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
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