B.9 Current issues in the syntactic typology of Uralic languages

Monday – Tuesday, August 22–23, Department of Slavic Studies (Slawistik), room 6

Organizers: Ferenc Havas, Erika Asztalos, Nikolett F. Gulyás, Laura Horváth, Ditta Szabó, Bogáta Timár 

(Original symposium call)

Monday August 22



András Bárány:

Case and agreement in Uralic ditransitives and beyond


The expression and alignment of case and agreement in ditransitive constructions varies in systematic ways across languages. While various combinations of so-called indirective, secundative and neutral alignment patterns are found across the globe, the combination of neutral and secundative case alignment and indirective agreement appears to be absent. In this talk, I will discuss ditransitives in the Finno-Ugric and Uralic languages and embed the patterns found here in a wider typological context. I argue that the existence of some but not all patterns is a consequence of certain assumptions about the interaction of morphological case and agreement as well as the structure of ditransitive clauses.




Arseniy Litvin & Alexey Kozlov:

On s/he in Kazym Khanty

In this study, we focus on the functions of 3rd person pronoun λʉw in Kazym Khanty and make hypotheses about its diachronic development. The data comes from the authors’ own fieldwork in the Beloyarksiy district, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region, Russia. Some, but not all, of the properties of λʉw described in this abstract also pertain to its dual and plural counterparts λiŋ and λiw. On this topic, we are going to elaborate in the talk.

As it has been already known, besides its serving the role of 3rd person anaphoric pronoun (1), λʉw also functions as a reflexive (2), thus exhibiting a typologically infrequent situation of absence of the distinction between reflexives

and pronominals:

(1) λʉweλ taŋχa śi sul χir ăn mos-t-aλ
he.dat probably emph salt bag neg need-ptcp.npst-poss.3sg
‘{A bear got into a store and threw away a bag of salt.}Perhaps he didn’t like this bag of salt.’

(2) kašәŋ χujat λʉw-ti išәk-λ-әλλe
every person s/he-acc praise-npst-3sg.sg
‘Everybody praises themselves.’

Furthermore, λʉw has one more function, namely that of pronominal intensifier, serving as a means of emphasising the identity of a previously introduced referent. In (3), λʉw, itself in nominative, modifies an overtly expressed nominative subject. (It should be mentioned that (3) is a single clause and there is no prosodic break between the subject and λʉw.)

(3) wasa-jen λʉw wɛr-әλ ɵχ-λaλ
V.-poss.2sghe.nom make-npst.3sg sledge-pl-poss.3sg
‘Vasya himself will make this sledge.’

By no means is the combination of reflexive and intensifier functions typologically unique (König & Siemund 2000), and languages which use the same lexical items both as anaphoric and reflexive pronouns have also be attested, though extremely infrequent. However, we are unaware of any cases of the threefold polyfunctionality we have described above. In the talk, we would argue for the following diachronic path of the development of those functions:

4) intensifier reflexive

anaphoric pronoun

We are also going to focus on the syntactic properties of λʉw as an intensifier. Most often, it agrees in case with the noun phrase it semantically modifies (5a). However, there are cases in which the modified NP stands in the nominative (or caseless), while λʉw alone bears the case marker (5b).

(5) a. waśka-jen-a λʉw-eλ wuχ-әλ mos-λ
V.-poss.2sg-dat he-dat money-poss.3sg need-npst.3sg
‘Vasya himself needs the money.’

b. waśka-jen λʉweλa wuχәλ mos-λ
V.-poss.2sg-dat he-dat money-poss.3sg need-npst.3sg

In the talk, we will develop a noun phrase topicalization analysis for sentences such as (5b).


König, Ekkehard and Peter Siemund (2000) Intensifiers and reflexives: a typological perspective. In: Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and Functions, pp. 41-74.


Fedor Golosov:

Mirativity in Kazym Khanty: getting new knowledge

According to the grammar [Nikolaeva 1999], which is based on Obdor dialect, Khanty has grammaticalized forms of reported evidentiality [ibid:88]:

(1) man-t-al
‘He goes (apparently)’.

