Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Uralic Linguistics
Vol. 2:2 (2023) ► pp.242–283

Pseudopartitive constructions are not a subtype of nominal juxtaposition in Beserman

ORCID logo | Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences | Pushkin State Russian Language Institute
| Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Juxtaposition as a machinery of building noun phrases is well-known to be widespread in Uralic languages: the modifier is left-adjoined to the head and does not bear any morphological marker of syntactic dependency. This strategy is used to attach adjectives, cardinals and modifying nominals to nouns (like in Beserman ǯ́aǯ́eg siĺ ‘goose meat’), and to build constructions with measure nouns (like Beserman odig kə̑də̑ gibi ‘one basket of mushrooms’, lit. one basket mushroom). However, there remains a question whether all these constructions share the same syntactic structure. We consider pseudopartitive constructions with measure nouns in comparison with NPs containing non-marked modifying nominals and NPs with adjectives, showing that they do not share the same syntactic structure. Constructions with unmarked modifying nominals show properties of compounding, while pseudopartitives arguably have a measure phrase (a cardinal with a measure noun) and a noun phrase (the quantified nominal), which is the head of the pseudopartitive construction. The syntactic properties we analyze include constituent properties, branching, pronominalization, fragment questions, linear ordering restrictions, particular properties of head ellipsis, and information structure effects.
Keywords: Permic, Uralic, syntax, pseudopartitive, partitivity, juxtaposition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Juxtaposition and pseudopartitive constructions in Beserman
    • 1.2True partitives and pseudopartitives in Beserman
    • 1.3Terms, methodology and material
  • 2.True partitives, pseudopartitives and possessives in Beserman
    • 2.1Definitions of partitives and pseudopartitives
    • 2.2Beserman constructions encoding the partitive relation
    • 2.3The possessive marker in Beserman and its function in partitive constructions
  • 3.Comparing PPCs and juxtaposition in Beserman
    • 3.1Methodology and material
    • 3.2Identifying the NG in PPCs and their head
    • 3.3The internal structure of the PPC
    • 3.4Interim summary and discussion
  • 4.Semantic properties and information structure
    • 4.1Information structure
    • 4.2On the semantics of PPCs
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations (except for those included in Leipzig Glossing Rules)
  • References
Published online: 16 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00018.ser
References (49)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 1996. Doing without a partitive constraint. In Jacob Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives: Studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions, 25–56. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Semi functional categories: the N-of-N construction and the pseudo-partitive construction. In Artemis Alexiadou, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou (eds.), Noun phrase in the generative perspective, 395–472. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkhangelskiy, Timofey & Maria Usacheva. 2018. Case compounding in Beserman Udmurt. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 91. 111–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkhangelskiy, Timofey. 2018. Konstrukcija s sopolezhenijem v besermjanskom [A juxtaposition construction in Beserman]. Talk given at Pervaja konferencija po uraljskim, altajskim i paleoaziatskim jazykam pamjati A.P. Volodina [The first conference on Uralic, Altaic and Paleo-Siberian languages in memory of A.P. Volodin]. Saint-Petersburg: Institute of Linguistic Studies.Google Scholar
Arkhangelskiy, Timofey & Maria Usacheva. n.d. Beserman multimedia corpus. Available at [URL] (accessed 02.2022 – 04.2023)
Arkhangelskiy, Timofey, Olga Biryuk, Natalia Serdobolskaya & Maria Usacheva. n.d. Beserman corpus of oral texts. Available at [URL] (accessed 02.2022 – 04.2023)
Bisetto, Antonietta & Sergio Scalise. 2005. The classification of compounds. Lingue e linguaggio 41. 319–332.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2007. Measure noun polysemy and monotonicity: evidence from Romanian pseudopartitives. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 381. 139–150.Google Scholar
Byzova, Anna A. 2023. Konstrukcii s imennym sopolozheniem v finno-ugorskih jazykah [Nominal juxtaposition constructions in Finno-Ugric languages]. A course paper. Lomonosov Moscow State University. Ms.Google Scholar
Cavirani-Pots, Cora. 2020. Roots in progress: Semi-lexicality in the Dutch and Afrikaans verbal domain. PhD dissertation, LOT Dissertation series.
