Symposium B3 Call

Abundant derivational morphemes and overlapping lexical and functional properties in verbal morphology are characteristic of very many Uralic languages. While etymology focuses on the history of words as basic semantic entities, the diachrony of verb, its morphology and syntax can reveal deeper typological traits. Causative derivation, for instance, raises the multifaceted question about the diachrony of the word, the history of the derivational suffix and other morphemes as well as the morphosyntactic information included in a single lexical item. Cross-linguistically, valency change is one of the most salient operations that adds new properties to a verb. Presumably, all verbs can be labelled either as transitive or intransitive.

Both lexical and grammatical information is needed to uncover the diachrony of valency changing mechanisms. Although verbal derivation is typically transparent in Uralic languages, we may assume that, historically, lexical stems may take over some derivational properties that originally were morphologically distinct. On the one hand verbal morphology and inherent vocabulary emphasize the stability of lexemes and basic grammar. However, on the other hand, verb phrase is a dynamic entity that is influenced by both the stability and change of categories, derivational matters and constant interplay between morphology and lexicon. Hence, the appearance of syntactic structures may contribute to the etymology and comparisons of individual words. In the long run the relationship between verb, derivation and valency can show long-term continuity of different inherited patterns and traces of morphological evolution.

One of the keys to examine these phenomena more closely is to shed light on the relationship between underived and derived verb pairs, such as causative verbs and decausativizing mechanisms. Given that derivational morphology is widely used in the Uralic languages, we seek to bring new light to its importance for etymology and the diachrony of language. In this respect, the evidence of the Uralic languages is also of more general interest.

We are interested in identifying the role of different morphological and structural units in the diachronical development of valency and verb. Does the evidence of Uralic branches and individual languages show similar patterns of change or are they mutually contradictory? How is grammatical information transferred from morphology to lexemes? To what extent does the pairing of verbs, i.e. the relationship between underived and derived words, reveal the diachrony of grammatically encoded lexemes?

Furthermore, there are several questions targeting a more detailed analysis of Uralic languages. What are the origins of valence-related suffixes in Uralic languages?   What valence-related derivational suffixes can be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic (PU) or assumed intermediate branches?  For what PU verbs can valence be reconstructed?  Can we reconstruct PU derived verbs consisting of a verb root and valence-changing suffix? Was causativization as predominant in PU as in many contemporary Uralic languages?  Was transitivity generally an inherent lexical property in PU, or were most/many verbs ambitransitive (labile)?

Organizers: Riho Grünthal and Johanna Nichols
Contact: riho.grunthal@helsinki.fi