Uralic Languages Research Articles

Information structure and syntax of Uralic languages: A foreword

Information structure and syntax of Uralic languages: A foreword

Archaeogenetic Data Mining Supports a Uralic–Minoan Homeland in the Danube Basin

Four types of archaeogenetic data mining are used to investigate the origin of the Minoans and the Uralic peoples: (1) six SNP mutations related to eye, hair, and skin phenotypes; (2) whole-genome admixture analysis using the G25 system; (3) an analysis of the history of the U5 mitochondrial DNA haplogroup; and (4) an analysis of the origin of each currently known Minoan mitochondrial and y-DNA haplotypes. The uniform result of these analyses is that the Minoans and the Uralic peoples had a common homeland in the lower and middle Danube Basin, as well as the Black Sea coastal regions. This new result helps to reconcile archaeogenetics with linguistics, which have shown that the Minoan language belongs to the Uralic language family.

“Husband” Designations: a Classification of Nomination Models in the Linguo-Semantic Field of Eurasia: Husband as a Socionym, Husband as a Friend

The article presents the second section of a study devoted to identifying and describing models (patterns) of the strategy for designating the notions “husband, spouse” in the languages of Eurasia. The M-2 model “husband as a socionym” is described, within which a number of sub-groups are identified: M-2-1 husband as a “married man”, M-2-2 husband as “power and authority”, M-2-3 husband as a “master” and M-2-4 husband as an “old man”. The data plotted on the map of Eurasia demonstrate a preference for the latter model in Uralic languages, while Germanic languages and a number of others lean toward the M-2-3 and M-2-2 models. The less productive model M-3 is also described, within which the following groups are identified: M-3-1 husband as a “partner in harness”, M-3-2 husband as a “(legal) friend” (most common in the Scandinavian area, as well as productive for reflecting modern realities associated with changes in the very institution of marriage), and M-3-3 husband as a “wife” (reflects the tendency towards mirror designations of spouses). An analysis was carried out of the specific uses of synonymous lexemes (unexpectedly abundant in this sphere), which led to the assumption that the concept of “husband” (as well as that of “wife”) may not at all relate to the semantic domain “terms of kinship and properties” and, moreover, to the area of “basic” vocabulary. When analyzing specific cases of use, an orientation towards the communicative strategy of the speaker was also noted, both of the Ego itself (in this case, the wife), and of third parties, mentioning in their speech the fact of a certain relationship between Ego and a given person. In other words, it can be stated that if such uniquely (?) defined lexical zones as, for example, zoonyms are included in the language zone, the strategy of nomination and selection of the term meaning “husband” belongs rather to the speech zone.

Syntax of the Uralic languages: principal features and challenges. Introduction to the special issue of ESUKA – JEFUL

Syntax of the Uralic languages: principal features and challenges. Introduction to the special issue of ESUKA – JEFUL

Bronze age Northern Eurasian genetics in the context of development of metallurgy and Siberian ancestry

The Eurasian Bronze Age (BA) has been described as a period of substantial human migrations, the emergence of pastoralism, horse domestication, and development of metallurgy. This study focuses on two north Eurasian sites sharing Siberian genetic ancestry. One of the sites, Rostovka, is associated with the Seima-Turbino (ST) phenomenon (~2200-1900 BCE) that is characterized by elaborate metallurgical objects found throughout Northern Eurasia. The genetic profiles of Rostovka individuals vary widely along the forest-tundra Siberian genetic cline represented by many modern Uralic-speaking populations, and the genetic heterogeneity observed is consistent with the current understanding of the ST being a transcultural phenomenon. Individuals from the second site, Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov in Kola, in comparison form a tighter cluster on the Siberian ancestry cline. We further explore this Siberian ancestry profile and assess the role of the ST phenomenon and other contemporaneous BA cultures in the spread of Uralic languages and Siberian ancestry.

The origin of Uralic-speaking groups from a historical genetic point of view

Abstract In recent years, a number of primarily linguistic studies have dealt with the origin of the Uralic language family. These studies formulated important and, in some cases, novel results regarding the location of the Proto-Uralic homeland, the classification of linguistic branches, the chronology and geographical aspects of migration routes, and even the archaeological cultures embodying the migration routes. At the same time, our knowledge of the gene pool of the Uralic peoples has also increased significantly. The aim of the present study is to identify parallels and discrepancies between the latest linguistic and historical genetic results. We highlight several convergences between recent conclusions of linguistics and our model based on Y-chromosome data. A key finding is a correlation between Uralic language sub-branches and N subgroups. The direction and chronology of the eastward migration of these N subgroups may also shed new light on the Uralic-Chukchi, Uralic-Yukaghir and Uralic-Altaic linguistic parallels.

