Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter (A) June 15, 2016

From double to dependent marking? An investigation of possessive constructions in Caucasian Urum

Johanna Neugebauer

Abstract

Speakers of the Turkic variety Caucasian Urum use different strategies for morphologically marking attributive possessive relations. This article presents the results of an experimental study conducted in Tbilisi with the aim of revealing if speakers systematically differentiate in their use of possession markers, and if so, if this is influenced by internal factors such as alienability of the word and complexity of the phrase. Furthermore, the speakers’ ages were taken into account. Results showed that in possessive constructions, it is especially the head-marking possessive suffix that is occasionally omitted. Post-hoc analysis showed the unexpected influence of alienability on single NP’s possessive marking, even in non-possessive constructions. The results lead to the assumption that the process of constructing possessive phrases is highly influenced by the contact language, Russian.

Acknowledgements

I very much would like to thank Violeta Moisidi for her generous help with translation, communication with the participants, and a very hospitable introduction to the Urum people in Tbilisi. My special gratitude goes to Stavros Skopeteas, without whom this work would not have been possible, and Stefanie Böhm and Claudia Wegener for their help and encouragement. I am grateful to the Linguistic’s Department of Bielefeld University for funding the study. Special thanks go to the ‘UET’.

Abbreviations

1, 2, 3

1st, 2nd, 3rd person

acc

accusative

comp

complementizer

cop

copula

dem

demonstrative

exist

existential

gen

genitive

loc

locative

NP

nominal phrase

O

old = older speakers

pl

plural

pm

possessum

poss

possessive

pr

possessor

pst

past

ru

Russian origin

sg

singular

Y

young=younger speakers

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds.). 2012. Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology. Explorations in linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660223.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Awobuluyi, A. Oladele. 1978. Essentials of Yoruba grammar. Ibadan: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bang, Willy. 1921. Vom Köktürkischen zum Osmanischen. Vorarbeiten zu einer vergleichenden Grammatik des Türkischen. 4. Mitteilung: Durch das Possessivsuffix erweiterte Nominalstämme. Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1921, Nr. 2. Berlin.Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2015. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.4.22, retrieved December 2013 from http://www.praat.org/Search in Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle & Martha C. Muntzel. 1989. The structural consequences of language death. In Nancy C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating obsolescence. Studies in language contraction and death, 181–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620997.016Search in Google Scholar

Chappell, Hilary & William McGregor. 1989. Alienability, inalienability and nominal classification. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 15. 24–36.10.3765/bls.v15i0.1734Search in Google Scholar

Chappell, Hilary & William McGregor. 1996. Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. In Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability. Empirical approaches to language typology (EALT 14), 3–30. Berlin: De Gruyter10.1515/9783110822137.3Search in Google Scholar

Erdal, Marcel. 2010. Inalienability and syncopation in Turkish. In Hendrik Boeschoten & Julian Rentzsch (eds.), Turcology in Mainz –Turkologie in Mainz (Turcologica 82), 147–153. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Search in Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4). 781–819.10.2307/413373Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Alienable vs. inalienable possessive constructions. Syntactic universals and usage frequency. Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic Diversity.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511581908Search in Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. Descriptive grammars. London [u.a.]: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1998. Possession in Yucatec Maya. (LINCOM studies in native American linguistics 04). München [i. e.] Unterschleissheim [u.a.]: LINCOM Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2014. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 7th ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com, last access: 13/05/2014Search in Google Scholar

Lichtenberk, Frantisek, Jyotsna Vaid & Hsin-Chin Chen. 2011. On the interpretation of alienable vs. inalienable possession: A psycholinguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics 22(4). 629–825.10.1515/cogl.2011.025Search in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1). 56–119.10.1353/lan.1986.0014Search in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago [i.a.]: Univ. of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Ries, Veronika, Stavros Skopeteas, Emrah Turan & Kristin Nahrmann. 2014. Discovering the prehistory of multilingual situations in the lexicon. An empirical study on the Caucasian Urum vocabulary. Linguistik online 64(2). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.13092/lo.64.1373. Last access 03.05.2016.Search in Google Scholar

Seiler, Hans-Jakob. 1982. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Search in Google Scholar

Skopeteas, Stavros, Violeta Moisidi, Eleni Sella-Mazi & Efy Yordanoglu. 2011. Urum basic lexicon (Working papers of the Urum documentation project). Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld (online available at http://urum.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/). Last access 01.10.2015.Search in Google Scholar

Skopeteas, Stavros. 2013. Caucasian Urums and Urum language (Kafkasya Urumları ve Urum Dili). In Süer Eker & Ülkü Çelik (eds.), The handbook of endangered Turkic languages, 333–364. Ankara: University of Ankara.Search in Google Scholar

Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: Findings and results. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages. A comparative handbook, 55–75. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110218442.55Search in Google Scholar

Tekinay, Alev. 2002. Günaydın. Einführung in die moderne türkische Sprache. Teil 1. 2., erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.10.29091/9783752000320Search in Google Scholar

Thull, Lina & Bettina Rempel. 2012. Possession im Urum. a-ling Forschung und Studium in der Allgemeinen Linguistik, HEFT 2. Nominalkategorien in Urum. 9–17. Universität Bielefeld.Search in Google Scholar

Verhoeven, Elisabeth, Violeta Moisidi & Efy Yordanoglu. 2011. Urum basic grammatical structures (Working papers of the Urum documentation project). Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld (online available at http://urum.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/). Last access 01.10.2015.Search in Google Scholar

Wade, Terence. 2011. A comprehensive Russian grammar. Oxford [u.a.]: Wiley-Backwell.Search in Google Scholar

Zipf, George Kingsley. 1972. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Hafner.Search in Google Scholar

Appendix

List of stimuli

ItemElementComplexityAlienabilityQuestion (by informant)English translationNo.
11simalnä dır eshil?‘What is green?’101
12comalnä dır eshil?‘What is green?’102
13siminnä dır eshil?‘What is green?’103
14cominnä dır eshil?‘What is green?’104
21simalnä dır gyög?‘What is blue?’201
22comalnä dır gyög?‘What is blue?’202
23siminnä dır gyög?‘What is blue?’203
24cominnä dır gyög?‘What is blue?’204
31simalnä boyadier ärgishi bögün?‘What paints the man today?’301
32comalnä boyadier ärgishi bögün?‘What paints the man today?’302
33simalnä boyadır ärgishi sabax?‘What paints the man tomorrow?’303
34cominnä boyadır ärgishi sabax?‘What paints the man tomorrow?’304
41siminnä dır sari?‘What is yellow?’401
42cominnä dır sari?‘What is yellow?’402
43simalnä dır sari?‘What is yellow?’403
44comalnä dır sari?‘What is yellow?’404
51simalnä dır böüq?‘What is big?’501
52comalnä dır böüq?‘What is big?’502
53siminnä dır böüq?‘What is big?’503
54cominnä dır böüq?‘What is big?’504
61simalnä dIr ɣIrIx?‘What is broken?’601
62cominkimIn velasipedi ɣIrIxtIr?‘Whose bike is broken?’602
63siminnä dIr ɣIrIx?‘What is broken?’603
64cominkimIn ɣIch-i ɣIrIx?‘Whose leg is broken?’604
71siminnä dır ğırmızi?‘What is red?’701
72comalnä dır ğırmızi?‘What is red?’702
73simalnä dır ğırmızi?‘What is red?’703
74cominnä dır ğırmızi?‘What is red?’704
81simalnä dır eshil?‘What is green?’801
82comalnä dır eshil?‘What is green?’802
83siminnä dır eshil?‘What is green?’803
84cominnä dır eshil?‘What is green?’804
91siminnä dIr ɣIrIx?‘What is broken?’901
92comalnä dIr ɣIrIx?‘What is broken?’902
93simalnä dIr ɣIrIx?‘What is broken?’903
94cominnä dIr ɣIrIx?‘What is broken?’904
101simalnä dır chüchük?‘What is small?’1001
102comalnä dır chüchük?‘What is small?’1002
103siminnä dır chüchük?‘What is small?’1003
104cominnä dır chüchük?‘What is small?’1004
111simalnä boyadier ärgishi bögün?‘What paints the man today?’1101
112comalnä boyadier ärgishi bögün?‘What paints the man today?’1102
113simalnä boyadır ärgishi sabax?‘What paints the man tomorrow?’1103
114comalnä boyadır ärgishi sabax?‘What paints the man tomorrow?’1104
121simalnä dır sari?‘What is yellow?’1201
122cominnä dır sari?‘What is yellow?’1202
123siminnä dır sari?‘What is yellow?’1203
124cominnä dır sari?‘What is yellow?’1204
131simalnä dır ğırmızi?‘What is red?’1301
132comalnä dır ğırmızi?‘What is red?’1302
133siminnä dır ğırmızi?‘What is red?’1303
134cominnä dır ğırmızi?‘What is red?’1304
141siminnä dır chüchük?‘What is small?’1401
142comalnä dır chüchük?‘What is small?’1402
143siminnä dır chüchük?‘What is small?’1403
144cominnä dır chüchük?‘What is small?’1404
151siminnä dır gyög?‘What is blue?’1501
152comalnä dır gyög?‘What is blue?’1502
153simalnä dır gyög?‘What is blue?’1503
154cominnä dır gyög?‘What is blue?’1504
161simalnä dır böüq?‘What is big?’1601
162comalnä dır böüq?‘What is big?’1602
163siminnä dır böüq?‘What is big?’1603
164cominnä dır böüq?‘What is big?’1604

Pictures and Questions

Published Online: 2016-6-15
Published in Print: 2016-7-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Scroll Up Arrow