Dékány, Éva K. 2011. A profile of the Hungarian DP: The interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence. PhD dissertation. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.
De Hoop, Helen. 1997. A semantic reanalysis of the partitive constraint. Lingua 1031. 151–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Partitivity. In Lisa Lai Shen Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds.), The second Glot international state-of-the-article book, 179–212. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fejes, László. 2005. Összetett szavak finnugor nyelvekben [Compound words in the Finno-Ugric languages], PhD dissertation, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Budapest.
Hoeksema, Jacob. 1996. Introduction. In Jacob Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives: Studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions, 1–24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ihsane, Tabea & Elisabeth Stark. 2020. Introduction: Shades of partitivity: Formal and areal properties. Linguistics 581. 605–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klumpp, Gerson. 2008. Differentielle Objektmarkierung & Informationsstruktur in Dialekten des Komi. Ms, Munich.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. “A piece of the cake” and “a cup of tea”: Partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages: Volume 2: Grammar and Typology, 523–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. A lot of grammar with a good portion of lexicon: Towards a typology of partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions. In Walter Bisang, Hans H. Hock & Werner Winter (eds.), Form and function in language research, 329–347. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koryakov, Yuri B., Tatiana I. Davidyuk, Anastasia P. Evstigneeva & Arzhaana A. Syuryun. 2022. Spisok jazykov Rossii [List of languages of Russia]. Available at [URL]
Kubinyi, Katalin & Anne Tamm. 2022. Partitivity in Uralic languages without a designated partitive marker. Talk given at the CIFU III, August 21–27, Vienna.
Kuznetsova, Ariadna I. 2003. Kumulacia grammaticheskix znachenij v agglutinativnyx pokazatelax: Deikticheskie funkcii posessiva v uralskix jazykax [Several grammatical meanings in agglutinative markers: Deictic functions of possessive markers in Uralic]. In Ariadna I. Kuznetsova & Natalia V. Serdobol’skaya & Svetlana YU. Toldova & Sergey S. Saj & Elena YU. Kalinina (eds.), Finno-ugorskije jazyki: fragmenty grammaticheskogo opisanija. Formalnyj i funkcionalnyj podkhody [Finno-Ugric languages: Fragments of grammatical description. Formal and functional approaches], 250–262. Moscow: Russkije slovari.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Tuomas Huumo. 2014. Partitive cases and related categories ( EALT 54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina A. 2003. Possessive affixes as markers of information structuring: evidence from Uralic. In Pirkko Suihkonen & Bernard Comrie (eds.), International symposium on deictic systems and quantification in languages spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Collection of papers, 130–145. Izhevsk & Leipzig: Udmurt State University & Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 241. 433–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pleshak, Polina. 2021. The exponence of caseless NPs in Moksha. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 61. 628–640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pleshak, Polina & Maria A. Kholodilova. 2018. Imennaja gruppa [The Noun Phrase.] In Svetlana J. Toldova & Maria A. Kholodilova (eds.), Elementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 272–310. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2018. Freezing and phi-feature agreement: On the role of [PERSON]. In Jutta M. Hartmann, Marion Jäger, Andreas Kehl, Andreas Konietzko & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Freezing: Theoretical approaches and empirical domains [Studies in Generative Grammar 130], 284–316. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Privizentseva, Mariia. 2020. Nominal ellipsis reveals concord in Moksha Mordvin. Paper presented at the 38th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Schlachter, Wolfgang. 