The interplay of conceptualization and case marking in the directional cases of Udmurt
-
Riku Erkkilä
Abstract
In this paper I discuss the variation among the directional cases in Udmurt (Permic, Uralic). Udmurt has a spatial case system consisting of seven cases in total, of which four are directional cases. Two of the directional cases, elative and egressive, express the source of an action, and two, illative and terminative, the goal of an action. Previous accounts have established that the distinguishing factor between the pairs is the expression of some limit. Egressive and terminative are used to express beginning and end limit, respectively, whereas elative and illative are seen not to express a limit. This kind of distinction in a spatial case system is typologically extremely rare. Especially a case dedicated for starting limit seems not to be attested anywhere else than in the Permic languages, Udmurt, and its closes relative Komi.
The explanation for the variation between the cases given in previous research, namely that egressive and terminative express a limit, whereas elative and illative do not, seems not to be general enough, however. Especially, in the spatial domain there are examples where, e.g., illative is said to express the endpoint of movement, and terminative the end limit of a movement, but the depicted situations seem basically identical. Therefore, I suggest that there is a more general tendency of using the limit cases to construe an event as bounded from the beginning or the end, respectively, whereas the non-limit cases is used when the construal does not include a boundary of the event, or the boundary is backgrounded.
To explore this possibility, I conduct a qualitative analysis of the senses of each case, as well as a quantitative analysis exploring the effects of different aspects of verbal semantics on the choice between the limit and non-limit cases in the spatial domain. The dataset is 500 manually annotated and analyzed examples of Udmurt literary language, mostly newspaper texts. The process is done manually, as the automatic annotation of the original corpus yields too many false positives when queried for instances of cases. The qualitative analysis is conducted by the Principled Polysemy approach, which yields reliable results on the semantic structure of spatial elements in general. The quantitative analysis is done by implementing a random forest analysis on the dataset. Random forest is chosen for the method because the dataset is somewhat small, and the data points cannot be considered independent.
The qualitative analysis reveals that the limit cases are indeed used to express senses like the beginning or end of a timespan or a change in amount, which seem to incorporate a boundary of the event. In contrast, the non-limit cases are used to express senses where the boundary is implied but backgrounded. The quantitative analysis reveals that the semantics of the verb indeed do play a role in the choice between the limit and non-limit cases in the spatial domain. However, due to the nature of the data and the chosen methodology it is not possible to say how exactly the semantics of the verb affect the choice between cases. Nonetheless, the results firmly point to the direction that the difference between the limit and non-limit cases should be analyzed as a difference in the construal of the events, which then have special cases depending on the exact situation expressed.
References
Arkhangelskiy, Timofey. 2018. Udmurt corpus. http://udmurt.web-corpora.net/index.html.Search in Google Scholar
Bartens, Raija. 2000. Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 238). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria. 1998. The great Daghestanian case hoax. In Siewierska, Anna & Song, Jae Jung (eds.), Case, typology and grammar. In honor of Barry J. Blake, 95‒114 (Typological studies in language 38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.38.09comSearch in Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2011. Spatial cases. In Malchukov, Andrej & Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 609–625. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199206476.013.0043Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Csúcs, Sándor. 2005. Die Rekonstruktion der permischen Grundsprache. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Search in Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(1). 1‒19.10.1007/BF00984959Search in Google Scholar
Edygarova, Svetlana. 2022. Udmurt. In Bakró-Nagy, Marianne, Laakso, Johanna & Skribnik, Elena (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 507–522. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0027Search in Google Scholar
Erkkilä, Riku. 2024. Udmurt spatial cases dataset. V2.0.0. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11110398.Search in Google Scholar
Erkkilä, Riku. forthc. The semantics of spatial cases of Udmurt. Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Tyler, Andrea. 2004. Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’. The case of to and through. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18. 247–270.10.1075/bjl.18.13evaSearch in Google Scholar
Fokos-Fuchs, D. R. 1973. Zur transkription der permischen Sprachen. In Posti, Lauri & Itkonen, Terho (eds.), FU-transkription yksinkertaistamisesta, 85–87 (Castrenianumin toimitteita 7). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2020. On classification trees and random forests in corpus linguistics. Some words of caution and suggestions for improvement. Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory 16(3). 617–647.10.1515/cllt-2018-0078Search in Google Scholar
Iggesen, Oliver A. 2013. Number of cases. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3). Zenodo.Search in Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2000. Viewpoint operators in European languages. In Dahl, Östen (ed.) Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 27–187 (Empirical Approachesto Language Typology 20-6). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197099.1.27Search in Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 2018. Finnish. A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315743547Search in Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo, Laakso, Johanna & Ylikoski, Jussi. 2022. Case. In Bakró-Nagy, Marianne, Laakso, Johanna & Skribnik, Elena (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 879‒893. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0044Search in Google Scholar
Klavan, Jane, Pilvik, Maarja-Liisa & Uiboaed, Kristel. 2015. The use of multivariate statistical classification models for predicting constructional choice in spoken, non-standard varieties of Estonian. SKY Journal of Linguistics 28. 187–224.Search in Google Scholar
Kondrat’eva 2011 = Кондратьева, Н. В. 2011. Категория падежа имени существительного в удмуртском языке. Монография. Ижевск: Удмуртский университет.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Pajunen, Anneli. 2001. Argumenttirakenne. Asiantilojen luokitus ja verbien käyttäytyminen suomen kielessä (Suomi 187). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Search in Google Scholar
Perevoščikov, Vaxrušev, Alatyrev, Pozdeeva & Tarakanov 1962 = Перевощиков, П. Н., Вахрушев, В. М., Алатырев, В. И., Поздеева, А. А. & Тараканов, И. В. (eds.). 1962. Грамматика современного удмуртского языка. Фонетика и морфология. Ижевск: Удмуртское книжное издательство.Search in Google Scholar
Saraheimo, Mari. 2022. The finite remote past tenses in Udmurt. From temporal to modal and pragmatic functions. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 67. 161–203.10.33339/fuf.113825Search in Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Boulesteix, Anne-Laure, Kneib, Thomas, Augustin, Thomas & Zeileis, Achim. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9. 307.10.1186/1471-2105-9-307Search in Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Malley, James & Tutz, Gerhard. 2009. An introduction to recursive partitioning. Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods 14(4). 323–348.10.1037/a0016973Search in Google Scholar
Söder, Torbjörn. 2001. Walk this way. Verbs of motion in three Finno-Ugric languages (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 33). Uppsala:Search in Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Baayen, R. Harald. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English. Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24. 135–178.10.1017/S0954394512000129Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics. Volume 1. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvyan. 2003a. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks. The case of over. In Nerlich, Brigitte, Todd, Zazie, Herman, Vimala & Clarke, David D. (eds.), Polysemy. Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language, 95–159 (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 142). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895698.95Search in Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvyan. 2003b. The semantics of English prepositions. Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486517Search in Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9781501743726Search in Google Scholar
Winter, Bodo & Grice, Martine. 2021. Independence and generalizability in linguistics. Linguistics 59(5). 1251‒1277.10.1515/ling-2019-0049Search in Google Scholar
©2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Jetzt hab ich voll die Panik: Prototype effects of NP-external intensifiers in German
- Metapragmatic markers and the instantiation of pragmatic frames: A cognitive-linguistic approach to the problem of current discourse
- Linguistic paradigms as cognitive entities: A domain-general approach
- Partial colexifications reveal directional tendencies in object naming
- The interplay of conceptualization and case marking in the directional cases of Udmurt
- Integrating approaches to the role of metaphor in the evolutionary dynamics of language
- Metaphorical meaning dynamics: Identifying patterns in the metaphorical evolution of English words using mathematical modeling techniques
- The language of gratitude: An empirical analysis of acknowledgments in German medical dissertations
- Cross- and multimodal anaphoric references in mystery movies: A cognitive perspective
- Language learners, chess champions, and piano prodigies – insights from research on language contact and expert behavior
- Adaptive language strategies of an older sibling in bilingual German-Russian acquisition: A case study
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Jetzt hab ich voll die Panik: Prototype effects of NP-external intensifiers in German
- Metapragmatic markers and the instantiation of pragmatic frames: A cognitive-linguistic approach to the problem of current discourse
- Linguistic paradigms as cognitive entities: A domain-general approach
- Partial colexifications reveal directional tendencies in object naming
- The interplay of conceptualization and case marking in the directional cases of Udmurt
- Integrating approaches to the role of metaphor in the evolutionary dynamics of language
- Metaphorical meaning dynamics: Identifying patterns in the metaphorical evolution of English words using mathematical modeling techniques
- The language of gratitude: An empirical analysis of acknowledgments in German medical dissertations
- Cross- and multimodal anaphoric references in mystery movies: A cognitive perspective
- Language learners, chess champions, and piano prodigies – insights from research on language contact and expert behavior
- Adaptive language strategies of an older sibling in bilingual German-Russian acquisition: A case study
