Cover not available
Article published In:
Postverbal negation
Edited by Olga Krasnoukhova, Johan van der Auwera and Mily Crevels
[Studies in Language 45:3] 2021
► pp. 557–597

Variation in negation in Seto

ORCID logo | University of Tartu
| University of Tartu
| University of Tartu | Võro Institute

Seto is an exceptional language in the Uralic family due to its systematic use of postverbal negation, although preverbal and double negation marking are also used. Postverbal negation is still the most frequent and unmarked pattern occurring in about 74% of negative clauses in Seto. This paper analyzes variation between pre- and postverbal negation in East Seto (spoken in present-day Russia), based on data gathered during fieldwork trips in 2010–2013. By applying quantitative methods that are used in variationist studies (regression modelling, conditional inference trees, and random forests), we determine the variables affecting the choice between pre- and postverbal negation. Marked preverbal negation occurs more likely with first and third person, cognition verbs, and present tense, all of which are often used in fixed expressions like I don’t know. We also found a strong structural persistence effect in the data and remarkable differences between individual speakers.

Keywords: standard negation, word order, language variation, Uralic languages, South Estonian Seto
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sociolinguistic overview of Seto
  • 3.Negation in Seto and its historical background
    • 3.1Negation in Seto
    • 3.2Negation in Uralic/Finnic: A general background
      • 3.2.1Standard negation
      • 3.2.2Prohibitives
      • 3.2.3Word order
  • 4.Data and methods
    • 4.1Data
    • 4.2Variables
    • 4.3Methods
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1General findings and change over time
      • 5.1.1Distribution of negation patterns
      • 5.1.2Double negation
      • 5.1.3Prohibitives
    • 5.2Factors conditioning the variation between pre- and postverbal negation
      • 5.2.1Implications for the importance of the individual speaker
      • 5.2.2Effects of other variables
      • 5.2.3Summary and discussion of modelling results
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 24 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19063.lin
References
Baayen, R. Harald, Anna Endresen, Laura A. Janda, Anastasia Makarova & Tore Nesset
2013 Making choices in Russian: Pros and cons of statistical methods for rival forms. Russian Linguistics 371. 253–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Doug Davidson & Douglas Bates
2008 Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 591. 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breiman, Leo
2001 Random Forests. Machine Learning 451. 5–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1979 Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 171. 79–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Typology of negation. In Laurence R. Horn (ed.), The expression of negation, 9–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1992 The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68(1). 81–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Order of negative morpheme and verb. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: [URL] (last access 29 June 2021).
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, & Charles D. Fennig
(eds.) 2020 Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 23rd edn. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: [URL] (last access 29 June 2021).
Erelt, Mati & Helle Metslang
2006 Estonian clause patterns – from Finno-Ugric to Standard Average European. Linguistica Uralica XLII(4). 254–266.Google Scholar
Grünthal, Riho
2015 Vepsän kielioppi [The grammar of Veps] (Apuneuvoja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten opintoja varten 17). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank
2020 Glottolog 4.2.1. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Available at: [URL] (last access 29 June 2021).
Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis
2006a Unbiased recursive partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3). 651–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Peter Buehlmann, Sandrine Dudoit, Annette Molinaro & Mark Van Der Laan
2006b Survival Ensembles. Biostatistics 7(3). 355–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas
1993 Suomen ja viron kontrastiivista sanajärjestysvertailuja [‘Contrastive comparison of Estonian and Finnish word order’]. Valma Yli-Vakkuri (ed.), Studia comparativa linguarum orbis Maris Baltici 1. Tutkimuksia syntaksin ja pragmasyntaksin alalta (Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 43), 97–158. Turku: Turun yliopisto.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas & Liina Lindström
2014 Partitives across constructions: on the range of uses of the Finnish and Estonian “partitive subjects”. In Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 54), 153–176. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääts, Indrek
1998 Setude etnilise identiteedi ajalugu [‘History of the Ethnic Identity of Setos’]. Akadeemia 6–71. 1127–1152, 1520–1546.Google Scholar
2000 Ethnic identity of the Setus and the Estonian–Russian border dispute. Nationalities Papers 28(4). 651–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Tore Nesset & R. Harald Baayen
2010 Capturing correlational structure in Russian paradigms: A case study in logistic mixed-effects modeling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(1). 29–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janhunen, Juha
1982 On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 441. 23–42.Google Scholar
Janitza, Silke, Carolin Strobl & Anne-Laure Boulesteix
