Transcript Word order in Finno

Word order in Finno-Ugric languages
A typological approach
Part 1
Introduction
• the aim of this work is to analyze a linguistic
phenomenon in different Finno-Ugric language from
a typologic point of view
• the cross-linguistic analyses and generalization about
word order structures doesn’t contain numerous data
from Finno-Ugric languages (except from Finnish
and Hungarian in general)
• for instance: the World Atlas of Language Structures
contains ca. 120 features about Hungarian, ca. 130
features about Finnish but only 35 about KomiZyrian and 34 about Udmurt language
Introduction
• I had two goals in this study:
1. to analyze the validity or applicability of one
particular word order principle referring to FinnoUgric languages
2. to get more data about word order properties of
these languages
• I was interested in the possibility of typological
generalization focusing on one language family
• the theory I used at the analyses is Th. Venemann’s
PNS
Overview
• What are the main parameters of the PNS?
• Th. Vennemann states that the subject has no
importance in the notion of basic bord order, thus he
uses the categories: OV and VO
• his aim is to make a general explanation about
Greenberg’s universal statements
• Vennemann’s theory is the Principle of Natural
Serialization (PNS) which can be seen as a
generalization on greenbergian universals
• the basis of the explanation is categorial analogy
Overview
• Vennemann: Principle of Natural Serialization
• relation between basic word order and the order of
different constituents
• statistic universals – if the features are placed into one
direction in more than the half of the analyzed
languages, then the PNS could be held applicable for
generalization
• i.e. Vennemann’s principle shows tendencies only
Some features of the PNS
• The PNS states that: the
order of operators (i.e.
modifiers or dependent
parts) and operands (i.e.
modified or head parts)
tends to be serialized in one
direction
• in practice: operators before
operands OR operands
before operators
operator {operand}
operator [operand]
in OV
operand [operator]
in VO
Features used in the PNS
OPERATOR
object
adverbial
main verb
adjective
relative clause
genitive
numeral
determiner
adjective
standard of comparison
noun phrase
(Vennemann 1974)
OPERAND
verb
verb
auxiliary
noun
noun
noun
noun
noun
comparison marker
comparative adjective
adposition
Examples for the features
•
Excercise: Search for possible examples about the
different features from English!
• Is English a VO or an OV type of a language?
• English is an SVO language. (cf.The farmer killed
the duckling.) The order of object and verb is: VO
1. auxiliary – main verb
e.g. I can go. You will come. He must leave. – AuxV
2. noun – genitive
e.g. the book of the boy, the leg of the table, BUT:
Vennemann’s theory – NG (GN)
3. noun-numeral
e.g. three hours, a lot of lizards, some people NumN
4. noun-determiner
e.g. this girl, that excercise, (determiner as definite
article: the cow, the students, the wall) DetN
5. adposition-noun phrase
e.g. in this book, from the school, to the boy, after
the lecture PrNP (Pr=preposition)
Basis of the analyses
• a small sample based on five Finno-Ugric languages:
Hungarian, Finnish, Komi (Zyrian), Udmurt, Erzya
(Mordvin)
• Do you remember to which branch of the FinnoUgric language family these languages belong?
• Hungarian: U, FU, Ugric
• Finnish: U, FU, FP, Finnic
• Komi: U, FU, FP, Permic
• Udmurt: U, FU, FP, Permic
• Erzya: U, FU, FV
Languages
• Can one get significant data from the above
mentioned languages? (pros and contras)
•
•
•
•
Yes, because:
15 languages constitute the whole FU language family
4 different branches of the family are analyzed
Finnish and Hungarian represent two different „side” of the
family (they are vary far from each other, the represent
different developement, ect.)
• No, because:
• these five languages are less then the half of the whole family
• Saami (Saamic) and Obi-Ugric branches are not mentioned in
this study
The sample
•
•
•
1.
2.
3.
4.
