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)
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