(2) man-m-al
‘He went (apparently)’.

My research focuses on the analogous forms in Kazym Khanty. According to my data, the meaning of these forms is not evidential, but rather mirative. Mirativity is a grammatical category that denotes unexpected or new information ([De Lancey 2001] among many others). It is debated whether mirativity is an independent grammatical category or just a subtype of evidentiality (see, for example, [ibid.] and [Hill 2012]). In this study, I will try to prove two claims:

1) In Kazym Khanty, the forms called evidential in [Nikolaeva 1999] are in fact mirative, and their meaning seems to be independent of any evidentiality distinctions;

2) What these forms denote is that proposition is new for the speaker, but not necessarily unexpected.

There are two main arguments, supporting my first claim:

First, the forms can occur in the contexts of direct evidence, if the situation is percieved as new:

(3) want-e, λʉw uλ-t-aλ
look-imp.sg.sg he sleep-ptcp.npst-3sg
‘Look, he is sleeping (as it has just turned out)’.

(4) {Context: speaker saw a familiar person, but didn’t manage to identify him. Now she has understood who he was and says:}
śi wɵλ-m-aλ vas’a
that be-ptcp.pst-3sg V.
‘It was Vasya’.

Second, the forms cannot occur in the contexts where the proposition was expected by the speaker, even if he had only indirect evidence for it:

(5) a. antxɵn vas’a-jen moskwa-jәn wɵ-λ/ *wɵλ-t-aλ
of.course V.-poss.2sg М.-loc live-npst[.3sg] live-ptcp.npst-3sg
‘Of course, Vasya lives in Moscow{, he sent you a postcard, how did you forget that?}’.

b. {Context: mother knows that her son Vasya always eats soup before she comes back home. Today she came back and saw a dirty plate:}
antxɵn vas’a-jen λantjiŋk-λ λɛ-s/*λɛw-m-aλ
of.course V.-poss.2sg soup-3sg eat-pst eat-ptcp.pst-3sg
‘Of course, Vasya has eaten the soup’.

Mirativity is often defined ambiguously, as a category that describes new or unexpected information (for example, in [DeLancey 2001]). We argue that it is new (rather than unexpected) information that the Khanty forms under discussion denote, because they are possible in the contexts where the proposition is expected, but new for the speaker:

(6) was’a-jen pa maša-jen imuλtijn wɵtśˊa śi man-m-an
V.-poss.2sg and М.-poss.2sg finally together emph come-ptcp.pst-3du
‘Vasya and Masha are finally married’.


DeLancey S. The mirative and evidentiality //Journal of pragmatics. – 2001. – Т. 33. – No. 3. – С. 369-382.

Hill N. W. “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects //Linguistic Typology. – 2012. – Т. 16. – No. 3. – С. 389-433.

Nikolaeva I. Ostyak. – Lincom Europa, 1999.


Katalin Kubinyi & Anne Tamm:

Partitivity in Uralic languages without a designated partitive marker

Although in Uralic linguistics, partitivity has been widely discussed by now in descriptive, diachronic, and theory-oriented works (Denison 1957, Larsson 1983, Vainikka & Maling 1996, Tveite 2004, Lees 2015, Metslang 2001, Huumo 2010, inter alia), the focus has been on the Finnic branch. We still have no unified account of partitivity in Uralic as a whole.

By partitivity we mean here the ‘part/amount of N’ relationship, which is the most elementary meaning of the grammatical form called the partitive case (cf. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001).

In Uralic, only Finnic and Sámi display a dedicated partitive case, the use of which in contemporary Finnic has expanded to expose event-structural, epistemic, evidential and pragmatic properties, while in Sámi, by contrast, it has become restricted to some specific constructions only. In the rest of the language family—and also in Sámi or Finnic—many other strategies than case can be employed for encoding the partitive concept:

(i) case-marking (spatial, non-spatial)

(ii) agreement (possessor–possessee, object–verb)

(iii) word order

(iv) bare nouns

(v) other, e.g. lexical substitutions.

