Observations on non-possessive usages of personal markers (possessive suffixes) in Nganasan

This paper aims at a systematic overview of the non-possessive usages of possessive (relational) suffixes in Nganasan. In the analyzed corpus, the non-anchoring usage types of the 3rd person suffix (including the direct anaphoric and situational usages), are less frequent than relational usages. The...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics
Main Author: Zayzon, Réka
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: University of Tartu 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/jeful/article/view/jeful.2015.6.2.11
https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.2.11
_version_ 1831202856029388800
author Zayzon, Réka
author_facet Zayzon, Réka
author_sort Zayzon, Réka
collection University of Tartu: ojs.utlib.ee
container_issue 2
container_start_page 259
container_title Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics
container_volume 6
description This paper aims at a systematic overview of the non-possessive usages of possessive (relational) suffixes in Nganasan. In the analyzed corpus, the non-anchoring usage types of the 3rd person suffix (including the direct anaphoric and situational usages), are less frequent than relational usages. The distribution of the suffixes suggests that in traditional narratives, the primary topic of the discourse tends to be marked with a deictic (2nd person) and the secondary topic with an anaphoric (3rd person) suffix. The language data also show that in Nganasan, the concept of semantic uniqueness does not suffice to explain the occurrence of the 3rd person suffix as definiteness marker, the topical status of the referent being decisive. Furthermore, predicting the (possessive vs. non-possessive) reading of the relational suffix solely by the conceptual type of the host noun is in case of some lexemes impossible and therefore, contextual information gains crucial importance.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
genre Nganasan*
genre_facet Nganasan*
id fttartuunivojs:oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/15193
institution Open Polar
language English
op_collection_id fttartuunivojs
op_container_end_page 278
op_doi https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.2.11
op_relation https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/jeful/article/view/jeful.2015.6.2.11/10163
https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/jeful/article/view/jeful.2015.6.2.11
doi:10.12697/jeful.2015.6.2.11
op_source Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics; Vol. 6 No. 2 (2015): Special issue "Referential devices in Uralic languages"; 259-278
2228-1339
1736-8987
publishDate 2015
publisher University of Tartu
record_format openpolar
spelling fttartuunivojs:oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/15193 2025-05-04T14:30:47+00:00 Observations on non-possessive usages of personal markers (possessive suffixes) in Nganasan Zayzon, Réka 2015-12-18 application/pdf https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/jeful/article/view/jeful.2015.6.2.11 https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.2.11 eng eng University of Tartu https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/jeful/article/view/jeful.2015.6.2.11/10163 https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/jeful/article/view/jeful.2015.6.2.11 doi:10.12697/jeful.2015.6.2.11 Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics; Vol. 6 No. 2 (2015): Special issue "Referential devices in Uralic languages"; 259-278 2228-1339 1736-8987 Nganasan possessive suffixes definiteness possession epistemic grounding info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion 2015 fttartuunivojs https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.2.11 2025-04-10T03:15:35Z This paper aims at a systematic overview of the non-possessive usages of possessive (relational) suffixes in Nganasan. In the analyzed corpus, the non-anchoring usage types of the 3rd person suffix (including the direct anaphoric and situational usages), are less frequent than relational usages. The distribution of the suffixes suggests that in traditional narratives, the primary topic of the discourse tends to be marked with a deictic (2nd person) and the secondary topic with an anaphoric (3rd person) suffix. The language data also show that in Nganasan, the concept of semantic uniqueness does not suffice to explain the occurrence of the 3rd person suffix as definiteness marker, the topical status of the referent being decisive. Furthermore, predicting the (possessive vs. non-possessive) reading of the relational suffix solely by the conceptual type of the host noun is in case of some lexemes impossible and therefore, contextual information gains crucial importance. Article in Journal/Newspaper Nganasan* University of Tartu: ojs.utlib.ee Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 6 2 259 278
spellingShingle Nganasan
possessive suffixes
definiteness
possession
epistemic grounding
Zayzon, Réka
Observations on non-possessive usages of personal markers (possessive suffixes) in Nganasan
title Observations on non-possessive usages of personal markers (possessive suffixes) in Nganasan
title_full Observations on non-possessive usages of personal markers (possessive suffixes) in Nganasan
title_fullStr Observations on non-possessive usages of personal markers (possessive suffixes) in Nganasan
title_full_unstemmed Observations on non-possessive usages of personal markers (possessive suffixes) in Nganasan
title_short Observations on non-possessive usages of personal markers (possessive suffixes) in Nganasan
title_sort observations on non-possessive usages of personal markers (possessive suffixes) in nganasan
topic Nganasan
possessive suffixes
definiteness
possession
epistemic grounding
topic_facet Nganasan
possessive suffixes
definiteness
possession
epistemic grounding
url https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/jeful/article/view/jeful.2015.6.2.11
https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.2.11