ESTONIAN ACADEMY
PUBLISHERS
eesti teaduste
akadeemia kirjastus
PUBLISHED
SINCE 1965
 
Linguistica Uralica cover
Linguistica Uralica
ISSN 1736-7506 (Electronic)
ISSN 0868-4731 (Print)

Variation in Three-Participant Constructions in Eastern Mansi; pp. 120-130

Full article in PDF format | doi:10.3176/lu.2012.2.04

Author
Susanna Virtanen

Abstract

In Eastern Mansi, there are two different active constructions and one passive construction used for expressing ditransitive action. The active constructions are the so called PO/SO construction and the so called DO/IO construction (see Dryer 1986). Also a personal passive clause can contain all the same arguments as a three-participant active clause. According to my data and earlier studies, variation in Mansi three-participant constructions is based on information structure. There is certain correlation between pragmatic and syntactic functions: each syntactic role (subject, object, oblique) is usually occupied by a certain information structural function (focus, primary topic, secondary topic). The syntactic functions form a hierarchy, and the more topical the constituent is, the higher position it gets in the syntax hierarchy. The subject slot is always occupied by the primary topic, whilst the place of the direct object of an active clause is occupied by the secondary topic. When the Agent is the primary topic, we use an active construction, where the Agent takes the place of subject. The PO/SO construction occurs in situations where the Agent is the primary topic, R-argument represents secondary topic and the Patient is focal. The occurrence of DO/IO construction is quite marginal: it is restricted to such sentences that include a recipient focus. Whenever the Patient or the Recipient is the primary topic, it is promoted to Subject, and the whole clause is turned into the passive voice. Three-participant passive clauses appear particularly in situations where the R-argument is the most topical constituent.


References

Aissen, J. 2003, Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. - ­Natural Languages & Linguistic Theory 21, 435-483.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573

Bossong, G. 1985, Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Empirische Universalienforschung, Tübingen.

Dryer, M. S. 1986, Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative. - Language 62, 808-845.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/415173

Hopper, P. J., Thompson, S. A. 1980, Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. - Language 56, 251-299.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/413757

Kannisto, A. 1951, Wogulische Volksdichtung I. Texte mythischen Inhalts. Bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Matti Liimola, Helsinki (MSFOu 101).

Kannisto, A. 1955, Wogulische Volksdichtung II. Kriegs- und Heldensagen. Bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Matti Liimola, Helsinki (MSFOu 109).

Kannisto, A. 1956, Wogulische Volksdichtung III. Märchen. Bearbeitet und herausge­ge­ben von Matti Liimola, Helsinki (MSFOu 111).

Kannisto, A. 1958, Wogulische Volksdichtung IV. Bärenlieder. Bearbeitet und herausge­geben von Matti Liimola, Helsinki (MSFOu 114).

Kannisto, A. 1959, Wogulische Volksdichtung V. Aufführungen beim Bärenfest. Bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Matti Liimola, Helsinki (MSFOu 116).

Kannisto, A. 1963, Wogulische Volksdichtung VI. Schicksalslieder, Klagelieder, Kinderreime, Rätsel, Verschiedenes. Bearbeitet und herausge­geben von Matti Lii­mola, Helsinki (MSFOu 134).

Kittilä, S. 2002, Transitivity. Towards a Comprehensive Typology, Turku (PhD thesis. University of Turku).

Kulonen, U.-M. 1989, The Passive in Ob-Ugrian, Helsinki (MSFOu 203).

Kulonen, U.-M. 2007, Itämansin kielioppi ja tekstejä, Helsinki (Apuneuvoja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten opintoja varten 15).

Lambrecht, K. 1994, Information Structure and Sentence Form, Cambridge.

Margetts, A., Austin, P. K. 2007, Three-Participant Events in the Languages of the World: towards a Cross-Linguistic Typology. - Linguistics 45, 393-451.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.014

Nikolaeva, I. 1999, Object Agreement, Grammatical Relations, and Information Structure. - Studies in Language 23, 341-86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sl.23.2.05nik

Petrova, S., Solf, M. 2009, On the Methods of Information-Structural ­Analysis in Historical Texts. A Case Study on Old German. - Information Structure and Language Change. New Approaches to Word Order Variation in Germanic, Berlin (Trends in Linguistics. Studies & Monographs 203), 121-160.

Rappaport Hovav, M., Levin, B. 2008, Reflexions on Manner/Result Complementarity. - Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure. Part I, Oxford (Studies in Theoretical Linguistics), 21-58.

Skribnik, E. 2001, Pragmatic Structuring in Northern Mansi. - CIFU IX. Pars VI, 222-239.


Back to Issue