Some strategies may be contact-related (such as the locative-marked partial subjects and objects in Old Hungarian), but others are independent innovations, partly equally frequent in various languages of the world, and partly less so.

We address the following questions:

- What are the main strategies that cover the concept of partitivity in Uralic?

- What is the distribution of these strategies in domains of grammar (i) within the individual languages and (ii) across the family?

- Are any of these devices unique for Uralic among the world’s languages (cf. Havas 2008, Seržant 2019)?

- How does partitivity interact with the typologically characteristic features of Uralic languages such as a rich case system, pervasive DOM, object agreement, lack of definite/indefinite articles, etc.?

- What is the role of partitivity in the syntax of the non-Finnic languages of the Uralic family?

- How have the partitive structures in Uralic evolved (or bleached or disappeared) over time in their areal settings?


Denison, N 1957 The partitive in Finnish.

Havas, F 2008 Unmarked object in the Uralic languages: a diachronic typological approach.

Huumo, T 2010 Nominal aspect, quantity, and time: the case of Finnish object.

Larsson, L 1983 Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen.

Lees, A 2015 Case alternations in five Finnic languages.

Metslang, H 2001 On the developments of the Estonian aspect: the verbal particle ära.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M 2001 Partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages.

Seržant, I 2019 Towards a typology of partitives.

Tamm, A 2014 The Partitive Concept versus Linguistic Partitives: from abstract concepts to evidentiality in the Uralic languages.

Tveite, T 2004 The case of the object in Livonian.

Vainikka, A & Maling, J 1996 Is Partitive Case Inherent or Structural?

Tuesday August 23


Bogáta Timár:

Possessive clitic climbing in Meadow Mari

In my talk I will present possible syntactic and semantic reasons for a phenomenon called Possessive Clitic Climbing (PCC, cf. Kubínyi 2016) in the Meadow Mari language. This phenomenon occurs in person marking of nominal adpositions in a possessive phrase (PP). The regular pattern for person marking with a nominal head is as follows:


Meadow Mari





’in front of my house’ (elicitated)

As seen in (1), in the regular pattern the person is marked on the noun. However, in some cases, the possessive suffix may appear on the postposition instead of the noun, forming an irregular (PCC) arrangement, in which the suffix behaves like a clitic, therefore is attached to the clause, not the word. (1) and (2) denote the same meaning.


Meadow Mari





’in front of my house (elicitated)

PCC is a phenomenon that can be observed in other languages in the area as well, such as Komi (both Zyrian (3) and Permyak) and Udmurt (4).












’over your head’ (Wiedemann 1884: 204)












’under your window’ (ibid.)

However, the occurrence of PCC is restricted. In the Permic languages, a relation between controlledness and PCC seems apparent: if the possessee is an entity controlled immediately by the possessor (e.g. is a property or a body part) and the postposition is spatial, PCC is much more likely to occur (1)─(4). If however the possessee is animate or a situation caused or experienced by the possessor and the postposition has temporal or causal-final values, PCC is not permissible (5) (Kubínyi 2016).







’because of my friend’ (Алашеева 2011: 40)

Such a correlation cannot be ascertained in Meadow Mari (Kubínyi 2016). The allowance of PCC is likely governed by a range of factors including animacy, the number and person of the possessor (cf. Saarinen 1991), the semantic properties of the suffix, and grammaticalization of the postposition (cf. Rédei 1962). The aim of this talk is to present the results of questionnaire-based research conducted with native speakers to pinpoint the factors that may allow or restrict PCC in Meadow Mari.


Алашеева, А. А. 2011. Удмурт кыллэн кылкабтодосэз. морфологиез. Эскериз но печатланы ӵектӥз Удмурт кун университетись амалтодослыко ӧри. Ижкар.