A case study of comparative metaphor analysis in Finnish and Hungarian news texts

Abstract Despite remarkable previous results of cognitive linguistic analysis of metaphorization in Finnish and Hungarian even in a cross-linguistic context (Huumo 2019; Máthé 2022), a systematic comparative study of the patterns of linguistic metaphors in these two languages is still to be carried out. The aim of this paper is to fill this research gap by proposing a MIPVU-inspired protocol for metaphor identification in languages with rich morphology and presenting the preliminary results of a small-scale corpus analysis. The study is organized around the following questions: (i) How can we adapt and extend the original MIPVU method for agglutinative Uralic languages like Hungarian and Finnish? (ii) How can we implement the adapted method in a collaborative parallel annotation process of sampled news texts? (iii) What are the differences in metaphorical patterns between Finnish and Hungarian? The paper details the adapted protocol of MIPVU for the Hungarian language (Simon et al. 2023), and how it can be applied to Finnish, demonstrating its applicability in a research corpus. Our findings demonstrate a relatively similar metaphorization in Hungarian and Finnish with slight differences in terms of the frequency of metaphorical expressions, their semantic relations, and the complexity of argument structure constructions.

Loanwords in Basic Vocabulary as an Indicator of Borrowing Profiles

Abstract Loanwords carry information on linguistic interactions, and can also reveal (pre-)historical population contacts. The contact history of a particular language family is an essential component of historical linguistics, but it is also illuminating for integrative studies of the human past. However, data availability and the time-consuming nature of etymology mean that comprehensive research on loanword layers exists for relatively few languages, forcing us to rely on limited material for others. This paper compares the loanword layers in the basic and total vocabulary of six well-studied Uralic languages, assessing how accurately the borrowing profile in basic vocabulary reflects the full profile of a language. We define “borrowing profile” as the known contact history of a language reflected by its loanword layers. We demonstrate that the loanword layers in basic vocabulary provide an adequate cross-section of the full borrowing profile, although basic vocabulary manifests prehistoric contacts more strongly than more recent contacts.

A Givónian perspective on the relation of verbal and non-verbal person suffixes in Hungarian

Our point of departure is Givón’s (2017) hypothesis that the sources of the affixes of pronominal agreement in person and number are the corresponding independent pronouns, and depending on whether the given type of agreement is diachronically young or old in a language, the etymological link to independent pronouns is highly transparent or rather tenuous. We claim, first, that the Nilo-Saharan Luo language serves as a better illustration of the ‘diachronically young’ type than Givón’s (1976, 2017) own poster-child examples. Hungarian, however, belongs to the ‘diachronically old’ type. Nevertheless, the synchronic system of Hungarian can be claimed to preserve the distinguished role of the pronominal basis in a strange but surprisingly regular way. We also illustrate two promising directions of future research concerning the expansion of the basic, personal-pronoun related, agreement markers. Their widespread proliferation in the morphology of several categories in all Uralic languages is itself obviously worth systematic comparative descriptive research, in the background of which it promises high-level explanatory adequacy to apply the morphosyntactic theory of person-hierarchy sensitive languages, especially to the analysis of such puzzling expressions as, for instance, engem ‘me’ (literally, ‘my-me’).

Secondary depictive and resultative predication in and Chukchi's designative case

This study re-approaches the morphosyntax of the Chukchi designative case, a minor predicative case whose central function is the encoding of secondary depictive and resultative predicates. Although the designative case has been covered in Chukchi grammaticography (Bogoras 1922; Skorik 1961, 1977; Dunn 1999; Kämpfe & Volodin 1995), these accounts offer diverging and partly contradicting accounts concerning its compatibility with certain nominal parts of speech; of central relevance is the account of Inenlikej (1974) who went as far and denied the existence of a designative case altogether. A dedicated study of the syntax and semantics of the designative case has however, so far, not been attempted. Based on a manually glossed corpus of almost 13000 orthographic Chukchi words and additional electronically searchable Chukchi materials, this study covers the designative case from the perspective of participant-oriented adjuncts (Himmelmann & Schultze-Berndt 2005) and a recent questionnaire on secondary predication in Uralic Languages (Groot 2017). Since a number of Northern Eurasian languages have cases with a similar function e.g, Yukaghiric, Eskimo, several Uralic languages as well as Chukchi’s genetic relatives Koryak, Alutor and Itelmen, some cross-linguistic comparisons finalize this study.
 
 Keywords: Chukchi, designative case, depictive secondary predication, resultative secondary predication, participant-oriented adjuncts, Chukotko-Kamchadal languages, Yukaghir languages, Siberian Yupik Eskimo, Uralic languages

Севернохантыйская посессивность и типология детерминации

In many Uralic languages, possessive agreement markers form a special determiner system. Following several studies that argue that Uralic possessives have been grammaticalized as determiners, the present study (based on original field data) describes the semantics of four such determiners in the Kazym dialect of Northern Khanty and sets them against the background of recent investigations of typology and the theory of determiner semantics. Although these determiners involve well-known semantic features (familiarity, uniqueness, sa‑ lience, partitivity, intensional rigidity), some of the combinations of these features observed in Northern Khanty appear to be previously unattested among the world’s languages. For instance, I claim that in Northern Khanty, there are definite possessive markers, as well as a determiner that marks the most salient referent. In other cases, the Northern Khanty data confirm the findings of my predecessors, with the only difference being that in their data the relevant oppositions are found in expressions unrelated to possessives. Thus, this study contributes to determiner typology and to field-based semantic research in the languages of Russia, continuing the direction of Uralic studies started by [Nikolaeva 2003; Fraurud 2001; Kuznetsova 2003].

The Estonian Language and Its Influence on Music: A Cognitive Sciences Approach

Musicology may seem a specific small sector of humanitarian scholarship to the layman, but it hides variety within from highly theoretical subjects such as music theory to the fieldwork with indigenous repertoires and their performance, as found in ethnomusicology. There is a shift in contemporary musicology, its focus moving more towards studies of musical performances and the use of empirical study designs to complement the analysis of musical scores. These interdisciplinary empirical studies cross the border of humanitarian scholarship and apply the methods of the natural sciences, for example spectrogram analysis of singing and the measurement of the temporal structure of recorded music. The cognitive sciences of music (CSM) can be looked at as an umbrella term for branches of musicology that use empirical research methods and draw their research questions from music related individual and group processes. One of the major topics of CSM relates to research in linguistics. Music and language, as well as speech, are closely linked as the human voice is a natural part of vocal music and is considered a quintessential element in musical thinking, vocal and instrumental alike. The music–language–speech relationship intrigues Estonian musicologists as research questions focusing on related topics arise in different fields of musicology, including natural settings and functional songs (musical development, spontaneous singing, runosong, ecclesiastical singing) to the vocal art music performed by professional singers (some chronological examples: Ross & Lehiste 2001; Raju 2015; Lippus & Ross 2017; Jõks 2021; Vurma et al. 2022). The purpose of this referative overview article is to introduce a selection of previous research and discuss the results. The endeavour of the authors is to find an abstract common denominator of selected CSM research projects to establish the most estimable useful knowledge that Estonian CSM has to offer to the international scholarly community, as well as to follow-up research in Estonia. Although we can see the results of that support, and we can see the universal perception and cognitive processes of language and music in Estonian research, there are also several interesting prosodic-musical differences relating to the fact that Estonian belongs to the Uralic language family, more specifically Western Finnish language group. Indo-Germanic (mainly German, Russian, Latin, Italian, and English) language related prosody and singing culture does not necessarily support the natural language usage and therefore represses emotional and spontaneous involvement in singing. It seems that in the process in which Estonian scholars deal with their distinctive mother tongue, indigenous musical repertoires, and idiomatic singing, intuition – more precisely a scholarly intuition –, might play an important role.

Pseudopartitive constructions are not a subtype of nominal juxtaposition in Beserman

Abstract 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.

Borrowability of kinship terms in Uralic languages

Kinship terms are assumed to be universal and central to social life, and consequently they are not particularly prone to borrowing. Borrowing of kinship terms does happen, however, and this provides us a lens with which to evaluate the nature and intensity of contact situations. In this study, we provide a general overview of the borrowability of kinship terms into the Uralic languages. We collected kinship terms from twenty Uralic languages and used a list of 146 kin categories total as the basis for our data collection. We found that affinal kin categories such as those denoting spouses, spouse’s siblings, and sibling’s spouses had the largest number of loanwords. However, among the kin categories with the largest number of loanwords were also consanguineal categories such as those of ‘mother’ and ‘father’. We also found that the Uralic languages vary notably in how large a percentage of their kinship terminology has been borrowed: the Mordvin languages have borrowed the most, more than 40 percent of their kinship terms, while for many Samoyedic languages no loanwords were detected in their kinship terminology. In addition to the quantitative approach, we also delve into the kin categories with the largest number of loanwords and discuss the patterns of these loanwords in certain languages, and the occurrence of semantic change as a factor explaining the large number of loanwords of terms for ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. All in all, borrowing of kin terms is a context-dependent process and it is challenging to make global generalizations. Nevertheless, we propose that borrowed kin terms could provide us the best possible material through which individual contact situations of the past could be studied. This study also summarizes the borrowed kin terms in the Uralic languages, brings the topic into the spotlight, and pinpoints cases where more research is needed.

The (non-)finiteness of subordination correlates with basic word order: Evidence from Uralic

AbstractThis paper aims to answer why the Uralic languages use, or used until intensive contacts with Indo-European languages, only non-finite subordination. It argues against regarding the evolution of finite subordination language development, showing that languages with non-finite subordination and parataxis have the same expressive power as languages with finite subordination. It claims that non-finite subordination is a concomitant of SOV word order, and the growing proportion of finite subordination in the Uralic languages from east to west, and in the history of Hungarian is a consequence of the loosening of the SOV order and the emergence of SVO. The paper examines two hypotheses about the correlations between SOV and non-finite subordination, and SVO and finite subordination, the Final-Over-Final Condition of Biberauer, Holmberg & Roberts (2014, etc.), a formal principle constraining clausal architecture, and the Minimize Domains Principle of Hawkins (2004, etc.), a functional principle of processing efficiency. The two theories make largely overlapping correct predictions for the Uralic languages, which suggests that the Final-Over-Final Condition may be the syntacticization of the condition that ensures processing efficiency in SOV and SVO languages.

“I GO DOWNSTREAM, AND YOU GO TOWARD THE SNOWSTORM”: EXPRESSIONS OF CARDINAL DIRECTIONS IN NGANASAN AND DOLGAN

This corpus-based study is dedicated to the topic of spatial orientation in two genetically unrelated but geographically neighboring languages, Ngnasan and Dolgan. Nganasan belongs to the Northern-Samoyedic branch of the Uralic language family, while Dolgan is a Turkic language. The Dolgans reached the peninsula later than the Nganasan and inhabited rather the eastern part. The goal is to typologically examine the linguistic realization of the directions of the so-called compass orientation. This is a very well-known fact that many indigenous languages, including many languages spoken in Siberia, do not know compass orientation. According to Brown (1983), speakers of many indigenous languages use three or only two cardinal points, however, in many languages, the speakers do not necessarily use the names of the compass direction but apply other concepts for expressing spatial directions. Brown (1983) identifies several sources of lexemes expressing the cardinal points, such as celestial bodies, which is the most often used source. It also occurs in the Samoyedic languages, e.g. in Selkup, but as we will see, not in the closely related Nganasan. Atmospheric features such as wind, seasons, blizzards, or environment- specific features such as a mountain, forest, or tundra can be metaphorically extended, thereby acting as the conceptual source of cardinal directions. The study follows Brown's typologization and tries to classify the results into their typological categories. We will find similarities and differences between the two languages regarding the conceptual sources. Both languages rely on the so-called landmarks for orientation in the surrounding areas, such as tundra, forest, river, or mountain, but beyond that, Nganasan uses other, non-common categories as well. These reflect a connection to their way of life; thus, it can be interpreted as a culture-specific source, which in turn has its origin in the environment. In contrast, the Nganasans do not use rivers as orientation points at all, although they live partly on the same rivers. Also typical only for the Nganasan is the use of atmospheric features a conceptual source. It does not play a role in any way in the Dolgan.

Ossetic comitative markers in intragenetic and areal perspective

The article is dedicated to the description of comitative markers in Ossetic. First, we compare the distribution of basic comitative markers (which are used in prototypical comitative contexts like ‘Alan went to the mountains with Soslan’) in Iron and Digor Ossetic (the case marker -imæ and the postposition xæccæ, respectively). It is demonstrated that their usage contexts are similar overall, with the exception of plural pronoun constructions and attributive constructions, where the Digor postposition xæccæ has limited use. Second, we analyze the preposition æd, which exists in both language varieties. It is different from the basic comitative markers both in syntax and in semantics. It is typical in the context of “complete set” (e.g., ‘throw away the pot together with the flower’), thus being a socalled “holistic” comitative, like certain markers in some Uralic and Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages. The preposition æd also has a limited syntactic distribution, attaching mostly to nouns without dependents. The properties of æd also differ in Iron and Digor: in Digor, æd is more widespread in attributive constructions, and, unlike Iron, is used in coordinating constructions with double marking. Third,we discuss comitative markers in Iranian and in languages areally close to Ossetic in connection with the untypical semantics of æd. No reliable semantic counterparts to æd are found in Iranian. However, Georgian, which is found in the same linguistic area as Ossetic, has the marker -ian-ad, used in contexts similar to those where Ossetic æd is typical.

“Husband” Designations: A Classification of Nomination Models (In the Linguo-Semantic Field of Eurasia)

The present article offers the first section of a collective study devoted to identifying the basic models of designating the notion of “husband, spouse”. The study is based on textual and lexicographical data, as well as that stored in databases of semantic shifts (CLICS and DatSemShift). The paper analyzes synonymous denominations of “husband” in different language strata and concludes that there is an unusual abundance of “parallel” designations (in contrast with other terms of kinship). The empirical data comes mainly from languages of Europe (both Indo-European and belonging to other language families), as well as from Uralic and Dravidian languages, including also other linguistic material with additional comparative value. A comparative analysis of the corresponding semantic shifts in the aforementioned databases has provided the article with colexification graphs. In the course of research, general models of the nomination of “husband” were identified and described, partly based on the specifics of archaic marriage law, namely the unequal status of “husband” and “wife”, which is also reflected in some of the nomination models. The most common (and presumably the most archaic) of these models, M-1 (husband as my man, my human), is based on the implicit idea of EGO, in this case, the wife as the supposedly initial subject of nomination. Further, another model was identified in which the “husband”, according to the nomination strategy, does not rely on EGO, but rather appears as a socionim (M-2). Within this model, 4 subgroups are distinguished (husband as a married person; husband as an outstanding member of society; husband as an old man; husband as a master, landowner). Another model (M-3) implies paired husband-wife nominations (spouses, husband as a friend, a partner, companion etc.). In the course of research, it is planned to create maps of the areal distribution of these models throughout Eurasia and to identify preferential zones for each of them.

Genetic admixture and language shift in the medieval Volga-Oka interfluve

The Volga-Oka interfluve in northwestern Russia has an intriguing history of population influx and language shift during the Common Era. Today, most inhabitants of the region speak Russian, but until medieval times, northwestern Russia was inhabited by Uralic-speaking peoples.1,2,3 A gradual shift to Slavic languages started in the second half of the first millennium with the expansion of Slavic tribes, which led to the foundation of the Kievan Rus' state in the late 9th century CE. The medieval Rus' was multicultural and multilingual-historical records suggest that its northern regions comprised Slavic and Uralic peoples ruled by Scandinavian settlers.4,5,6 In the 10th-11th centuries, the introduction of Christianity and Cyrillic literature raised the prestige status of Slavic, driving a language shift from Uralic to Slavic.3 This eventually led to the disappearance of the Uralic languages from northwestern Russia. Here, we study a 1,500-year time transect of 30 ancient genomes and stable isotope values from the Suzdal region in the Volga-Oka interfluve. We describe a previously unsampled local Iron Age population and a gradual genetic turnover in the following centuries. Our time transect captures the population shift associated with the spread of Slavic languages and illustrates the ethnically mixed state of medieval Suzdal principality, eventually leading to the formation of the admixed but fully Slavic-speaking population that inhabits the area today. We also observe genetic outliers that highlight the importance of the Suzdal region in medieval times as a hub of long-reaching contacts via trade and warfare.

An infinitive by any other name: On the non-finites in Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian grammars

Abstract Non-finite verb forms, in-between verbs and nouns and also in-between inflection and derivation, pose challenges to grammar writing. In the largely Latin-based European grammar traditions, three or four main types of non-finites are often distinguished: infinitives, participles, verbal adverbs (gerunds, converbs), and – often most closely connected to the participles but classified as derivation rather than inflection – deverbal noun derivatives. Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian, the three Uralic state languages with a strong tradition of written cultivation, are situated at the western end of the language family and display a strong “Europeanization” also in their systems of non-finites. Yet, these systems differ greatly even from each other. In this paper, the classification and nomenclature of non-finites in Hungarian grammars are compared with Finnish and Estonian. The Finnish grammar tradition is based on morphological substance but, failing to acknowledge the category of converbs, ends up exploiting the term “infinitive” in a way which is syntactically and semantically meaningless. The Estonian grammars vacillate between an opportunistic use of traditional European grammar terms and a simple listing of forms at a minimal level of abstraction. Hungarian grammars, in turn, present the non-finites in a way which is incompatible with other grammar traditions and is internally contradictory.