100227 Nose Szeged Cases3

8/8/2019 100227 Nose Szeged Cases3

1/19

1

Contrastive study of the adverbial case functions between Finno-Ugric and Australianlanguages

Masahiko Nose

1. Introduction*

Finno-Ugric languages are known for having a rich case system. According to the

descriptive grammars, Finnish has 15 cases and Hungarian has 18. Iggesens (2005)

typological survey shows that there are some languages with many case markings, and others

without any. He finds the number of cases in all languages by using the multimedia tool, The

World Atlas of Language Structures (Haspelmath, et al.2005). According to his study, there are24 languages with 10 or more cases. In Finno-Ugric, those languages are Estonian, Finnish,

Hungarian, Mordvin, and Udmurt. It might be predicted that there are also several languages

with more than 10 cases in the Australian continent, which are Gooniyandi, Kayardild,

Martuthunira, Nunggubuyu, and Pitjantjatjara. The Finno-Ugric and Australian adverbial cases

in this study are not related to grammatical relations (such as the nominative and dative cases),

nor to locations and spaces (such as the adessive and ablative cases).

First, this study chooses ten sample languages from the Finno-Ugric and Australian

languages, and examines which kinds of cases the sample languages have. Then, after

classifying the cases into grammatical, locative, and adverbial, it investigates usages of the

adverbial cases. Finally, this study contrasts the specific adverbial case usages and functions in

the sample languages, and then explores the common and different points of each language

group.

Finally, I summarize the distributions and possibilities of each groups adverbial case

functions.

2. Case system and sampling

This section illustrates the types of case system and case alignment. I choose the sample

languages of Finno-Ugric and Australian languages. There are two major types of case

systems: the nominative-accusative, and the ergative-absolutive. All Finno-Ugric languages

use the nominative-accusative case. One example is in Hungarian, which is shown below:

(1) Hungarian:Pter olvas-ta a knyv-et.


2/19

2

Peter read-3pl.past the book-acc

Peter read the book.

Hungarian is a typical nominative-accusative language, and the transitive subject, Pter, does

not require any case markings (unmarked nominative), and the direct object knyv requires

the accusative marker -et. In contrast to Finno-Ugric, most Australian languages are the

ergative-absolutive type. In Eurasia, most languages except those of Caucasus and North India

are the nominative-accusative type, and on the other hand, the Australian languages, except

Martuthunira, Mangarrayi, and Kayardild, are ergative-absolutive. One example of the

ergative-absolutive in Yidiny (Australian) is shown in (2). Here, the form - gu is theergative case marking, and the direct object is marked by the unmarked absolutive.

(2) Yidiny (Dixon 1977:256):

wagaua-gu guda:ga buna:

man-erg dog(abs) hit

The man hit the dog.

Next, we classify cases according to three types: the grammatical, locative, adverbial, and

other cases(cf. Haspelmath 2009:508). We have already observed the major alignment systems:

nominative-accusative, and ergative-absolutive. Such cases are directly related to syntax and

grammatical relationships, and classified as grammatical cases. Grammatical cases include the

nominative, the accusative, the ergative, the absolutive, and dative. Locative cases indicate

location and space. An example is Finnish, which has six kinds of locative cases, as shown in

Table 1. Locative cases can express not only locations and spaces, but also time and some

adverbial meanings.

Table 1: Six locative cases in Finnish (Talo house) Talo-sta (from/in) Talo-ssa (in) Talo-on (into)Talo-lta (from/on) Talo-lla (on) Talo-lle (onto)

The third group, adverbial and other cases, are the cases that do not belong to the

grammatical and locative. For example, the adverbial cases include the instrumental, essive,

and so forth, have the functions of adverbs and are independent of grammatical relations.

The purpose of this study is to contrast the adverbial case markings of Finno-Ugric andAustralian. It chooses six Finno-Ugric and four Australian languages, which are shown below:


3/19

3

(3) Ten sample languages of this study:

Finno-Ugric: Finnish, Hungarian, Eastern Khanty, Mari, Udmurt, MansiAustralian: Dyirbal, Gooniyandi, Guugu Yimidhirr, Yidiny

In the Finno-Ugric group, I choose several languages from both Finnic and Ugric, but I exclude

Samoyed languages such as Nganasan and Enets. In regard to Australian languages, I pay

attention to the availability of reliable reference grammars, and as a result, I choose four

languages among more than 200 aboriginal Australian languages, as shown in (3).

3. Cases in general and their classifications and examples

This section defines the term case, and clarifies the properties of the adverbial cases that the

study focuses on. First, I refer to a brief definition of case that Blake (1994:1) gives: [C] case

is a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads.

Traditionally, the term refers to inflectional marking, and typically case marks the relationship

of a noun to a verb at the clause level or a noun to a preposition, postposition, or another noun

at the phrase level. Additionally, Moravchik (2009) reconsiders the definition of case in the

following: [A] case marker is a formal device associated with a noun phrase that signals the

grammatical role of a noun phrase. According to Blake and Moravchik, case marking relates

noun phrases and gives grammatical function(s) by inflection.