Kubínyi Katalin 2016. Possessive clitic climbing as a pattern of agreement with the possessor in Permic and Mari postpositional phrases. XII. International Congress for Finno-Ugric Studies (CIFU). Poster presentation.

Rédei, Károly 1962. Die Postpositionen im Syrjänischen unter Berücksichtigung des Wotjakischen. Budapest: Akadémiai.

Saarinen, Sirkka 1991. Marilaisen arvoituksen kielioppi. MSFOu 210. SUS, Helsinki. 81─82.

Wiedemann, F. J. 1884. Grammatik der Syrjänischen Sprache mit Berücksichtigung ihrer Dialekte und des Wotjakischen. St. Petersburg.


Nikolett F. Gulyás:

Impersonals, passives, and related phenomena in Permic languages

From a functional viewpoint, impersonal constructions express events where the agent (or in a broader sense, the instigator or initiator) is demoted in some way (Malchukov & Siewierska 2011). This is a shared property with passive constructions where the patient is promoted (cf. Siewierska 2013). The border between the two construction types is not clear-cut; furthermore, it remains debatable if distinct impersonal and passive domains can be distinguished in the Permic languages. The present paper aims to provide a classification of these phenomena in Udmurt and Komi-Permyak from a typological point of view.

Although numerous markers of impersonality have been outlined in contemporary Udmurt (F. Gulyás & Speshilova 2014), I will concentrate on the reflexive marker -śkand the so-called predicative form of the past participle -emyn. The former is a polyfunctional suffix expressing a wide range of meanings from reflexives to middles (1) that also serves as a marker of agent demotion (2). The suffix -emyn can also appear in impersonal passive constructions (3).

(1) Ös uśt-iśk-e.
door open-refl-3sg
‘The door opens.’

(2) Tatyn ekt-iśk-i-z.
here dance-refl-pst-3sg
‘There was dancing here.’

(3) Tatyn kynt-emyn.
here freeze(intr.)-ptcp.pass.pstd
‘It is freezing here.’

The three structures illustrated above have their historically connected counterparts in Komi-Permyak. The reflexive marker -śis among others used in reflexive (4) and impersonal (5) contexts (with impersonality in this example indicating non-agentivity), while the past tense marker, which is syncretic with the participle suffix -öma, often appears in structures considered impersonal or passive (6).

(4) Maša miśśi-ś-ö.
Masha wash-refl-3sg
‘Masha washes herself.’

(5) Menam onmöśśi-ś-öma.
I.gen fall_asleep-refl-ptcp.pass.pst
‘I fell asleep (unintentionally).’

(6) Žyr-yn dźimľaś-ömaś.
room-ine clean_up-pst2.3sg
‘It has been cleaned up in the room.’

As can be seen from the examples, the polyfunctionality of the reflexive and the past participle suffixes complicates the classification of the impersonal and passive domain. As a consequence, it is better to describe these phenomena as a continuum from middles to passives. The present talk is an attempt to answer the following questions:

(i) What morphosyntactic similarities and differences can be found in constructions with reflexive and participle markers?

(ii) What differences can be outlined among these constructions in terms of their usage?

(iii) How can these differences be explained?

The data used in the present paper has been elicited from native speakers as well as from different corpora.


F. Gulyás, Nikolett & Speshilova, Yulia 2014. Impersonals and passives in contemporary Udmurt. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 38. 59–91.

Malchukov, Andrej & Siewierska, Anna 2011. Introduction. In Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions. A cross-linguistic perspective, 1–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Siewierska, Anna 2013. Passive Constructions. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at wals.info/chapter/107, Accessed on 2019-09-28.)


Laura Horváth:

The grammaticalization of motion verbs in Udmurt

This presentation examines the features of grammaticalization processes of motion verbs in Udmurt converb constructions from a cross-linguistic and areal linguistic perspective.