1960. Studien zum Possessivsuffix des Syrjänischen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 2002. The grammar of measurement. In Brendan Jackson (ed.), Proceedings of SALT XII1, 225–245, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Akmajian Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax: Papers from the MSSB-UC Irvine conference on the formal syntax of natural language, 285–316. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Serdobolskaya, Natalia V. 2017. Invariant opredelennosti i differencirovannoe markirovanie pryamogo dopolneniya v besermyanskom udmurtskom [The concept of definiteness and differential object marking in Beserman Udmurt]. In Vladimir A. Plungyan, Roman V. Ron’ko, Anton V. Cimmerling (eds.), Issledovaniya po teorii grammatiki [Studies in the theory of grammar]. Vyp. 81: Differencirovannoe markirovanie argumentov: materialy k tipologii [Differential object marking: materials to the typology], 76–122. Saint Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Serdobolskaya, Natalia, Maria Usacheva & Timofey Arkhangelskiy. 2019. Grammaticalization of possessive markers in the Beserman dialect of Udmurt. In Lars Johanson, Irina Nevskaya & Lidia F. Mazzitelli (eds.) Linguistic possession: New insights from the languages of Europe and North and Central Asia (Studies in Language Companion Series), 291–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serdobolskaya, Natalia. 2020. A corpus analysis of differential object marking in Beserman Udmurt. In Linguistica Uralica 561. 275–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serdobolskaya, Natalia, Maria Usacheva, Timofey Arkhangelskiy, Ruslan Idrisov & Vladimir Ivanov. n.d. Besermjanskij Slovar’ [The Beserman dictionary]. Available at [URL]
Seržant, Ilja A. 2012. The pragmatics and semantics of the bare partitive genitive in Ancient Greek. STUF 651. 113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. Typology of partitives. Linguistics 591. 881–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simonenko, Alexandra. 2014. Microvariation in Finno-Ugric possessive markers. In Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 431. 127–140.Google Scholar
Simonenko, Alexandra P. & Alexey P. Leontiev. 2012. Morfosintaksis imennogo kompleksa v finno-permskih yazykah: analiz v ramkah gipotezy minimalizma [Morphosyntax of the nominal complex in Finno-Permic languages: A minimalist analysis]. In Ariadna I. Kuznetsova & Natalia V. Serdobol’skaya & Svetlana YU. Toldova & Sergey S. Saj & Elena YU. Kalinina (eds.), Finno-ugorskije jazyki: Fragmenty grammaticheskogo opisanija. Formalnyj i funkcionalnyj podxody [Finno-Ugric languages: Fragments of grammatical description. Formal and functional approaches], 262–340. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kultur.Google Scholar
Soloveva, Anita V. 2019. Sintaksis i semantika partitivnykh i psevdopartitivnykh kostrukcij v gornomarijskom yazyke [Partitive and pseudo-partitive constructions in Hill Mari: Syntax and semantics]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 151. 298–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stickney, Helen. 2007. From pseudopartitive to partitive. In Alyona Belikova & Luisa Meroni & Mari Umeda (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), 406–415. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Tamm, Anne. 2014. The partitive concept versus linguistic partitives: from abstract concepts to evidentiality in the Uralic languages. In Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.) Partitive cases and related categories, 89–153. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Usacheva, Maria, Maria Brykina, & Anna Leontyeva. 2022. Adjective plural marker in Beserman: two markers, several constructions. Talk given at Syntax of Uralic Languages 4 (SOUL 4), Saint Petersburg/Budapest (online).
Usacheva, Maria. 2016. Atributivy na -o v besermjanskom udmurtskom [Attributivizers with -o in Beserman Udmurt]. Talk given at 13th Conference on Typology and Grammar for Young Scholars, Saint Petersburg.
Yadroff, Michael. 1999. Formal properties of functional categories: The minimalist syntax of Russian nominal and prepositional expressions. PhD dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.
Yaroslavtseva, Maria. 2018. Typology of partitive constructions. Master’s thesis. The National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow.
Zubova, Julia. 2019. Conjunctive and comitative noun phrase coordination in Beserman Udmurt. Linguistica Uralica 551. 285–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar