Nothing personal: subject demotion in impersonal constructions of some Finno-Ugric languages

Subject: cognitive, typological and functional approachesHelsinki, 12th September 2013Nikolett F. GulyásEötvös Loránd University

Introduction• the aim of my dissertation:

▫ classifying the different encoding strategies expressing impersonality

▫ in Finno-Ugric languages (Ugric, Permic, Volgaic, Finnic)▫ on a functional/typological basis

• definition:▫ impersonal constructions are associated with the lack of ▫ impersonal constructions are associated with the lack of

a canonical (prototypical) subject (Siewierska 2008a: 116)▫ a prototypical subject is an argument that is referential,

topical, agentive, definite and animate (cf. Keenan 1976, Malchukov–Ogawa 2011: 23)

• in this presentation:▫ Mari, Permyak, Udmurt and Hungarian▫ 3Pl, causative and resultative constructions

Values• Referentiality: rather existential (true for at least one referent)

than universal (true for all/any referent)• speaker is often excluded• induces a plural reading (Siewierska 2008b: 8–17)

• Topicality: the prototypical subject stands as the topic of the sentence and it is the most salient participant in the event (e.g. trajector) in Hungarian (Tolcsvai Nagy 2012)(e.g. trajector) in Hungarian (Tolcsvai Nagy 2012)• prominent: that part of a given event which is the most

accessible or recognizable, in the focus of attention• is it valid for the other target languages?

• Agentivity: the subject bears the highest role in the semantic role hierarchy, that is, it is an agent (cf. Givón 2001)

• Case form: semantic role hierarchy (id.: 200)• Agent > Dative > Patient > Local > other

Values• Definiteness: „Speakers code a nominal referent as

definite when they assume that it is identifiable or accessible to the hearer.” (Givón 2001: 459)• the construction refers to a group rather than an

individual (cf. Siewierska 2008b)• Animacy: subject is often (but not necessarily) animate • Animacy: subject is often (but not necessarily) animate

and human (Siewierska 2008a)• Productivity: is the construction transparent; are there

any structural or semantic restrictions?• Frequency: textual frequency implies productivity (cf.

Bybee 2006)• Verb form: agreement; special markers?

Target languages• Permic: Udmurt (Votyak) 552299 and (Komi-)Permyak

94456• Volgaic: Meadow Mari (Cheremis) 547605 (census 2010)• Ugric: Hungarian• nominative-accusative case marking pattern• rich case system: Udmurt 15, Permyak 17, Mari 12

Hungarian 18 casesHungarian 18 cases• the canonical case for grammatical subject: nominative• basic word order: Udmurt and Mari: SOV, Permyak: SVO,

Hungarian: both• unmarked objects are usual (Csúcs 1990, Bereczki 1990,

Ponomareva forthcoming)• genetic, areal and typological similarities• possible Turkic and Russian influences

• Why these languages?• comprehensive studies on the impersonal domain for

the whole language family are quite rare: Stipa 1962, Schiefer 1981

• for meteoverbs of FU languages: Bartens 1995, Salo 2011

• in Uralistics, syntactic-typological approach has only recently emerged, functional considerations have recently emerged, functional considerations have been neglected

• functional studies concentrate mostly on the Circum-Baltic area (Holvoet 2001, Blevins 2003, Vihman 2002, Helasvuo-Vilkuna 2008)

• functional studies for Hungarian (Havas 2008, TolcsvaiNagy 2012)

• minor FU languages are seldom the targets of cross-linguistic surveys

Constructions

weather verbs

impersonal passive

reflexive (zero)

indefinite pronoun

generic noun

modal

adjectival

reflexive

resultativereflexive (zero)noun

3Pl causativeinstrumental

resultative

Constructions

weather verbs

impersonal passive

reflexive (zero)

indefinite pronoun

generic noun

modal

adjectival

reflexive

resultativereflexive (zero)noun

3Pl causativeinstrumental

resultative

Data and methods� grammars: Alatyrev 1970, Lytkin 1962, Kalina–

Raspopova 1983, Ponomareva forthcoming, Tsypanov2005, Alatyrev 1970, Csúcs 1990, 2005, Kel’makov–Hännikäinen 2008, Bartens 2000, Bereczki 1990, 2002, Pomozi 2000, Alhoniemi 2010, Kalinina–Kolomatsky–Sudobina 2006Sudobina 2006

� questionnaires: (3-3 native informants for each language)• 1. questionnaire involved 87 sentences to be

translated into target languages (87 x 5: 437)• 14 different constructions

Data and methods• questionnaires:

2. acceptability judgments on the basis of the translations (8-12 questions/each translation)• „Which participant of the event is the most

important?”• „Does the verb refer to many people or to one • „Does the verb refer to many people or to one

person?”• „If you say this can the verb refer to you?”

• corpus analysis: parallel translations of a Russian novel called the Pavlik Morozov text (Luutonen 2010): 12,500 words/language

Overt grammatical subject – 3Pl• 3Pl impersonals are common in all the languages• Referentiality:

▫ reference is context-dependent: universal and existential both possible

▫ the speaker is generally excluded▫ rather plural readings

• Topicality: the grammatical subject does not describe a prominent participant of the action: non-topicalprominent participant of the action: non-topical▫ it does not act as a trajector

• Agentivity: generally agentive, voluntary actor • Definiteness: plural readings, generally not accessible for

the hearer• Animacy: the subject corresponds to a human• Productivity: no semantic restrictions on verbs• Verb form : subject is marked with verbal personal markers,

it triggers verbal agreement

Examples(1a) Pe Medberja kade baite-ni bid jiliś.

present time:INE speak-3PL every about(1b) Ud Berlo dire olomar no vera-lo.

present time:INE something-[ACC] also speak-3PL(1c) Ma Küzütse žapǝšte ala-mom-at ojl-at.

present time:INE something-ACC speak-3PLpresent time:INE something-ACC speak-3PL(1d) Hu Beszél-nek mostanában mindenfélé-t

speak-3PL present_time every(thing) -ACC’Nowadays [they] speak about everything.’

Examples(2a) Pe Kerku [0] lebt-i-s-e.(2b) Ud Korka-ez pukt-i-zi (2c) Ma Pört-ǝm čoŋe-n-ǝt(2d) Hu A házat felépítették.

(the) house-ACC pass-PST-3PL‘The house has been built.’

(3a) Pe No, a ni len hoźajstvoez kolhozzeze koĺččise.(3a) Pe No, a ni len hoźajstvoez kolhozzeze koĺččise.(3b) Ud Soin ik soosti tatči, ujpala keĺazi (3c) Ma Sandene nunǝm tǝš koltenǝt – jüdvel mlandǝš(3d) Hu Ezért ide északra száműzték őket.‘Thus they have been proscribed here to the North.’ (PM 86)

Non-canonical grammatical subject - causatives• this construction is absent in Hungarian• Referentiality: reference is existential

▫ only individual reading• Topicality: the primary argument is prominent,

topical, can be considered the trajector• Agentivity: the primary argument is an • Agentivity: the primary argument is an

experiencer (Dat marked)• Definiteness: only individual reading, accessible

for the hearer, definite• Animacy: the subject corresponds to a human• Verb form : no agreement, only 3Sg, special

marker

Examples

• Productivity: from a set of 130 verbs only 1 example for

(4a) Pe Aj-es e se-t-e.(4b) Ud Ataj-ez beri-kt-e.(4c) Ma Ača-m vakǝ-kt-a.

father-ACC vomit-CAUS-3SG’The father is nauseous.’

• Productivity: from a set of 130 verbs only 1 example for Udmurt, 2 for Mari and 5 for Permyak▫ no examples in the paralell corpus

• semantic restrictions: only with verbs expressing physical or mental state or change

• a loan from Russian?• common and productive in Finnish where borrowing is unlikely• affixes are from the same FU origin (Bereczki 2002, Csúcs

2005)

Absent grammatical subject – reflexives 1• only in Permyak• the verb depicts an event where the subject acts

involuntarily

• Referentiality: existential, individual reading• Topicality: less prominent as the former type, is not a

trajector, ?non-topical trajector, ?non-topical • Agentivity: the primary argument is non-agentive, it is a

patient or an experiencer (Gen marked)• Definiteness: only individual reading, accessible for the

hearer, definite• Animacy: the subject corresponds to a human• Productivity: transparent, semantic restrictions: verbs

meaning physical states• Verb form: no agreement, only 3Sg, special marker

Examples(5a) Pe Menam onmeśśi-ś-еm-a. (Bartens 2000: 285)

I.GEN fall_asleep-REFL-PST.3SG

‘I am unable to sleep.’

(5b) Hu Nekem nem akar-ódz-ott felkel-nem.I.DAT NEG want-REFL-PST.3SG wake_up-INF.3SG‘I did not want to wake up’

Present grammatical subject – reflexives 2• in Udmurt and Permyak• different functions• in Udmurt: the speaker has been forced to do sg,

or has done sg accidently – resultative (cf. Bartens 2000, Alatyrev 1970)2000, Alatyrev 1970)

• in Permyak: generalization (Tsypanov 2005)

• Referentiality: both – rather existential reference▫ in Pe: plural reading, in Ud: individual

• Topicality: non-topical

• Agentivity: in Pe: agent-like, in Ud: patient/experiencer-like

• Definiteness: in Pe: definite on the basis of accessibility, in Ud: less definiteaccessibility, in Ud: less definite

• Animacy: the subject corresponds to a human• Productivity: morphologically productive but not

frequent• Verb form: only 3Sg, special marker

Examples

(6a) Pe Gožem-in śiv-ś-e ov-ś-e.summer-INE sing-REFL-3SG live- REFL-3SG‘[People] sing and live [well] in summer.’Tsypanov 2005: 195

(6b)Ud (Mon) pinal-li śot-iśk-i-z(I) child-DAT give-REFL-PST-3SG‘I gave (something) to the child unintentionally.’‘I was forced to give (something) to the child.’

Tsypanov 2005: 195

Results• number of constructions: Permic>Mari>Hungarian• number of valuable criteria:

▫ 3pl>causatives=reflexives with a core argument> reflexives without a core argument

• productivity of constructions:productivity of constructions:▫ transparency and semantic restrictions:� reflexives (without a core argument) > reflexives (with a

core argument) > causatives > 3Pl▫ frequency:� 3Pl>causatives>reflexives (without a core argument)

>reflexives (with a core argument)

Conclusions• from the core of the domain to the margin:

▫ Pl3 impersonal > causative impersonals > reflexive impersonals

• 3Pl constructions are core impersonals according to referentiality and definiteness but seem to be personal according to topicality and animacyaccording to topicality and animacy

• while causatives and reflexives are impersonals on the basis of topicality

• in this sense, these FU languages show the usual cross-linguistic patterns (cf. Siewierska 2011, Malchukov–Ogawa 2011)

ReferencesInformants: Tatiana Efremova, Irina Kamenshikova, Anastasya Saupasheva, Larisa Ponomareva, Nikolay Rakin, Elena Rodionova, Yulia Speshilova, Census 2010: http://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/hanyan-maradtak-a-finnugorok (accessed: 25.04.2012.)Alatyrev, V. I. [Алатырев, В. И.] 1970: Грамматика современного удмуртского языка. Синтаксис простого предложения. Ижевск: Издательство Удмуртия.Alhoniemi, Alho 2010: Marin kielioppi. 2. painos. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. [Apuneuvoja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten opintoja varten X]Bartens, Raija 1995: Suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten meteorologisista ja muita luonnonolosuhteita merkitsevistä ilmauksista. JSFOu 86: 33–65.Bartens, Raija 2000: Permilaisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys. MSFOu 238.Bereczki, Gábor 1990: Chrestomathia ceremissica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Bereczki, Gábor 2002: A cseremisz nyelv történeti alaktana. Studies in Linguistics of the Volga-Region. Supplementum I. Debrecen: Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó.Blevins, James P. 2003: Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics 39: 473–520.Bybee, Joan 2006: From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82 (4): 711–733.Csúcs, Sándor 1990: Chrestomathia Votiacica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Csúcs, Sándor 2005: Die Rekonstruktion der permischen Grundsprache. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Givón, Talmy. 2001: Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Havas Ferenc 2008: Az uráli nyelvek genitívuszáról ‒ tipológiai megközelítésben. NyK 104: 57‒85.Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa – Vilkuna, Maria 2008. Impersonal is personal: Finnish perspectives. Transactions of the Philological Society 106 (2): 216–45.Holvoet, Axel 2001: Impersonals and Passives in Baltic and Finnic. In: Dahl, Östen –Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (eds.): The Circum-Baltic Languages. Vol. 2: Grammar and Typology. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins. 363–389.Kalina, G. A.–Raspopova, Z. V. [Калина, Г. А.–Распопова, З. В.] 1983: Коми-пермяцкöй кыв. Часть II. Синтаксис. Пермскöй книжкöй издательство. Кудымкар: Коми-пермяцкöй отделеннё.Kalina, G. A.–Raspopova, Z. V. [Калина, Г. А.–Распопова, З. В.] 1983: Коми-пермяцкöй кыв. Часть II. Синтаксис. Пермскöй книжкöй издательство. Кудымкар: Коми-пермяцкöй отделеннё.Kalinina, Elena–Kolomatsky, Dmitriy–Sudobina, Alexandra 2006: Transitivity increase markers interacting with verb semantics. Evidence from Finno-Ugric languages. In: Kulikov, Leonid–Malchukov,

Andrej–de Swart, Peter (eds.): Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 441–464.Keenan, Edward 1976: Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In: Li, Charles (ed.): Subject and Topic. NY: Academic Press. 305–334.Kel’makov, Valentin–Hännikäinen, Sara 2008: Udmurtin kielioppia ja harjoituksia. 2., korjattu painos. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Luutonen, Jorma 2010: Pavlik Morzov –paralleelitekstikorpus. Turku: Research Unit for Volgaic Languages, University of Turku. (Manuscript)Lytkin, V. I. [Лыткин В. И.] (ред.) 1962: Коми-пермяцкий яазык. Введение, фонетика, лексика и морфология. Кудымкар: Коми-пермяцкое книжное издательство.Malchukov, Andrej–Ogawa, Akio 2011: Towards a typology of impersonal constructions. A semantic map approach. In: Malchukov, Andrej–Siewierska, Anna (eds.): Impersonal constructions. A cross-

linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 19–56.Pomozi, Péter 2002: Cseremisz–magyar nyelvhasonlítás. BUFF 17. Budapest. Ponomareva, Larisa forthcoming: Komi‒permják nyelvkönyv. Manuscript.Salo, Merja 2011: Meteorological verbs in Uralic languages – are there any impersonal structures to be found. In: Malchukov, Andrej–Siewierska, Anna (eds.): Impersonal constructions. A cross-linguistic

perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 395–438.Schiefer, Erhard 1981: Das anonyme Subjekt in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. In Bereczki Gábor‒Molnár József (szerk.): Lakó-emlékkönyv. Budapest. 140‒157.Siewierska, Anna 2008a: Introduction: Impersonalization from a subject-centred vs. agent centred perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society 106 (2): 115–137.Siewierska, Anna 2008b: Ways of impersonalizing. In: Gómez Gonzáles, Maria de los Ángeles–Mackenzie, J. Lachlan–González Álvarez, Elsa M. (eds.): Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins. 3–26.

Stipa, Günter 1962: Impersonale Ausdrucksformen. In: Commentationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Paavo Ravila. SUST 125, Helsinki. 579–592.Tolcsvai Nagy, Gábor 2012: Az alany funkcionális értelmezéséhez. In Tolcsvai Nagy, Gábor – Tátrai, Szilárd (eds.):. Budapest: DiAGram Funkcionális nyelvészeti műKonstrukció és jelentés. Tanulmányok a

magyar nyelv funkcionális kognitív leírásárahely. 103–122.Tsypanov, E.A. [Цыпанов, E.A.] 2005: Грамматические категории глагола в коми языке. РАН. УрО. Коми НЦ. Ин-т ЯЛИ. Сыктывкар, 284 с.

VIHMAN, Virve-Anneli. 2002: Impersonalized impersonals: Argument structure and language change. In: Proceedings of the 2002 TAAL Postgraduate Conference. http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/.pgc/ (accessed:18.2.2010.)

•Att’ö/Tau/Tau/Köszönöm!•Att’ö/Tau/Tau/Köszönöm!•Thank you!

• nikolett.fgulyas@gmail.com

• OTKA-104249 project