Cover not available
Part of
Free Variation in Grammar: Empirical and theoretical approaches
Edited by Kristin Kopf and Thilo Weber
[Studies in Language Companion Series 234] 2023
► pp. 168–201

Chapter 6
Variation and change in the Aanaar Saami conditional perfect

ORCID logo | University of Tartu
The present study captures a case of language variation in the verbal system of Aanaar (Inari) Saami, namely that of the conditional perfect, which can be expressed by two periphrastic constructions. The aim of this paper is twofold: (1) to give a diachronic description of the Aanaar Saami conditional perfect and (2) to investigate whether its variation can be considered to be ‘free’ or whether it is explainable by intra- and extralinguistic determinants. The data consists of language samples gathered in 1887 and 1952, the Aanaar Saami text corpus and a survey carried out in 2020. The diachronic comparison indicates changes in the variation which are, among others, discussed in the light of linguistic interference and Aanaar Saami’s recent revitalisation.
Keywords: Aanaar Saami, conditional perfect, conditional mood, morphosyntactic variation, free variation, language change, Saami
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The Saami conditional and its perfect: An overview
    • 1.2Data and methods of the present study
  • 2.The Aanaar Saami conditional perfect and its variation across the data
  • 3.Possible determinants of the variation
    • 3.1Person and number
    • 3.2Main verb
    • 3.3Type of clause
    • 3.4Polarity
    • 3.5Dialect
    • 3.6Speaker generation
    • 3.7Significance and interplay of the variables
  • 4.Discussion: (Free) variation and change
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
  • Sources of data and examples
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 31 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.234.06nii
References (53)
References
Äimä, Frans. 1902. Matkakertomus Inarin Lapista. In Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja / Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne. Vol. XX, Otteita Suomalaisugrilaisen Seuran keskustelemuksista v. 1901. [Auszüge aus den Sitzungsberichten der Finnisch-ugrischen Gesellschaft im j. 1901], Suomalais-Ugrilaisen S. Aikakauskirja (ed), 10–25. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seura, Société Finno-ougrienne.Google Scholar
Aikio, Ante & Ylikoski, Jussi. 2022. North Saami. In The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages, Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ariste, Paul. 1956. Läänemere keelte kujunemine ja vanem arenemisjärk [The development and the earlier stage of the Finnic languages]. In Eesti rahva etnilisest ajaloost [On the Ethnic History of the Estonian People], Harri Moora (ed), 5–23. Tallinn: Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Bailey, Guy, Wikle, Tom, Tillery, Jan & Sand, Lori. 1991. The apparent time construct. Language Variation and Change 3(3): 241–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartens, Hans-Hermann. 1980. Die Verwendung von Konditional und Potential im Lappischen [Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia, Mémoires de la Société Finno-ougrienne 177]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen seura.Google Scholar
Béniak, Edouard & Mougeon, Raymond. 1984. Possessive à and de in Informal Ontarian French. In Papers from the XIIth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, University Park, April 1–3, 1982, Philip Baldi (ed), 15–37. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Ford, Marylin. 2010. Predicting Syntax: Processing Dative Constructions in American and Australian Varieties of English. Language 86(1): 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2009. Can we factor out free choice? In Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar [Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs [TiLSM] 204], Guido Seiler, Andreas Dufter & Jürg Fleischer (eds), 183–202. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2017. Language contact in Europe: The periphrastic perfect through history [Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feist, Timothy R. 2010. A Grammar of Skolt Saami. Doctoral dissertation. Manchester: University of Manchester.
Friis, Jens A. 1856. Lappisk Grammatik. Udarbeidet efter der finmarkiske Hoveddialekt eller Sproget, saaledes som det almindeligst tales i norsk Finmarken. Christiania: J. W. Capelens Forlag.Google Scholar
Gertten, Daniel Z. von. 2015. Huvuddrag i umesamisk gramatikk. Masteroppgåve ved Institutt for lingvistiske og nordiske studiar. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement [Open Linguistics Series]. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halász, Ignácz. 1896. Pite lappmarki szótár és nyelvtan [Svéd-Lapp Nyelv VI]. Budapest: Magyar tudományos akadémia.Google Scholar
Helander, Nils Ø. 1980. En undersøkelse av bruken av modus potensialis og noen av dens modalitetssynonymer. Hovedoppgave i samisk språk ved Ural-Altaisk Institutt. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: a multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Hornik, Kurt & Zeileis, Achim. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3): 651–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikola, Osmo. 1960. Perfektin ja pluskvamperfektin synnystä [On the origin of the perfect and pluperfect]. Virittäjä 64: 364–368.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Erkki. 1986. Inarilappisches Wörterbuch I. A–K. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2008. Viewpoint Operators in European Languages. In Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology (Eurotyp) 20–6], Östen Dahl (ed), 27–188. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2017. Prospectives and proximatives. In Prospective and Proximative in Turkic, Iranian and beyond, Agnes Korn & Irina Nevskaya (eds), 29–33. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Jomppanen, Marjatta. 2009. Pohjoissaamen ja suomen perusinfinitiivi vertailussa leat ja olla-verbien yhteydessä [Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B Humaniora 92]. Oulu, Finland: Oulun yliopisto.Google Scholar
Korhonen, Mikko. 1967. Die Konjugation im Lappischen: morphologisch-historische Untersuchung [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 143]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 2001. Syntactic change. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds), 699–729. Malden, MA, New York: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laakso, Johanna. 2001. The Finnic languages. In Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact. Vol. 1: Past and Present, Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 179–212. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45(4): 715–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lagercrantz, Eliel. 1926. Sprachlehre des Westlappischen nach der Mundart von Arjeplog [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 55]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Léglise, Isabelle & Chamoreau, Claudine. 2013. Variation and change in contact settings. In The Interplay of Variation and Change in Contact Settings [Studies in Language Variation 12], Isabelle Léglise & Claudine Chamoreau (eds), 1–20. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehtiranta, Juhani. 1992. Arjeploginsaamen äänne- ja taivutusopin pääpiirteet [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 212]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen seura.Google Scholar
Magga, Ole H. & Mattsson Magga, Lajla. 2012. Sørsamisk grammatikk. Karasjok: Davvi Girji.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti & Koponen, Eino. 2015. Negation in Skolt Saami. In Negation in Uralic languages, Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm & Beáta Wagner-Nagy (eds), 353–375. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morottaja, Matti. 2007. Anarâškielâ ravvuuh. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus.Google Scholar
Moshnikoff, Satu, Moshnikoff, Jouni & Koponen, Eino. 2009. Koltansaamen koulukielioppi. Sää’m ǩiõl ǩiõllvuä’ppes škoou’li vääras. Inari: Saamelaiskäräjät.Google Scholar
Nickel, Klaus P. 1994. Samisk gramatikk. 2nd edition. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji o.s.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Konrad. 1926. Lærebok i Lappisk. Vol. I. Oslo: Institut for sammenlignende kulturforskning.Google Scholar
Olthuis, Marja-Liisa. 2000. Kielâoppâ. Inari: Sämitigge.Google Scholar
. 2009. Mii kirjekielâ lii já maht tot šadda? In Omin sanoin. Kirjoituksia vähemmistökielten kirjallistumisesta, Klaas Ruppel (ed). Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus.Google Scholar
Pasanen, Annika. 2015. Kuávsui já peeivičuovâ ’Sarastus ja päivänvalo’, Inarinsaamen kielen revitalisaatio [Uralia Helsingiensia 9]. Helsinki: Unigrafia Oy.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. [URL] (27 February 2023).
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English [Topics In English Linguistics 43], Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 205–250. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saukkonen, Pauli. 1965. Itämerensuomalaisten kielten tulosijainfinitiivirakenteiden historiaa. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura.Google Scholar
Serebrennikov, B. A. 1958. Pluskvamperfekti ja perfekti päritolu problee mist läänemeresoome keeltes [On the problem of the origin of the plu perfect and perfect in the Finnic languages]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat IV: 249–255.Google Scholar
Valli, Andre. 2001. Sur quelques types d’heterogeneite des structures grammaticales en francais. Travaux Neuchatelois de Linguistique (Tranel) 34(35): 117–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valtonen, Taarna, Ylikoski, Jussi & Aikio, Ante. 2022. Aanaar (Inari) Saami. In The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages, Johanna Laakso, Marianne Bakró-Nagy & Elena Skribnik (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe. 2006. Die Große Komplementverschiebung: Außersemantische Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung satzwertiger Ergänzungen im Neuenglischen [Language in Performance 34]. Vol. 43. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin I. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Directions for Historical Linguistics. A Symposium, Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds), 95–195. Austin, London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Joshua. 2014. A grammar of Pite Saami [Studies in Diversity Linguistics 5]. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi. 2016. Future Time Reference in Lule Saami, with Some Remarks on Finnish. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 7(2): 209–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sources of data and examples
AČ = Itkonen, Erkki. 1992. Inarinsaamelaisia kielennäytteitä. Aanaarkielâ Čájttuzeh. Suomalais- Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia = Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 213. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
fiTenTen14 = Finnish Web Corpus. TenTen corpora. [URL]. Version 8.8.2014.
IK = Koskimies, Aukusti Valdemar, Toivo Immanuel Itkonen. 1918. Inarinlappalaista kansantietoutta. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia = Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 40. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
SIKOR = Saami International Korpus. UiT The Arctic University of Norway and the Norwegian Saami Parliament’s Saami text collection. [URL]. Version 06.11.2018.