Cover not available
Part of
Negation in Uralic Languages
Edited by Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm and Beáta Wagner-Nagy
[Typological Studies in Language 108] 2015
► pp. 547–600

Special negators in the Uralic languages

Synchrony, diachrony and interaction with standard negation

| Stockholm University
This study covers data from 26 Uralic languages and has both a synchronic and a diachronic orientation. The synchronic part includes a detailed description of the negation strategies in sentences such as (i) Mary is not a nurse and (ii) There are no wild cats. The negators used in such clauses are referred to as special negators because they often differ from standard negation. Their formal and semantic features are discussed but they are also viewed in a broader typological setting. As regards diachrony, the origin of the special negators is traced and the Negative Existential Cycle (Croft 1991) is tested on the Uralic data. Some modifications of the model are suggested as a result of this application.
Published online: 24 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.108.20ves
References (62)
References
Aronoff, Mark & Anshen, Frank. 1998. Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In The Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer & Arnold Zwicky (eds), 237–247. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Temürcü, Ceyhan. 2006. Semantic maps in typology. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Keith Brown (ed.), 131–134. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. Forthcoming. Semantic maps, for synchronic and diachronic typology. In Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 133], Anna Giacalone Ramat, Catarina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Bartens, Raija. 1996. Die positive und negative Existentiale in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 14: 58–97.Google Scholar
Benkő, Loránd. 1970. A Magyar nyelv történeti-etimológiai szótára (Historical-etymological dictionary of the Hungarian language), 4 Vols, Vol. 2, H-Ó. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Bernini, Giuliano & Ramat, Paolo (eds). 1996. Negative Sentences in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clauson, Sir Gerald. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Thompson, Sandra A. 1985. Lexical nominalization. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 348–398. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Negation and other verb categories in the Uralic languages. In Congressus Quintus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Pars VI: Dissertationes sectionum: Phonologica et morphologica, syntactica et semantica, Osmo Ikola (ed.), 350–355. Turku: Suomen Kielen Seura.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. The evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics 27: 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cypanov, E.A. 2007. Vidza olan! Samouchitel’ komi jazyka (Teach yourself manual of the Komi language). Syktyvkar: Izdatel’stvo Anbur.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2007. Building semantic maps: The case of person marking. In New Challenges in Typology: Broadening the Horizons and Redefining the Foundations, Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds), 227–247. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17: 79–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of subject, object and verb. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. 〈[URL]〉Google Scholar
Fernandez-Vest, M.M. Jocelyne. 2008. Subordination and degrees of syntactic completeness from sentence to nominalization in some Uralic languages: Sami and Baltic Finnic examples. La Linguistique 44(2): 99–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galkin, I.S. (ed.) 1990–2005. Slovar’ marijskogo âzyka (Dictionary of the Mari language), 10 Vols. Yoshkar-Ola: Marijskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, Casper. 1994. Hungarian. In Typological Studies in Negation [Typological Studies in Language 29], Peter Kahrel & René van der Berg (eds), 143–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamari, Arja. 2007. The Negation of Stative Relation Clauses in the Mordvin Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Turku.
. 2011. Negation in Komi. Paper given at the workshop on Negation in Uralic Languages, Stockholm University, November 24, 2011.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps & cross-linguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 211–214. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honti, László. 1997a. Die Negation im Uralischen II. Linguistica Uralica 33(3): 161–175.Google Scholar
. 1997b. Die Negation im Uralischen III. Linguistica Uralica 33(4): 241–252.Google Scholar
Honti, Laszlo. 2008. ‘Habere’ Po-Ural’ski. Linguistica Uralica 44(3): 161–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 1977. Samojedischer Wortschatz: gemeinsamojedische Etymologien [Castrenianumin toimitteita 17]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
. 1982. On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 44: 23–42.Google Scholar
. 2003. Uralic languages. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, William Frawley (ed.), 327–333. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1998. Mari. In The Uralic Languages, Daniel Abondolo (ed.), 219–248. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Klemm, Antal. 1931–1934. A mordvin tagadó és tiltó szerkezetek története (History of Mordvinic negative and prohibitive structures) [Nyelvtudományi Közlemények XLVIII]. Budapest: Nyomda.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznecova, Ariadna I., Helimskij, Evgenij A. & Grushkina, Ekaterina V. 1980. Ocherki po sel’kupskomu jazyku: Tazovkij dialekt [Essays on the Selkup language: The Tazov dialect]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Laakso, Johanna, Wagner-Nagy, Beáta, Viola, Márta Sarolta, Sutter, Regula, Bradley, Jeremy, Mus, Nikolett & Köstbauer, Maria. 2011. Typology of negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic Languages, 〈[URL]〉 (6 February 2012).Google Scholar
Lehtisalo, Toivo V. 1947. Juraksamojedische Volksdichtung. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Lytkin, V.I. 1952. Drevnepermskij jazyk. Chtenie tekstov, grammatika, slovar’ (Old Permian: Reader, grammar and a dictionary). Moskva: Izdatel’svo Akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2009. Analyzing semantic maps: A multifactorial approach. Linguistic Discovery 8: 176–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard Negation: The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main Clauses in a Typological Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreno-Cabrera, Juan C. 1998. On the relationships between grammaticalization and lexicalization. In The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 37], Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul Hopper (eds), 211–227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munkácsi, Bernát. 1893. Medveénekek [Bear song] [Vogul Népköltési Gyűjtemény III]. Budapest: Magyar Tudoma´nyos Akade´mia.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007. Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paasonen, Heikki & Ravila, Paavo. 1941. Mordwinische Volkdichtung III [Mémoires de la Sociéte Finno-Ougrienne 84]. Helsinki: Sociéte Finno-Ougrienne. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rédei, Károly, Bakró-Nagy, Marianne, Csúcs, Sandor, Erdélyi, István, Honti, László, Sal, Eva K. & Vértes, Edit. 1986. Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Rédei, Károly. 1988. Geschichte der permischen Sprachen. In The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences, Denis Sinor (ed.), 351–394. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Riese, Timothy, Bradley, Jeremy, Yakimova, Emma & Krylova, Galina. 2010. Оҥай марий йылме: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Mari Language. Vienna: Department of Finno-Ugric Studies, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Sansò, Andrea. 2009. How conceptual are semantic maps. Linguistic Discovery 8: 288–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shchemeretova, V.S. 1972. K voprosy a-ovoj osnove glagol’novo otricanija v mordovskix jazykax (On the problem of the a-base in verbal negation in the Mordvinic languages). Tallinn: Sovetskoe finno-ugrovedenie.Google Scholar
Simoncsics, Péter. 1998. Kamassian. In The Uralic Languages, Daniel Abondolo (ed.), 580–601. London: Routhledge.Google Scholar
Skribnik, Elena. 2008. The nominalizers “man” and “thing” in the Uralic and Turkic Languages of Southern Siberia, Part 1: Lexicon and word formation. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 32–33: 567–586.Google Scholar
Solovar, V.N & Cheremisina, M.I. 1994. Vyraženie otricanija v hantyskom jazyke (The expression of negation in the Khanty language). Linguistica Uralica 30: 35–46.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1997. Typology of Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinitz, Wolfgang, Böhnke, Liselotte, Sauer, Gert & Schultze, Brigitte. 1967. Dialektologisches und etymologisches Wörterbuch der ostjakischen Sprache, 15 Vols, Vol. 2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Tamm, Anne. 2011. Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system: Focus on the absentive TAM semantics and pragmatics of the Estonian inessive m-formative nonfinites. Linguistics 49(4): 835–944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasikova, L.P. 1990. Sopostovitel’naja grammatika russkogo i marijskix jazykov (Comparative grammar of Russian and Mari). Yoshkar-Ola: Marijskoe Knizhnoe Izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba. 2013. Negative existentials: A cross linguistic study. Italian Journal of Linguistics (special issue on existential constructions) 25(1): 107–146.Google Scholar
. 2014. The Negative Existential Cycle revisited. Linguistics 52: 1327–1369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner-Nagy, Beáta & Viola, Márta Sarolta. 2009. Typology of affirmative and negative non-verbal predicates in the Ugric and Samoyedic languages. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 60: 117–159.Google Scholar
Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2011. On the Typology of Negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic Languages. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2009. Similarity semantics and building probabilistic semantic maps from parallel texts. Linguistic Discovery 8: 331–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha, Grunow-Hårsta, Karen, & Wrona, Janick (eds) 2011. Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 96]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco
2022. Macanese Negation in Comparative Perspective: Typology and Ecology. Journal of Language Contact 14:3 ► pp. 557 ff. DOI logo
Shirtz, Shahar, Luigi Talamo & Annemarie Verkerk
2021. The Evolutionary Dynamics of Negative Existentials in Indo-European. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Баранова, Влада Вячеславовна, Федотов, Максим Леонидович & Оскольская, Софья Алексеевна
2021. EXPRESSING ABSENCE IN THE TURKIC LANGUAGES OF THE VOLGA-KAMA SPRACHBUND: CHUVASH AND BASHKIR. Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology :4(34) ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Krasnoukhova, Olga & Johan van der Auwera
2019. Standard negation in Awa Pit: From synchrony to diachrony. Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2 ► pp. 439 ff. DOI logo
Hölzl, Andreas
2018. Constructionalization areas. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 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.