Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Uralic Linguistics
Vol. 3:1 (2024) ► pp.4–29

Existential, locative and possessive predication in Kamas

| Universität Hamburg, Germany
| Universität Hamburg, Germany
This paper describes and analyses existential, locative and possessive predications in Kamas. Starting from a functional-semantic perspective, we show that the three types of predications share many features, but they also exhibit some important differences. Given that two layers of Kamas can be distinguished, we demonstrate that the reactivated Kamas of the last speaker, Klavdiya Plotnikova, exhibits some peculiarities which can be explained partly by Russian influence. The most important result of the study is that the boundaries between the three predication types are rather fluid in Kamas, whereas the distinction between affirmative and negative clauses is morphosyntactically unambiguously manifested. This polarity split, given that it is seldom recognised in the general literature, may provide important implications for linguistic typology and theory.
Keywords: Kamas, Samoyedic, syntax, non-verbal predication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Preliminaries
    • 2.1Theoretical background
    • 2.2Language and data
  • 3.Existential, locative and possessive clauses in Kamas
    • 3.1Standard patterns
    • 3.2Full Kamas vs. Reactivated Kamas
    • 3.3Kamas within a broader context
    • 3.4Typological implications
  • 4.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 14 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00024.dab
References (50)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2020. Language contact and endangered languages. In Anthony P. Grant (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language contact, 241–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ajanki, Rigina, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik. 2022. Nominal predication. In Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 981–995. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 2007. The major functions of the noun phrase. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. 2nd edition. Volume 1: Clause structure, 132–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkhipov, Alexandre, Chris Lasse Däbritz & Valentin Gusev. 2020. User’s Guide to INEL Kamas Corpus. (Working Papers in Corpus Linguistics and Digital Technologies: Analyses and Methodology 3). Szeged & Hamburg: University of Szeged, Department of Finno-Ugric Studies & Universität Hamburg, Zentrum für Sprachkorpora. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Delia, Francesco Maria Ciconte & Silvio Cruschina. 2015. Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Grammatical relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Budzisch, Josefina. 2017. Locative, existential and possessive sentences in Selkup dialects. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 411. 45–61.Google Scholar
. 2021a. Definitheit im Selkupischen [Definiteness in Selkup] (Studia Uralo-Altaica 55). Szeged: University of Szeged, Department of Altaic Studies, Department of Finno-Ugrian Philology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021b. Marking strategies of attributive possession in Selkup: A study of frequency and types of possession. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 661. 51–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1994. Language death. In: R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 4, 1960–1968. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Castrén 1857 = Anton Schiefner (ed.) 1857. M. Alexander Castrén’s Versuch einer koibalischen und karagassischen Sprachlehre nebst Wörterverzeichnissen aus den tatarischen Mundarten des minussinschen Kreises [M. Alexander Castrén’s attempt at a Koibal and Karagas grammar, accompanied by word lists of Tatar varieties from the Minussink region]. Saint Peterburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve. 1978. Locationals: Existential, locative and possessive constructions. In Eve Clark & Joseph Greenberg (eds.), Universals of human language. Vol. 41. Syntax, 85–126. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2019. Inverse-locational predication in typological perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics 311. 37–106.Google Scholar
Däbritz, Chris Lasse. 2020. Focus position in SOV ~ SVO varying languages: Evidence from Enets, Nganasan and Dolgan. Eesti ja soome ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri 121. 99–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Topik, Fokus und Informationsstatus. Modellierung am Material nordwestsibirischer Sprachen [Topic, focus, and information status: Modelling based on material from North-Western Siberian languages] (Language, Context & Cognition 17). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2022. On the typology of locative predication in Samoyedic languages. In: Kaisla Kaheinen, Larisa Leisiö, Riku Erkkilä & Toivo E. H. Qiu (eds.), Hämeenmaalta Jamalille. Kirja Tapani Salmiselle, 53–68. Helsinki: Helda Open books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory. Volume 1: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dorian, Nancy C. 1977. The problem of the semi-speakers in language death. Linguistics 1911. 23–32.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Clause types. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. 2nd edition. Volume 1: Clause structure, 224–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 681. 553–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gusev, Valentin, Tiina Klooster & Beáta Wagner-Nagy. 2019. INEL Kamas Corpus. Version 1.0. Publication date 2019-12-15. [URL]
Haspelmath, Martin. 2022. Nonverbal clause constructions. Submitted manuscript. Lingbuzz/006673. [URL], last accessed: 22.06.2022.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication: Theory, typology, diachrony. (Functional Grammar Series 15). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 1977. Samojedischer Wortschatz: Gemeinsamojedische Etymologien [Samoyedic vocabulary: Common Samoyedic etymologies]. (Castrenianumin toimitteita 17). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
. 1998. Samoyedic. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 457–479. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2021. Turkic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joki, Aulis. 1944. Kai Donners Kamassisches Wörterbuch nebst Sprachproben und Hauptzügen der Grammatik [Kai Donner’s Kamas dictionary with speech samples and main characteristics of the grammar]. (Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae 8). Helsinki: SUS.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Klumpp, Gerson. 2022. Kamas. In: Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 817–843. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter. 2012. Location, existence, and possession: A constructional-typological exploration. Linguistics 501. 533–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laakso, Johanna & Beáta Wagner-Nagy. 2022. Existential, locational and possessive clauses. In Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 970–980. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 31. 390–396.Google Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém. 1939. O tak zvaném aktuálním členění věty [About the so-called functional sentence perspective]. Slovo a slovesnost 51. 171–174.Google Scholar
Mikola, Tibor. 2004. Studien zur Geschichte der samojedischen Sprachen [Studies in the history of Samoyedic languages]. Edited and published posthumously by Beáta Wagner-Nagy. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem Finnugor Tanszék.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary L. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. PhD Thesis. Cambridge MA: MIT.
Paducheva, Elena V. 2008. Locative and existential meaning of Russian быть. Russian Linguistics 321. 147–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shluinsky, Andrey. 2020. Morfologicheskie osobennosti neleksicheskikh glagolov v ėnetskom yazyke [Morphological features of non-lexical verbs in Enets]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 161. 669–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorokina, Irina P. & Darya S. Bolina. 2005. Ėnetskie teksty [Enets texts]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How language structures space. In Herbert L. Pick Jr. & Linda P. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, 225–282. New York & London: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2006. Language endangerment and language revitalization: An introduction. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2011. On the typology of negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic languages. SUST 262. Helsinki: SUS.Google Scholar
. 2020. Predicative possessive constructions in Selkup dialects. In Gréte Dalmi, Jacek Witkoś & Piotr Cegłowski (eds.), Approaches to Predicative Possession, 211–226. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner-Nagy, Beáta & Sándor Szeverényi. 2022. Samoyedic: General introduction. In: Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 659–673. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner-Nagy, Beáta & Márta Sarolta Viola. 2009. Typology of affirmative and negative non-verbal predicates in the Ugric and Samoyedic languages. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 601, 117–159.Google Scholar