Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Uralic Linguistics
Vol. 2:2 (2023) ► pp.158–193

On the syntax of postpositional phrases in Mari

Choosing between two structures

ORCID logo | Eötvös Loránd University | HUN-REN Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics
The paper discusses the syntax of postpositional constructions in Meadow Mari (Uralic, Morkinsko-Sernur dialect; head-final, SOV). Building upon existing approaches to postpositions in the world’s languages, I propose that PPs in Mari may have one of two underlying structures depending on the nature of the dependent but not on the nature of the adposition. PPs with a pronominal dependent involve possession between the Ground and a location nominal. In PPs with a non-pronominal dependent the Ground is merged directly into the complement position of a P head. I further expand the dataset and show that the two configurations successfully capture the distribution of reflexive pronouns in PPs. The proposed analysis accounts for all the relevant data: examples with independent and affixal postpositions and referential and pronominal dependents.
Keywords: postposition, spatial case, locative, dative, possession, agreement, Mari, Uralic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Overview
    • 1.2Data and methodology
    • 1.3The structure of the paper
  • 2.Postpositional constructions in Mari
    • 2.1Basics of Mari morphosyntax
    • 2.2Independent and affixal postpositions in Mari
    • 2.3The morphosyntax of PPs with various types of dependents
      • 2.3.1Postpositions with personal pronouns
      • 2.3.2Postpositions with non-possessed referential expressions
      • 2.3.3Postpositions with possessed referential expressions
      • 2.3.4Interim summary
  • 3.PPs as possessive constructions
    • 3.1Components of the PP structure
    • 3.2PPs with personal pronouns as possessive constructions
      • 3.2.1Possession in Mari
      • 3.2.2The Ground-location possessive relation in PPs with an independent adposition
      • 3.2.3The Ground-location possessive relation in dative PPs
  • 4.PPs with P0 taking Ground as a complement
    • 4.1PPs with a referential dependent: No location
    • 4.2PPs with a possessed nominal
  • 5.On the optionality of POSS
  • 6.Expanding the dataset: PPs with reflexives
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 16 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00021.bur
References (87)
References
Ahn, Byron & Laura Kalin. 2018. What’s in a (English) reflexive? In NELS 48: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society 11. 1–13.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2003. Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 561. 167–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkhangelskiy, Timofey. 2019. Corpora of social media in minority Uralic languages. Proceedings of the fifth Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Uralic Languages, 125–140. Tartu, Estonia, January 7 – January 8, 2019. Meadow Mari corpus, online: [URL] (accessed on January 12, 2023) DOI logo
Arkhangelskiy, Timofey & Maria Usacheva. 2015. Syntactic and morphosyntactic properties of postpositional phrases in Beserman Udmurt as part-of-speech criteria. SKY Journal of Linguistics 281. 103–137.Google Scholar
. 2022. Grammaticalization of relational nouns in Permic languages. Talk presented at Congressus XIII Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Vienna, Austria, August 21–27, 2022.
Asbury, Anna. 2008. The morphosyntax of Case and adpositions. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Asbury, Anna, Berit Gehrke & Veronika Hegedűs. 2007. One size fits all: Prefixes, particles, adpositions and cases as members of the category P. In Cem Keskin (ed.), Uil OTS yearbook 2006, 1–17. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Asbury, Anna, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen. 2008. Syntax and semantics of spatial P. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartos, Huba. 1999. Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció: A magyar inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere [Morphosyntax and interpretation: The syntactic background of Hungarian inflectional phenomena]. Ph.D. dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
. 2000. Az inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere [The syntactic background of inflectional phenomena]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan III. Morfológia, 653–761. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg & Johan Roxendal. 2012. Korp – the corpus infrastructure of Språkbanken. Online: [URL] (accessed on January 11, 2023)
Borise, Lena & Katalin É. Kiss. 2022. The emergence of conjunctions and phrasal coordination in Khanty. Journal of Historical Linguistics, online first. 1–47.Google Scholar
Botwinik-Rotem, Irena. 2008. Why are they different? An exploration of Hebrew locative PPs. In Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 331–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Jeremy & Johannes Hirvonen. 2022. Null subjects in Mari. In Gréte Dalmi, Egor Tsedryk & Piotr Cegłowski (eds.), Null subjects in Slavic and Finno-Ugric: Licensing, structure and typology, 281–306. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Jeremy, Alexandra Kellner & Niko Partanen. 2018. Variation in word order in Permic and Mari varieties: A corpus-based investigation. In A. M. Ivanova & E. V. Fomin (eds.), Jazykovyje kontakty narodov povolžja [Language contacts of the peoples of the Volga region], 238–244. Cheboksary, Russia: I. N. Ulianov Chuvash State University.Google Scholar
Burukina, Irina. 2021. Profile of reflexives in Hill Mari. Folia Linguistica 551. 127–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. On dative subjects and agreement with infinitives licensed by an external P head. In Pratley Breanna (ed.), NELS 52: Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 105–118. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2023. Deriving rationale clauses: Dative infinitives, embedded imperatives, and modality. Talk presented at the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium (Olinco), Olomouc, Czech Republic. 8–10 June 2023.
