Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Uralic Linguistics
Vol. 2:2 (2023) ► pp.242–283

Pseudopartitive constructions are not a subtype of nominal juxtaposition in Beserman

ORCID logo | Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences | Pushkin State Russian Language Institute
| Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences

Juxtaposition as a machinery of building noun phrases is well-known to be widespread in Uralic languages: the modifier is left-adjoined to the head and does not bear any morphological marker of syntactic dependency. This strategy is used to attach adjectives, cardinals and modifying nominals to nouns (like in Beserman ǯ́aǯ́eg siĺ ‘goose meat’), and to build constructions with measure nouns (like Beserman odig kə̑də̑ gibi ‘one basket of mushrooms’, lit. one basket mushroom). However, there remains a question whether all these constructions share the same syntactic structure. We consider pseudopartitive constructions with measure nouns in comparison with NPs containing non-marked modifying nominals and NPs with adjectives, showing that they do not share the same syntactic structure. Constructions with unmarked modifying nominals show properties of compounding, while pseudopartitives arguably have a measure phrase (a cardinal with a measure noun) and a noun phrase (the quantified nominal), which is the head of the pseudopartitive construction. The syntactic properties we analyze include constituent properties, branching, pronominalization, fragment questions, linear ordering restrictions, particular properties of head ellipsis, and information structure effects.

Keywords: Permic, Uralic, syntax, pseudopartitive, partitivity, juxtaposition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Juxtaposition and pseudopartitive constructions in Beserman
    • 1.2True partitives and pseudopartitives in Beserman
    • 1.3Terms, methodology and material
  • 2.True partitives, pseudopartitives and possessives in Beserman
    • 2.1Definitions of partitives and pseudopartitives
    • 2.2Beserman constructions encoding the partitive relation
    • 2.3The possessive marker in Beserman and its function in partitive constructions
  • 3.Comparing PPCs and juxtaposition in Beserman
    • 3.1Methodology and material
    • 3.2Identifying the NG in PPCs and their head
    • 3.3The internal structure of the PPC
    • 3.4Interim summary and discussion
  • 4.Semantic properties and information structure
    • 4.1Information structure
    • 4.2On the semantics of PPCs
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations (except for those included in Leipzig Glossing Rules)
  • References
Published online: 16 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00018.ser
References (49)
Abbott, Barbara
1996 Doing without a partitive constraint. In Jacob Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives: Studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions, 25–56. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou
2007 Semi functional categories: the N-of-N construction and the pseudo-partitive construction. In Artemis Alexiadou, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou (eds.), Noun phrase in the generative perspective, 395–472. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkhangelskiy, Timofey & Maria Usacheva
2018 Case compounding in Beserman Udmurt. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 91. 111–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkhangelskiy, Timofey
2018 Konstrukcija s sopolezhenijem v besermjanskom [A juxtaposition construction in Beserman]. Talk given at Pervaja konferencija po uraljskim, altajskim i paleoaziatskim jazykam pamjati A.P. Volodina [The first conference on Uralic, Altaic and Paleo-Siberian languages in memory of A.P. Volodin]. Saint-Petersburg: Institute of Linguistic Studies.Google Scholar
Arkhangelskiy, Timofey & Maria Usacheva
n.d. Beserman multimedia corpus. Available at [URL] (accessed 02.2022 – 04.2023)
Arkhangelskiy, Timofey, Olga Biryuk, Natalia Serdobolskaya & Maria Usacheva
n.d. Beserman corpus of oral texts. Available at [URL] (accessed 02.2022 – 04.2023)
Bisetto, Antonietta & Sergio Scalise
2005 The classification of compounds. Lingue e linguaggio 41. 319–332.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian
2007 Measure noun polysemy and monotonicity: evidence from Romanian pseudopartitives. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 381. 139–150.Google Scholar
Byzova, Anna A.
2023 Konstrukcii s imennym sopolozheniem v finno-ugorskih jazykah [Nominal juxtaposition constructions in Finno-Ugric languages]. A course paper. Lomonosov Moscow State University. Ms.Google Scholar
Cavirani-Pots, Cora
2020 Roots in progress: Semi-lexicality in the Dutch and Afrikaans verbal domain. PhD dissertation, LOT Dissertation series.
Dékány, Éva K.
2011 A profile of the Hungarian DP: The interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence. PhD dissertation. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.
De Hoop, Helen
1997 A semantic reanalysis of the partitive constraint. Lingua 1031. 151–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Partitivity. In Lisa Lai Shen Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds.), The second Glot international state-of-the-article book, 179–212. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fejes, László
2005 Összetett szavak finnugor nyelvekben [Compound words in the Finno-Ugric languages], PhD dissertation, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Budapest.
Hoeksema, Jacob
1996 Introduction. In Jacob Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives: Studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions, 1–24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ihsane, Tabea & Elisabeth Stark
2020 Introduction: Shades of partitivity: Formal and areal properties. Linguistics 581. 605–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klumpp, Gerson
2008 Differentielle Objektmarkierung & Informationsstruktur in Dialekten des Komi. Ms, Munich.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
2001 “A piece of the cake” and “a cup of tea”: Partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages: Volume 2: Grammar and Typology, 523–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 A lot of grammar with a good portion of lexicon: Towards a typology of partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions. In Walter Bisang, Hans H. Hock & Werner Winter (eds.), Form and function in language research, 329–347. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koryakov, Yuri B., Tatiana I. Davidyuk, Anastasia P. Evstigneeva & Arzhaana A. Syuryun
2022 Spisok jazykov Rossii [List of languages of Russia]. Available at [URL]
Kubinyi, Katalin & Anne Tamm
2022 Partitivity in Uralic languages without a designated partitive marker. Talk given at the CIFU III, August 21–27, Vienna.
Kuznetsova, Ariadna I.
2003 Kumulacia grammaticheskix znachenij v agglutinativnyx pokazatelax: Deikticheskie funkcii posessiva v uralskix jazykax [Several grammatical meanings in agglutinative markers: Deictic functions of possessive markers in Uralic]. In Ariadna I. Kuznetsova & Natalia V. Serdobol’skaya & Svetlana YU. Toldova & Sergey S. Saj & Elena YU. Kalinina (eds.), Finno-ugorskije jazyki: fragmenty grammaticheskogo opisanija. Formalnyj i funkcionalnyj podkhody [Finno-Ugric languages: Fragments of grammatical description. Formal and functional approaches], 250–262. Moscow: Russkije slovari.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Tuomas Huumo
2014 Partitive cases and related categories ( EALT 54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina A.
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. Collection of papers, 130–145. Izhevsk & Leipzig: Udmurt State University & Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya
2006 Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 241. 433–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pleshak, Polina
2021 The exponence of caseless NPs in Moksha. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 61. 628–640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pleshak, Polina & Maria A. Kholodilova
2018 Imennaja gruppa [The Noun Phrase.] In Svetlana J. Toldova & Maria A. Kholodilova (eds.), Elementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 272–310. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria
2018 Freezing and phi-feature agreement: On the role of [PERSON]. In Jutta M. Hartmann, Marion Jäger, Andreas Kehl, Andreas Konietzko & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Freezing: Theoretical approaches and empirical domains [Studies in Generative Grammar 130], 284–316. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Privizentseva, Mariia
2020 Nominal ellipsis reveals concord in Moksha Mordvin. Paper presented at the 38th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Schlachter, Wolfgang
1960 Studien zum Possessivsuffix des Syrjänischen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger
2002 The grammar of measurement. In Brendan Jackson (ed.), Proceedings of SALT XII1, 225–245, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth
1977 Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Akmajian Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax: Papers from the MSSB-UC Irvine conference on the formal syntax of natural language, 285–316. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Serdobolskaya, Natalia V.