2013 An AUC-based Permutation Variable Importance Measure for Random Forests. BMC Bioinformatics 141. 119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juhkason, Grethe, Andreas Kalkun, Liina Lindström & Helen Plado
2012 Petserimaa setodest ja nende keelest 2010.–2011. aasta välitööde põhjal [‘On Pechory district Setos and their language based on fieldwork conducted in 2010 & 2011’]. In Jüvä Sullõv (ed.), Õdagumeresoomõ piiriq (Võro Instituudi toimõndusõq 26), 11–29. Võro: Võro Instituut.Google Scholar
Kährik, Aime
1978 Das Problem der Herkunft des verneinenden Präteritums im Wepsischen [‘The problem of the origin of the negating past tense in Veps’]. Sovetskoje Finno-ugrovedenije / Soviet Finno-Ugric Studies 14(3). 161–169.Google Scholar
Kallio, Petri
2012 The prehistoric Germanic loanword strata in Finnic. In Riho Grünthal & Petri Kallio (eds.), A linguistic map of prehistoric Northern Europe, 225–238. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
2014 The diversification of Proto-Finnic. In Joonas Ahola & Clive Tolley (eds.), Fibula, fabula, fact. The Viking age in Finland, 155–168. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Kask, Arnold
1984 Eesti murded ja kirjakeel [Estonian dialects and the standard language]. Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
Keem, Hella & Inge Käsi
2002 Võru murde tekstid. Eesti murded VI [Texts from Võro dialect]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2006 From discourse pattern to epistemic marker: Estonian (ei) tea ‘don’t know’. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29(2). 173–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The terms of not knowing. In: Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds). The morality of knowledge in conversation, 184–206. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehayov, Petar
2017 The fate of mood and modality in language death: Evidence from Minor Finnic. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehayov, Petar, Eva Saar, Miina Norvik & Andres Karjus
2013 Hääbuva kesklüüdi murde jälgedel suvel 2012 [‘In the footsteps of vanishing Central Lude in summer 2012’]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 581 (2012) 58–101.Google Scholar
Kettunen, Lauri
1943 Vepsän murteiden lauseopillinen tutkimus [Syntactic investigation of Veps dialects] (Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 86). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Klaus, Anneliis
2009 Eitus eesti murretes [Negation in Estonian dialects]. Tartu: University of Tartu MA thesis.
Klavan, Jane, Maarja-Liisa Pilvik & Kristel Uiboaed
2015 The use of multivariate statistical classification models for predicting constructional choice in spoken, non-standard Varieties of Estonian. SKY Journal of Linguistics 281. 187–224.Google Scholar
Künnap, Ago
2007 Veel läänemeresoome ja eesti eituspartiklite ei, ep, es päritolust [‘More on Finnic and Estonian negation particles ei, ep, and es ’]. Keel ja Kirjandus 121. 968–975.Google Scholar
Laan, Triin
2009 Eitus Räpina murrakus [Negation in Räpina]. Tartu: University of Tartu BA thesis.
Laanest, Arvo
1975 Sissejuhatus läänemeresoome keeltesse [Introduction to Balto-Finnic languages]. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Lehtinen, Tapani
1992 Suomen ja viron verbiloppuisista sivulauseista. [‘On verb-final subordinated clauses in Finnish and Estonian’] In Tapani Lehtinen, Jyrki Kalliokoski & Kirsti Siitonen (eds.) Nordens språk i Baltikum. Pohjoismaiden kielet Baltiassa. Baltian maiden yliopistojen pohjoismaisten kielten opettajien kokous, Riika 26.–30.11.1991 (Nordisk språksekretariats rapporter 18), 70–82. Oslo: Nordisk språksekretariat.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina
1997 Eitus Võru murde suulises kõnes [‘Negation in Spoken Võro’]. In Karl Pajusalu & Jüvä Sullõv (eds.), Läänemeresoome lõunapiir (Võro Instituudi toimõtiseq 1), 143–154. Võro: Võro Instituut.Google Scholar
2005 Finiitverbi asend lauses. Sõnajärg ja seda mõjutavad tegurid suulises eesti keeles [The position of the finite verb in a clause: Word order and the factors affecting it in spoken Estonian]. (Dissertationes philologiae estonicae universitatis tartuensis 16). Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
2017a Lause infostruktuur ja sõnajärg. [‘Information structure and word order]. In: Mati Erelt, Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks (Eesti keele varamu 3), 537–565. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
2017b Partitive subjects in Estonian dialects. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 8(2). 191–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
To appear. Seto lause põhijooned [‘Main features of Seto syntax’]. In Andreas Kalkun, Karl Pajusalu & Ergo-Hart Västrik eds. Setomaa 3 Keel, rahvaluule ja tänapäeva kultuur
Lindström, Liina, Maarja-Liisa Pilvik, Mirjam Ruutma & Kristel Uiboaed
2015 Mineviku liitaegade kasutusest eesti murretes keelekontaktide valguses. [‘The use of the compound past tenses in Estonian dialects in light of language contacts’]. In Jüvä Sullõv (ed.) Aig õdagumeresoomõ keelin. Time and tense in Finnic languages. (Võro Instituudi toimõndusõq 29), 39–70. Võro: Võro Instituut.Google Scholar
2019 On the use of perfect and pluperfect in Estonian dialects: frequency and language contacts. In Sofia Björklöf & Santra Jantunen (eds.), Multilingual Finnic – Language contact and change, 155–193. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina & Kristel Uiboaed
2017 Syntactic variation in ‘need’-constructions in Estonian dialects. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 40(3). 313–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lonn, Varje & Ellen Niit
2002 Saarte murde tekstid. Eesti murded VII [Texts from insular dialects. Estonian dialects VII]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Lõuna, Kalle
2003 Petserimaa. Petserimaa integreerimine Eesti vabariiki 1920–1940 [Integration of the Petseri District into the Estonian Republic in 1920–1940]. Tallinn: Eesti Entsüklopeediakirjastus.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle, Karl Pajusalu & Tiit-Rein Viitso
2015 Negation in Livonian. In Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy (eds.), Negation in Uralic languages, 433–456. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti
2005 Standard negation. The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2007 Negation – An overview of typological research. Language and Linguistic Compass 1/51. 552–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 A typological perspective on negation in Finnish dialects. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34(2). 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy
2015 Negation in Uralic languages – Introduction. In Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy (eds.), Negation in Uralic languages, 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paas, Friedrich-Eugen
1927 Sega-abielud ja nende mõju rahvusele piiriäärsetes maakondades Eestis [Mixed marriages and their impact on nation in border counties in Estonia]. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool.Google Scholar
Pajusalu, Karl
To appear. Seto South Estonian. In Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik eds. Oxford guide to the Uralic languages Oxford Oxford University Press
Pajusalu, Karl, Tiit Hennoste, Ellen Niit, Peeter Päll & Jüri Viikberg
2009 Eesti murded ja kohanimed [Estonian dialects and place names]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.Google Scholar
Payne, John R.
1985 Negation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. I: Clause structure, 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, José C. & Bates, Douglas M.
2002 Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Plado, Helen, Liina Lindström & Sulev Iva
To appear. South Estonian Võro. In Daniel Abondolo & Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi eds. The Uralic languages London Routledge
Sammallahti, Pekka
1977 Suomalaisten esihistorian kysymyksiä [‘Questions about the prohistory of Finns’]. Virittäjä 811. 119–136.Google Scholar
Sang, Joel
1975 Eitus Kihnu murrakus [‘Negation in Kihnu’]. Keel ja Kirjandus 31. 155–162.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, James Malley & Gerhard Tutz
2009a An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging and random forests. Psychological Methods 14(4). 323–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Torsten Hothorn & Achim Zeileis
2009b Party on! A New, Conditional Variable Importance Measure for Random Forests Available in the party Package. Technical Report no. 050. Department of Statistics, University of Munich.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2005 Language users as creatures of habit: a corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11. 113–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tael, Kaja
1990 An approach to word order problems in Estonian. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia humanitaar- ja ühiskonnateaduste osakond. Preprint KKI-66.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & R. Harald Baayen
2012 Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamm, Anne
2015 Negation in Estonian. In: Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy (eds.), Negation in Uralic languages, 399–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith
2016 Persistence in phonological and morphological variation. Language Variation and Change 28(3). 335–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Catherine E. Travis
2019 Variationist typology: Shared probabilistic constraints across (non-)null subject languages. Linguistics 57(3). 653–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Travis, Catherine E.
2007 Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change 19(2). 101–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uiboaed, Kristel
2013 Verbiühendid eesti murretes [Verb constructions in Estonian dialects] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 34). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan
2006 Why languages prefer prohibitives. Journal of Foreign Languages 11. 2–26.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Ludo Lejeune (with Valentin Goussev
) 2013 The prohibitive. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: [URL] (last access 29 June 2021).
Viitso, Tiit-Rein
1985 Läänemeresoome murdeliigenduse põhijooned [‘Main features of Finnic dialect classification’]. Keel ja Kirjandus 71. 399–404.Google Scholar
2003 Põhiverbi muutumine eitussõna järel, lingua franca ja algkeel. [‘Inflection of the Main Verb after a Negation Word, the Protolanguage and Lingua Franca’]. Keel ja Kirjandus 11. 24–31.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria
1989 Free word order in Finnish. Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
1998 Word order in European Uralic. In Anna Siewierska (ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe, 173–233. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vossen, Frens
2016 Towards a typology of the Jespersen Cycles. Antwerp: University of Antwerp PhD dissertation.
Weatherall, Ann
2011 I don’t know as a prepositioned epistemic hedge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(4). 317–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaikov, Pekka M.
2000 Glagol v karel’skom jazyke (grammaticeskie kategorii lica-cisla, vremeni i naklonenija) [Verb in Karelian]. Petrozavodsk: Izdatelstvo Petrozavodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta.Google Scholar