. To appear. Lexical reflexives and intensifiers. In Egor Kashkin (ed.), Grammatika gornomarijskogo jazyka [Descriptive grammar of Hill Mari].
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. Mapping spatial PPs: an introduction. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures 61, 3–25. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi (eds). 2010. Mapping spatial PPs. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2007. Home sweet home. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 1–34.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 331. 409–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dékány, Éva. 2011. A profile of the Hungarian DP. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
. 2018. The position of case markers relative to possessive agreement: Variation within Hungarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 361. 365–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dékány, Éva & Veronika Hegedűs. 2015. Word order variation in Hungarian PPs. In Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi & Éva Dékány (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba conference, 95–120. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 1997. Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den. 2010. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures 61, 74–126. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Case, P and Number in Mari possessive noun phrases. Ms. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig. 2021. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 24th edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1999. Mi tartozik a névutók osztályába? [What belongs to the category of postpositions?]. Magyar nyelvjárások 371. 167–172.Google Scholar
. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin & Veronika Hegedűs (eds.). 2021. Syntax of Hungarian: Postpositions and postpositional phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin & Nikolett Mus. 2022. The reflexive cycle: From reflexive to personal pronoun in Uralic. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 11. 43–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 321. 555–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 251. 691–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The interpretation of pro in consistent and partial null-subject languages: A comparative interface analysis. In Federica Cognola & Jan Casalicchio (eds.), Null subjects in generative grammar: A synchronic and diachronic perspective, 211–239. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Galkin, I. S. 1985. Istoričeskaja grammatika marijskogo jazyka. Morfologija [Historical grammar of Mari: Morphology]. Yoshkar-Ola: Marijskoje Knižnoe Izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Grünthal, Riho. 2019. Canonical and non-canonical patterns in the adpositional phrase of Western Uralic: constraints of borrowing. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 971. 11–36.Google Scholar
Guseva, Elina & Philipp Weisser. 2018. Postsyntactic reordering in the Mari nominal domain. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 361. 1089–1127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, James & Morris Halle. 2005. Unexpected plural inflections in Spanish: Reduplication and metathesis. Linguistic Inquiry 361. 196–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M. 2016. The syntax and Focus structure of specificational copular clauses and clefts. University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Hegedűs, Veronika. 2006. Hungarian spatial PPs. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 331. 220–233.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2012. A note on grand and its silent entourage. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 331. 71–85.Google Scholar
Kettunen, Lauri & Lauri Posti. 1932. Näytteitä vatjan kielestä [Samples of the Votic language]. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 1998. A grammar of Kambera. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2010. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures 6 1, 26–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2000a. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000b. The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 171. 39–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1984. Case marking, agreement and empty categories in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Lohninger, Magdalena. 2022. On the distribution of composite probes and A-feature percolation into CP. Talk presented at the 24th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, August 12–14.