2017 Invariant opredelennosti i differencirovannoe markirovanie pryamogo dopolneniya v besermyanskom udmurtskom [The concept of definiteness and differential object marking in Beserman Udmurt]. In Vladimir A. Plungyan, Roman V. Ron’ko, Anton V. Cimmerling (eds.), Issledovaniya po teorii grammatiki [Studies in the theory of grammar]. Vyp. 81: Differencirovannoe markirovanie argumentov: materialy k tipologii [Differential object marking: materials to the typology], 76–122. Saint Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Serdobolskaya, Natalia, Maria Usacheva & Timofey Arkhangelskiy
2019 Grammaticalization of possessive markers in the Beserman dialect of Udmurt. In Lars Johanson, Irina Nevskaya & Lidia F. Mazzitelli (eds.) Linguistic possession: New insights from the languages of Europe and North and Central Asia (Studies in Language Companion Series), 291–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serdobolskaya, Natalia
2020 A corpus analysis of differential object marking in Beserman Udmurt. In Linguistica Uralica 561. 275–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serdobolskaya, Natalia, Maria Usacheva, Timofey Arkhangelskiy, Ruslan Idrisov & Vladimir Ivanov
n.d. Besermjanskij Slovar’ [The Beserman dictionary]. Available at [URL]
Seržant, Ilja A.
2012 The pragmatics and semantics of the bare partitive genitive in Ancient Greek. STUF 651. 113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 Typology of partitives. Linguistics 591. 881–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simonenko, Alexandra
2014 Microvariation in Finno-Ugric possessive markers. In Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 431. 127–140.Google Scholar
Simonenko, Alexandra P. & Alexey P. Leontiev
2012 Morfosintaksis imennogo kompleksa v finno-permskih yazykah: analiz v ramkah gipotezy minimalizma [Morphosyntax of the nominal complex in Finno-Permic languages: A minimalist analysis]. In Ariadna I. Kuznetsova & Natalia V. Serdobol’skaya & Svetlana YU. Toldova & Sergey S. Saj & Elena YU. Kalinina (eds.), Finno-ugorskije jazyki: Fragmenty grammaticheskogo opisanija. Formalnyj i funkcionalnyj podxody [Finno-Ugric languages: Fragments of grammatical description. Formal and functional approaches], 262–340. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kultur.Google Scholar
Soloveva, Anita V.
2019 Sintaksis i semantika partitivnykh i psevdopartitivnykh kostrukcij v gornomarijskom yazyke [Partitive and pseudo-partitive constructions in Hill Mari: Syntax and semantics]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 151. 298–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stickney, Helen
2007 From pseudopartitive to partitive. In Alyona Belikova & Luisa Meroni & Mari Umeda (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), 406–415. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Tamm, Anne
2014 The partitive concept versus linguistic partitives: from abstract concepts to evidentiality in the Uralic languages. In Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.) Partitive cases and related categories, 89–153. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Usacheva, Maria, Maria Brykina, & Anna Leontyeva
2022 Adjective plural marker in Beserman: two markers, several constructions. Talk given at Syntax of Uralic Languages 4 (SOUL 4), Saint Petersburg/Budapest (online).
Usacheva, Maria
2016 Atributivy na -o v besermjanskom udmurtskom [Attributivizers with -o in Beserman Udmurt]. Talk given at 13th Conference on Typology and Grammar for Young Scholars, Saint Petersburg.
Yadroff, Michael
1999 Formal properties of functional categories: The minimalist syntax of Russian nominal and prepositional expressions. PhD dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.
Yaroslavtseva, Maria
2018 Typology of partitive constructions. Master’s thesis. The National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow.
Zubova, Julia
2019 Conjunctive and comitative noun phrase coordination in Beserman Udmurt. Linguistica Uralica 551. 285–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar