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 (80)
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
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Koreinik, Kadri, Helen Plado & Sulev Iva
2024. Standardisation and the role of language editors in synchronising Võro hybrid literacy practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pook, Hanna & Liina Lindström
2024. The use of the indefinite pronoun keegi ‘someone’ in Estonian dialects. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 47:2 ► pp. 192 ff. DOI logo
Risberg , Lydia
2023. Recommendations for the meanings of words by Estonian language planning – justified and necessary, or not?. Taikomoji kalbotyra 20 ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.