use of possessive constructions in North Saami prose. Dieđut 2015(2), 9–43.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald R., Anna Endresen, Laura A. Janda, Anastasia Makarova & Tore Nesset
2013 Space and time in Russian temporal expressions, a special issue of Russian Linguistics (37)3. 253–291. Crossref.Google Scholar
Bentz, Christian & Bodo Winter
2013 Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change 31. 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y
2012 On paradigm uniformity and contrast in Russian vowel reduction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(2). 425–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blythe, Richard A. & William Croft
2012 S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language 881. 269–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collinder, Björn
1960 Comparative grammar of the Uralic languages. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells.Google Scholar
1965 An introduction to the Uralic languages. Berkeley: University of California Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2004 The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Michael & Andrew Spencer
2009 The vocative – an outlier case. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 626–634. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Endresen, Anna, Laura A. Janda, Robert Reynolds & Francis M. Tyers
2016 Who needs particles? A challenge to the classification of particles as a part of speech in Russian. Russian Linguistics. 1–30. DOI Crossref.Google Scholar
Fink, Robert O
1972 Person in nouns: Is the vocative a case? The American Journal of Philology 93(1). 61–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Robert D
1996 The Balkan Slavic appellative. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Grömping, Ulrike
2009 Variable importance assessment in regression: Linear regression versus random forest. The American Statistician 63(4). 308–391. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997 Possession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia
2014 Vocatives: How syntax meets with pragmatics (Empirical Approaches to Linguistics Theory 5). Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoek, Karen van
1995 Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language 711. 310–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Isačenko, Alexander
1962 Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart: Formenlehre. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman O
1971 Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. Roman Jakobson, selected writings. Vol. II1, 3–15. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A
1996 Back from the brink: A study of how relic forms in languages serve as source material for analogical extension (LINCOM Studies in Slavic Linguistics 01). Munich: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Lene Antonsen & Berit Anne Bals Baal
2014 A Radial Category Profiling Analysis of North Sámi Ambipositions. In Benjamin Anible, Keiko Beers, Laura Hirrel & Deborah Wager (eds.), High Desert Linguistics Society Proceedings, 101. Online at: http://​linggraduate​.unm​.edu​/HDLS10Proceedings​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Julien, Marit
2014 Vokativar i norsk. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 321. 130–165.Google Scholar
Kaškin, E.V
2008 Posessivnoe sklonenie v muževskom govore užemskogo dialekta komi-zyrjanskogo jazyka. Naučnyj vestnik Jamalo-Neneckogo avtonomnogo okruga, vyp. 6 (58). 33–46. Salexard: Krasnyj Sever.Google Scholar
Keskitalo, Pigga, Kaarina Määttä & Satu Uusiautti
2013 Sámi education. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam
2005 Language is never, ever, ever, random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1/21. 263–276.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Valentin
1967 Russische historische Grammatik, vol. 2. Die Entwicklung des Formensystems. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger
1990 How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Linguistics 261. 79–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John H
2007 Language interrupted: Signs of non-native acquisition in standard language grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Linguistic simplicity and complexity: Why do languages undress? Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michael, Lev
2013 Possession in Nanti. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Possession and ownership, 149–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter
1977 Pidginisation and simplification of language. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore & Laura A. Janda
2010 Paradigm structure: Evidence from Russian suffix shift. Cognitive Linguistics 211. 699–725. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nickel, Klaus Peter & Pekka Sammallahti
2011 Nordsamisk grammatikk. Karasjok: Davvi Girji.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Konrad
1979 [1926–1929] Lærebok i lappisk (samisk). Bind I: Grammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina
2003 Possessive affixes as markers of information structuring: Evidence from Uralic. In Pirkko Suihkonen & Bernard Comrie (eds.), International symposium on deictic systems and quantification in languages spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia, 130–145. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology and Udmurt State University.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria
2006 Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 141. 191–262.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team
(2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, Online at: http://​www​.R​-project​.org.Google Scholar
Sammallahti, Pekka
1998 The Saami languages: An introduction. Karasjok, Norway: Davvi Girji.Google Scholar
Sonnenhauser, Barbara & Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna
2013 Introduction: Vocative! In Barbara Sonnenhauser & Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna (eds.), Vocative! Addressing between system and performance (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 261), 1–23. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, Leon
2013 Predicative possession. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Online at: http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/117, Accessed on 2016-06-15.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, James Malley, & Gerhard Tutz
2009 An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods 141. 323–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
2002 Sociolinguistic variation and change. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
2011 Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1980 Lingua mentalis: The semantics of natural language. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi
2009 Non-finites in North Saami. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne.Google Scholar
2014 Davvisámegiela -ráigge – substantiiva, advearba, postposišuvdna vai kásus?. North Saami -ráigge-noun, adv, adverb, postposition or case?. Sámi dieđalaš áigeála 2014 (2).Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M
1985 Clitics and particles. Language 61(2). 283–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Devylder, Simon
2018. Diagrammatic iconicity explains asymmetries in Paamese possessive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 29:2 ► pp. 313 ff. Crossref logo
Janda, A. Laura & M. Francis Tyers
2021. Less is more: why all paradigms are defective, and why that is a good thing . Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17:1 ► pp. 109 ff. Crossref logo
Janda, Laura A.
2019.  In Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 345], ► pp. 381 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.