•
Where can one get valid data about word order types in
Finno-Ugric languages?
this study contains originally ca. 200 examples
data from:
reference grammars
chrestomathies
native speakers (own knowledge in the case of Hungarian)
databases (where it was possible)
some questions about the data: reference grammars vary
from one to another in the description of the particular
language – sometimes it is quite difficult to compare data
when different terminology is used
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inception of the analyses
first one has to define the basic word order in the
languages in question
reliable cases:
Udmurt – SOV
Finnish – SVO
Erzya – SVO
questionable cases:
Hungarian – referring to WALS and Kiefer,
Hungarian has no dominant order; in this study SOV
Komi – referring to WALS in this study SVO, in
some other grammars: SOV/SVO – no dominant
order
Basic word order in Hungarian
• defining the basic word order is not easy
• Different cases:
A fiú sajtot eszik.
‘The boy is eating cheese.’
A fiú a sajtot eszi.
‘The boy is eating the the cheese.’
A fiú egy sajtot eszik.
‘The boy is eating a cheese.’
A fiú megeszi a sajtot.
‘The boy eats the cheese.’
Basic word order in Hungarian
• The dominant order in Hungarian is in connection with the
topic-focus (theme-rheme) system of the language.
• Pragmatic neutrality, finiteness-indefiniteness of the object
• After all, in this study Hungarian is considered an SOV
language
• NB! If Hungarian is considered a language without any
dominant word order it only means in the system of the PNS
that no data exist referring to the firs feature of the PNS
• the order of object and verb is just one operator-operand
pattern
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Word order from the viewpoint of the PNS
What is the order of O and V in these languages?
Hungarian: SOV
OV (or no dominant order)
Udmurt: SOV
OV
Komi: SVO
VO
Erzya: SVO
VO
Finnish: SVO
VO
The parameters
• in the second part of this study we try to analyze
together the parameters of the PNS
• first I demonstrate the data from some FU languages,
and then we can think it over what is the order of the
parameter in Hungarian, in Finnish, in Italian, or in
other language you can speak
Order of numeral (Num) and noun (N)
•
PNS: OV&NumN – VO&NumN
•
Hungarian:
(1) három alma
three apple
(2) sok kép
many picture
(3) ötödik nap
fifth day
•
‘three apples’
‘many pictures’
‘fifth day’
OV&NumN = PNS+
(+ means that the data is
the one that is expected following the PNS)
Order of numeral (Num) and noun (N)
• Udmurt (Csúcs 1987: 44.):
(4) t’amis kion
eight wolf
‘eight wolves’
(5) vit’ vorgoron-jos
five man-Pl
‘five men’
(6) odig ar no ¥’yny
one year and half
‘one and a half year’
(7) odig no ¥’yny ar
one and half year
‘one and a half year’
• OV&NumN = PNS+
(no semantic difference)
Order of numeral (Num) and noun (N)
• Komi (Rédei 1978: 95.):
(8) vit mort
five man
(9) mort s’iz’im
man seven
difference)
‘five people’
’about seven people’ (semantic
• VO&NumN = PNS– (where – means that the data is
not the one that is expected following the PNS)
Order of numeral (Num) and noun (N)
• Erzya (Keresztes 1990: 75, Mészáros 1998: 68.):
(10) kolmo t’ejt’er-t’
three girl-PL ‘three girls’
(11) lamo ved
much water
‘much water’
• VO&NumN = PNS–
Order of numeral (Num) and noun (N)
• Finnish (Kenttälä 2001: 231.):
(12) viisi ihmis-tä
five man-PART
‘five men’
(13) mon-ta
bussi-a
many-PART bus-PART
’many busses’
• VO&NumN = PNS–
Overview
language Hu.
OV
data
(referring
to the
PNS)
Ud.
OV
+
Ko.
VO
+
Er.
VO
–
Fi.
VO
–
–
• What is the ordering of adposition and noun in your native language?
• What could be the reason that VO languages do not behave the way which
is expexted from the PNS?
• AN (adjective-noun) ordering is a basic rule in all FU languages – in some
langueges (like in Udmurt or in Komi) the ordering of adjective and noun is
crucial
• cf. Ud. umoj nyl ‘a good girl’ – nyl umoj ‘The girl is good’ (Num is special
type of A)
• Do you know such a phenomenon from any language?