Lohninger, Magdalena, Iva Kovač & Susi Wurmbrand. 2022. From prolepsis to hyper-raising. Philosophies 71. 32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luutonen, Jorma. 1997. The variation of morpheme order in Mari declension (Memoires de la Societé Finno-Ougrienne 226). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Lyskawa, Paulina & Rodrigo Ranero. 2021. Optional agreement as successful/failed AGREE: Evidence from Santiago Tz’utujil (Mayan). Linguistic Variation 221. 209–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyutikova, Ekaterina & Asya Pereltsvaig. 2015. The Tatar DP. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 601. 289–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majtinskaja, Klara E. 1964. Mestoimenija v mordovskix i marijskix jazykax [Pronouns in the Mordvin and Mari languages]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1982. Služebnyje slova v finno-ugorskix yazykax [Functional words in Finno-Ugric languages]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Marácz, László. 1986. Dressed or naked: The case of the PP in Hungarian. In Abraham Werner & Sjaak de Meij (eds), Topic, Focus and configurationality, 223–252. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In German Westphal, Benjamin Ao & Hee-Rahk Chae (eds.), Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 234–253. Baltimore: University of Maryland, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Moseley, Christopher (ed.). 2010. Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. 3rd edition. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
Noonan, Máire. 2010. À to zu. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures 6 1, 161–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Öztürk, Balkiz & Eser Erguvanlı Taylan. 2016. Possessive constructions in Turkish. Lingua 1821. 88–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. 2011. Decomposing Path. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Perelstvaig, Asya. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 241. 433–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pleshak, Polina. 2019. Morfosintaksis imennoj gruppy v finno-ugorskix jazykax Povolžja [Morphosyntax of noun phrase in Finno-Ugric languages of the Volga Region]. Master thesis, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
. 2020. Oblique phrases as contexts for small nominals: Evidence from Moksha. Talk presented at ECO-5, Harvard University, April 16.
. 2022. Severing Case from agreement: Non-finite subjects in Hill Mari. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 281. Article 18.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called “pronouns” in English. In David Reibel & Sanford Schane (eds.), Modern studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar, 201–224. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall [1966].Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk C. & Riny Huybregts. 2002. Location and locality. In Marc van Oostendorp & Elena Anagnostopoulou (eds.), Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg, 1–23. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Riese, Timothy, Jeremy Bradley & Tatiana Yefremova. 2022. Mari: An essential grammar for international learners. [Draft version] Vienna: University of Vienna. Published online at [URL]
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1995. On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 131. 405–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadakane, Kumi & Masatoshi Koizumi. 1995. On the nature of the “dative” particle ni in Japanese. Linguistics 331. 5–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serebrennikov, B. A. 1967. Istoričeskaja morfologija mordovskix jazykov [Historical morphology of Mordvinic languages]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Simonenko, Аleksandra P. & Аleksandr P. Leontjev. 2012. Morfosintaksis imennogo kompleksa [Morphosyntax of the noun complex]. In Ariadna I. Kuznecova (ed.), Finno-ugorskije jazyki: fragmenty grammatičeskogo opisanija. Formalnyj i funkcionalnyj podxody [Finno-Ugric languages: Fragments of grammatical description: formal and functional approaches], 259–337. Moskva: Russkije slovari.Google Scholar
Surányi, Balázs. 2009. Adpositional preverbs, chain reduction and phases. In Marcel den Dikken & Robert M. Vago (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 11: Papers from the 2007 New York Conference, 217–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2010. Spatial P in English. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures 6 1, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terzi, Arhonto. 2005. Locative prepositions as possessums. In Marina Mattheoudakis & Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey (eds.), Selected papers from the 16th International Symposium on theoretical and applied linguistics, 133–144. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Toldova, Svetlana Yu, Maria A. Kholodilova, Sergey G. Tatevosov, Egor V. Kashkin, Alexey A. Kozlov, Lev S. Kozlov, Anton V. Kuhto, Maria Yu. Privizentseva, Ivan A. Stenin (eds.). 2018. Elementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha languages from a typological perspective]. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Tóth, Ildikó. 2000. Inflected infinitives in Hungarian. Tilburg: Tilburg University dissertation.
Tsedryk, Egor. 2015. Deriving null pronouns: A unified analysis of subject drop in Russian. In Małgorzata Szajbel-Keck, Roslyn Burns & Darya Kavitskaya (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 23: The first Berkeley meeting, 342–361. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. 1992. The definite determiner in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 231. 595–652.Google Scholar
Volkova, Anna. 2014. Licensing reflexivity: Unity and variation among selected Uralic languages. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi. 2011. A survey of the origins of directional case suffixes in European Uralic. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 235–280. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost & Yoad Winter. 2000. Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 91. 169–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar