EAP - Linguistica Uralica Publications

PUBLISHED
SINCE 1965

Linguistica Uralica

ISSN 1736-7506 (Electronic)
ISSN 0868-4731 (Print)

Open Access Journal

CiteScore: 0.5

Syncretism in the Central Veps Local Case System; pp. 250-260

PDF | doi:10.3176/lu.2010.4.02

Author

Riho Grünthal

Abstract

Syncretism and the overlapping of morphologically distinct units or entire categories have different influence on morphologically complex and less complex forms. In principle, both syncretism and polysemy corrupt the ideal distribution of morphological units and the balance between form and function. However, compared to polysemy, the influence of syncretism is more dramatic because it decreases the efficiency and grammatical applicability of individual forms, whereas polysemy extends the functional capacity of inflectional categories. In Veps, there is relatively little syncretism in synchronic case paradigms. Both noun and verb inflection are based on regular suffixal morphology. Unlike in the southern Finnic languages, such as Vote, Estonian and Livonian, syncretism does not influence the most frequent case categories in Veps. There are certain lexical types that display morphonological alternation but there are no inflectional categories that would be distinguished by means of flexive morphology and stem alternation. However, in certain cases syncretism extends beyond those categories that are predictable as there are some examples of accidental inflectional homonymy between the partitive singular and nominative plural. More generally speaking, the historical development of the Veps local case system is strongly affected by syncretism. This article focuses on syncretism in the western varieties of Central Veps, which are slightly different from the other local varieties of the given language area. Those categories that are affected by syncretism will be examined in the light of paradigmatic overlapping and syntactic compensation. The assessment of syncretism from a functional perspective is based on the assumption that paradigmatic identity between distinct categories is not always realized at a syntactic level.

References

Baerman, M. 2005, Directionality and (Un)natural Classes in Syncretism. - Language 80, 807-827.
doi:10.1353/lan.2004.0163

Baerman, M. Brown, D. 2005, Case Syncretism. - The World Atlas of Language Structures, Oxford.

Baerman, M., Brown, D. Corbett, G. C. 2005, The Syntax-Morphology Interface. A Study of Syncretism, Cambridge.

Blevins, J. 2005, Word-based declensions in Estonian. - Yearbook of Morphology 2005, 1-Ñ25.

Blevins, J. 2008, Declension Classes in Estonian. - LU XLIV, 241-265.

Campbell, L., Harris, A. C. 1995, Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Cambridge.

Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1987, Allomorphy in Inflection, London.

Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1992, Current Morphology, London.

Dalrymple, M., Nikolaeva, I. 2006, Syntax of Natural and Accidental Coordination. Evidence from Agreement. - Language 82, 824-849.
doi:10.1353/lan.2006.0189

Double Case. Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, New York 1995.

Grünthal, R. 2001, Homonymy and Systemacy in Estonian Noun Inflection. - Keele kannul. Pühendusteos Mati Erelti 60. sünnipäevaks 12. märtsil 2001. Tartu (Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele õppetooli toimetised 17), 42Ñ61.

Grünthal, R. 2003, Finnic Adpositions and Cases in Change, Helsinki (MSFOu 244).

Grünthal, R. 2005, Hány oka lehet a vepsze szekunder névutói eredetű helyhatározóragok suffixálódásának? - Uráli Grammatizáló. 2003. Szeptember 4-6, Budapest, 126-134.

Grünthal, R. 2007, Morphological Change and the Influence of Language Contacts in Estonian. - Beiträge zur Morphologie. Germanisch, baltisch, ostseefinnisch, Odense, 403-432.

Haspelmath, M. 1998, Does Grammaticalization Need Reanalysis? - Studies in Language 22:2, 315Ñ351.

Haspelmath, M. 2008, Creating Economical Morphosyntactic Patterns in Language Change. - Language Universals and Language Change, Oxford, 185-214.

Heath, J. 1998, Hermit Crabs. Formal Renewal of Morphology by Phonologically Mediated Affix Substitution. - Language 74, 728-759.
doi:10.2307/417001

Honti, L. 1997, Numerusprobleme. - FUF 54, 1-126.

Johnston, J. 1997, Systematic Homonymy and the Structure of Morphological Categories. Some Lessons from Paradigm. PhD thesis, University of Sydney. http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/396/1/adt-NU1999.0013whole.pdf.

Kettunen, L. 1920, Näytteitä etelävepsästä I, Helsinki (Suomi 4:18).

Kettunen, L. 1925, Näytteitä etelävepsästä II, Helsinki (Suomi 5:4).

Kettunen, L. 1960, Suomen lähisukukielten luonteenomaiset piirteet, Helsinki (MSFOu 119).

Luraghi, S. 2008, Synkretismus. - Morphologie. Ein Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, Berlin, 638-647.

Nevis, J. 1988, On the Development of the Clitic Postposition Category in Estonian. - FUF 48, 171-197.

Paradigms. The Economy of Inflection, Berlin 1991.

Ravila, P. 1941, Über die Verwendung der Numeruszeichen in den uralischen Sprachen. - FUF 27, 1-136.

Stolz, T. 1992, Lokalkasussysteme. Aspekte einer strukturellen Dynamik, Wilhelmsfeld.

Tikka, T. 1992, Vepsän suffiksoituneet postpositiot. Kieliopillisiin sijoihin liittyvä suffiksoituminen, Uppsala (Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 22).

Майтинская К. Е. 1979, Морфология финно-угорскиx языков, Москва.

Back to Issue