In Udmurt, converb constructions can be grammaticalized: in these cases, the converbs provide the lexical meaning while the verbs lose some of their lexical properties – they function syntactically like main verbs but are interpreted rather as auxiliaries:

(1) aľi M. Bulgakov-leś, F. Dostojevskij-leś vań proizveďeńi-os-ses lydǯy-sa pot-i
now M. Bulgakov-abl F. Dostoyevskiy-abl all work-pl-acc.3pl read-cvb go_out-pst.1sg
‘I have read all of the works of M. Bulgakov and F. Dostoyevskiy’ (UdmCorp.)

The second component of the grammaticalized converb constructions is drawn from a restricted set of verbs, often from verbs of motion, posture verbs, phasal verbs, and verbs denoting other activities (for instance, ‘give’, ‘take’, ‘throw’). Similar constructions are widely used in the Volga-Kama area in Turkic and Finno-Ugric languages (cf. Johanson 2011, Bereczki 1998) but the phenomenon is quite common cross-linguistically as well. In the case of grammaticalized converb + auxiliary verb complex predicates in Udmurt, the primary lexical meaning of the auxiliary can be retained to different extents in different environments: the interpretation of converb constructions depends on the semantics of the converb and the finite verb, as well as on the pragmatic and syntactic contexts of the construction. For example, the motion verb koškyny (‘go away’) tends to behave in a different way when it occurs with different types of converbs. During the grammaticalization process, one semantic feature of the lexical meaning of the finite verb (the direction of the movement) becomes stronger compared to the other elements of the lexical meaning, the verb loses parts of its lexical semantics. As the aspectual meaning (perfectivity) becomes more general, the motion verb can encode more abstract meanings: koškyny (<‘go away’), for example, can express a rapid change of state:

(2) peśa-sa ik košk-i
sweat-cvb pcl go_away-pst.1sg
‘A cold sweat came over me.’ (UdmCorp.)

In my presentation, I plan to examine motion verbs combined with different converbs in Udmurt, comparing them with similar converb constructions of other languages of the Volga-Kama area. The study also focuses on the ways these constructions contribute to the aspectual meaning of the clauses.


Bereczki Gábor 1998: A Volga–Káma-vidék nyelveinek areális kapcsolatai. – Rédei Károly (vál.) Ünnepi könyv Bereczki Gábor 70. születésnapja tiszteletére. Budapest, 179–207.

Johanson, Lars 2011. Grammaticalization in Turkic Languages. – Heine & Narrog (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP, 754–763

UdmCorp. = Udmurt corpora (http://udmurt.web-corpora.net/index_en.html)


Rebeka Kubitsch:

The relation of evidentiality and deontic modality in Udmurt

The presentation will discuss in detail two constructions in Udmurt, which are the combination of a form with a deontic meaning and the indirect evidential form of the existential verb.

In Udmurt evidential distinction is possible only in the past tenses, since evidentiality is fused with the past tense system (Skribnik-–Kehayov 2018: 539). Traditionally the firsthand (a.k.a. 1st past) and nonfirsthand (a.k.a. 2nd past) evidentials are distinguished, however it seems to be plausible that the past tense associated with the firsthand evidential is an evidentially neutral form.

The presentation will focus on the semantics of two constructions: the Udmurt deontic/necessive participle and the imperative forms in combination with the indirect evidential form of the existential verb. Imperative forms have been included in the research because there is a connection between deontic modality and imperative mood (Palmer 2001, Malchukov–Xrakovskij 2015) The reason for investigating such constructions on the one hand is that past tense forms tend to weaken the strength of modality (Palmer 2001: 73), on the other hand that various modalities and moods may allow fewer evidential specifications than the indicative (Aikhenvald 2015: 154). It is worthwhile to analyze the semantic alterations which might be detected because of the occurrence of the 1st and 2nd past form of the existential verb and the possible differences in the meanings of these constructions. Also, it is necessary to observe whether these alterations happen in respect of the modal strength or whether they may be associated with the functions and meanings of evidentiality (cf. Aikhenvald 2004).

The research material consists of interviews conducted with native speakers of Udmurt. During the interviews the speakers had to provide context for different kinds of utterances which were related to the use and functions associated with evidentiality in Udmurt. Also, the results were compared to the material of a previous research which had been carried out on texts of blogs.

The results show that in the case of the deontic/necessive participle 36% of the speakers observed some difference in meaning regarding the tense of the existential verb. However, in the case of the imperative appr. 60% of the consultants established slight difference in meaning. The semantic alterations on the one hand are related to modal strength: the 2nd past form seems to lower the strength of modality, especially in the case of the imperative. Typologically an indirect evidential may be used to “soften” a command (Aikhenvald 2015: 263). On the other hand, the occurrence of 2nd past forms resulted in differences in meaning (compared to 1st past forms) which can be linked to the functions of the indirect evidential in Udmurt, such as inference, deferred realization and mirativity (cf. Kubitsch 2018).


Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2015. Evidentials: their links with other grammatical categories. In: Linguistic Typology 19/2. 239–277. Kubitsch, R. 2018. Evidencialitás a mai udmurt nyelvben [Evidentiality in present-day Udmurt] In: Schiebl, Gy. (ed.) Lingdok 20. konferenciakötet. Szegedi Tudományegyetem. Nyelvtudományi Doktori Iskola. Szeged. 251–270.

Mulchakov, A. L. – Xrakovskij, V. S. 2015. The Linguistic Interaction of Mood with Modality and Other Categories. In: Nuyts, J. – Van Der Auwera, J. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 196–223.

Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality. (Second edition). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Skribnik, E. – Kehayov, P. 2018. Evidentials in Uralic Languages. In: Aikhenvald, A. Y. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. 525–555.

Winkler, E. 2001. Udmurt. Languages of the World/Materials 212. Lincom Europa. München.


Mari Saraheimo:

Non-finite remote past in Udmurt: Experiential and resultative functions

In Udmurt, there are several analytic remote past tenses (Bartens 2000; Hännikäinen & Kelmakov 2008; Winkler 2011; Tarakanov 2011). The remote analytic past tenses share many characteristics of SAE pluperfects and are ofen referred to as such in grammars and studies (Skribnik & Kehayov 2018; Winkler 2011; Serebrennikov 1963). However, it is noteworthy that while the finite remote past forms are generally described as pluperfects, the non-finite remote past forms are widely left unrecognized as tenses. The non-finite tenses play important roles in expressing certain types of past actions and events, especially in expressing states and properties resulting in those actions and events. This presentation aims to specify which non-finite constructions can be seen as partcipating in the temporal ordering of actions and events, predominantly those which can be seen as anteriors according to the definition of Bybee et al. (1994: 54), where the situation described with anterior forms occurs before the reference time and is relevant at reference time. The study presented in this presentation is a part of my upcoming PhD thesis on Udmurt remote past tenses.

The forms taken into consideration are the resultative remote past, consisting of the main verb in the resultative participle -(e)myn combined with the auxiliary val ‘was’ (or the evidental vylem ‘was [apparently]’) (1) and the experiential remote past, consisting of a participle form of the main verb with a person marking in the possessive suffix combined with the auxiliary val (2). The data used in the study are newspaper texts (Udmurt corpora: Udmurt duńńe 2007–2017).

(1) Ta nylkyšno kema ar-jos čože už-am-yn val ńi.
this woman long year-PL together work-PTCP-INE be.PST1 already
‘The woman had worked for many years altogether already.’ (Udmurt duńńe 8/2/2013.)

(2) Moskva-e vuyl-em-ed val ńi-a?
Moscow-ILL visit-PTCP-2PX be.PST1 already-Q
‘Had you already visited Moscow?’ (Udmurt duńńe 11/1/2008.)

The results show that the Udmurt language uses two different non-finite remote past forms, deriving from participle forms with tasks typical to SAE perfects (cf. Leinonen & Vilkuna 2000). One carries a resultative function and is often used in passive constructions, when the result is relevant in a past reference time, whereas the other is an experiential remote past, expressing an action resulting in an experience the subject possesses at a past reference time. Although the resultative and experiential remote pasts both focalize the consequences of past actions rather than past actions themselves, both forms accept also dynamic verbs and in cases like this, appear to be understood more verbally.


Bartens, Raija. 2000. Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Bybee et al 1994 = Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of Grammar. Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

Hännikäinen, Sara, Kelmakov, Valentin. 2008. Udmurtin kielioppia ja harjoituksia. 2nd edition. Hilfsmitel für das Studium der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen XIV. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Leinonen, Marja, Vilkuna, Maria. 2000. Past tenses in Permic languages. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 495–514.

Serebrennikov, B. A. 1963. Istoricheskaya morfologiya permskikh jazykov. Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR. Moskva.

Skribnik, Elena & Kehayov, Petar. 2018. Evidentials in Uralic languages. The Oxford Handbook of evidentiality. University Press. Oxford.

Tarakanov, I. V. 2011. Karonkyl. In: Tyimerhanova, N. N. (eds) Udmurt kyllen veraśkonľuketodosez (morfologiez). Ижевск: Удмурт университет Издательтсво. 138–254.

Udmurt corpora = Udmurt corpora. <htp://udmurt.web-corpora.net/udmurt_corpus/>Accessed 7 April 2022

Winkler, Eberhard 2011. Udmurtische Grammatik. Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 81. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag


Ditta Szabó:

Coding of evidentiality in Permic languages from a historical and typological point of view

The source of information can be expressed in every language in a given way, thus two main types of evidentiality can be distinguished, lexical and grammatical. Evidentiality can be a grammatical category in a language only if the language expresses the source of the information by grammatical markers, for example by affixes, auxiliary verbs or, particles (Havas 2015).

In Udmurt, Komi-Zyryan, and Komi-Permyak evidentiality is a grammatical category because a grammaticalized form exists to express evidential meanings. The evidential markers are included in the tense system, the languages use the 2nd past tense marker to encode the source of information. However, grammatical evidentiality in Uralic languages has not been an inherited feature from Proto-Uralic or Proto-Finno-Ugric, these languages share their properties in their evidentiality systems, not only in the types of encoding but in terms of evidential values as well (Skribnik – Kehayov 2018).

Still many questions according to the appearance have remained open. According to Bereczki (1998) and Aikhenvald (2005) evidentiality in the Permic languages is due to the neighborhooding Turkic languages. The same contact phenomenon has been reported in Mari (Bereczki 2003).

This explanation has not been accepted by all researchers. Serebrennikov (1963) suggests that evidential values are language-internal innovations in the Permic languages while the neighboring of the Turkic languages provided only a support to their stability.

The present paper aims to give an overview on the similarities and differences in the phenomenon of evidentiality in the Permic languages, accordingly, I will try to outline the contrastive features of different evidentiality markers in some Turkic languages. For the classification I use data elicited from native speakers.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2005. Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, USA.

Bereczki Gábor 1998. A Volga-Káma-vidék nyelveinek areális kapcsolatai. In: Urálisztikai Tanulmányok 8. Ünnepi könyv Bereczki Gábor 70. születésnapjának tiszteletére. Budapest.

Bereczki Gábor 2003. A magyar nyelv finnugor alapjai. Universitas Könyvkiadó, Budapest.

Havas Ferenc (ed.) 2015. Evidencialitás. In Havas Ferenc – Csepregi Márta – F. Gulyás Nikolett – Németh Szilvia, Typological Database of the Ugric Languages. Budapest, ELTE Finnugor Tanszék (http://hu.utdb.nullpoint.info/content/evidencialitas).

Serebrennikov, B. A. (Серебренников, Б. А.) 1963. Историческая морфология пермских языков. Издательство академии наук СССР, Москва.

Skribnik, Elena – Kehayov, Petar 2018. Evidentials in the Uralic languages. In: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, Oxford.