Next, I refer to the grammar manuals of the sample languages, examining how many and

which kinds of cases they have, as shown in the following example:

(4) Cases of the sample languages:

i. Finno-Ugric (Finnish, Hungarian, Eastern Khanty, Mari, Udmurt, Mansi)

a. Finnish (15 cases): nominative, genitive, accusative, inessive, elative, illative, adessive,

allative, ablative, essive, partitive, translative, instructive, abessive, comitative

b. Hungarian (18 cases): nominative, accusative, dative, elative, inessive, illative,

delative, superessive, sublative, ablative, adessive, allative, terminative, essive-formal,

instrumental, translative, causal-final, associative

c. Eastern Khanty (nine cases): nominative, lative, locative, ablative, approximative,

translative, instructive-final, comitative-instrumental, abessive


4/19

4

d. Mari (11 cases): nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, inessive, lative, illative,

ablative, modal-comparative, comitative, caritive

e. Udmurt (15 cases): nominative, accusative, genitive, ablative, dative, caritive,adverbial, instrumental, approximate, inessive, illative, elative, egressive, transitive

(through), terminative

f. Mansi (six cases): nominative, lative, locative, ablative, instrumental, translative

ii. Australian: Dyirbal, Gooniyandi, Guugu Yimidhirr, Yidiny

g. Dyirbal (nine cases): nominative, ergative, instrumental, simple genitive, locative,

general genitive, dative, allative, ablative

h. Gooniyandi (13 cases): absolutive, ergative, dative, locative, ablative 1, ablative 2,allative 1, allative 2, allative 3, allative 4, perlative, comitative, deprivative

i. Guugu Yimidhirr (11 cases): absolutive, ergative, dative, purposive, causal,

instrumental, locative-allative, ablative, superjacent, adessive, abessive

j. Yidiny (69 cases): absolutive, ergative, instrumental (locative, allative), fear, dative,

causal (ablative)

As I have pointed out, there are numerous Finno-Ugric and Australian languages that have

many cases. In particular, in Finno-Ugric, there are 18 cases in Hungarian, and 15 cases in both

Finnish and Udmurt. In Australian, there are 13 cases in Gooniyandi, and 11 cases in Guugu

Yimidhirr. All Finno-Ugric languages are a nominative-accusative type. In contrast, the

majority of Australian languages are ergative-absolutive types, and the sample Australian

languages are all ergative-absolutive. Only Dyirbal has a nominative case as well, since

Dyirbal can change the grammatical relations of both nominative and ergative types.

I classify the observed cases of (4) into three kinds of functions: grammatical, locative, and

adverbial. I examined the descriptive grammars of the sample languages, and quoted the case

names as the grammar described. Therefore, the definitions of cases are different according to

their sample languages, and largely depend on the authors of the grammars. For example, there

are 18 cases in Hungarian according to Keresztess description (1995). However, following

other descriptions and definitions, Borin (1986) suggested that the number of cases in

Hungarian ranges from five to twenty-six by. Additionally, the definitions and the names of

cases are more or less dependent on the authors subjective judgments, making it difficult to

study case functions in terms of their linguistic typology.


5/19

5

This study focuses on the adverbial functions, observing the adverbial cases and usages of

the sample languages. First, it adopts the semantic and functional descriptions of each language.

At the same time, I check the functional descriptions of cases and their examples in sentences.In this way, I gather the data of cases in (4), and I carefully create the adverbial case group of

the observed cases. Thus, focusing on adverbial functions, I again consider the adverbial

functions of cases, and define their conditions as shown below:

(5) Conditions of the adverbial cases:

a. cases functioning as adjunct (outside of grammatical relations)

b. cases whose main function does not indicate location nor spacec. cases whose main function is an adverbial meaning (state, manner, companion, etc.)

The condition in (5a) excludes the grammatical cases such as nominative, dative, and ergative,

which are involved in grammatical relations as arguments. The second condition (5b) can

exclude the locative cases such as allative and ablative. Finally, the third condition (5c) defines

the adverbial cases with adverbial functions. Following the conditions (5), the genitive case is

classified in the adverbial cases. Generally, genitive case describes the relations between the

possessor and possessed, and this function is not grammatical nor locative. Thus, this study

regards genitive case as the adverbial case, in spite of some exceptions. There is a genitive case

in Finnish, Mari, and Udmurt (see (4)) in Finno-Ugric, and the genitive case in Finnish is

identical with the accusative case (the genitive in Mari and Udmurt are not identical). In

Finnish, both have common functions, and the genitive can be included in the grammatical

cases. This study analyzes the overall cases in each language presented in (4), and summarizes

the adverbial cases (excluding the genitive case of Finnish), as shown below:

(6) Adverbial cases of sample languages:

a. Finnish (5 adverbial cases out of 15): essive, translative, instructive, abessive, comitative

b. Hungarian (6 adverbial cases out of 18 cases): terminative, essive-formal, instrumental,

translative, causal-final, associative

c. Eastern Khanty (4 adverbial cases out of 9 cases): translative, instructive-final,

comitative-instrumental, abessive

d. Mari (4 adverbial cases out of 11 cases): modal-comparative, comitative, caritive,

genitive


6/19

6

e. Udmurt (5 adverbial cases out of 15 cases): caritive, adverbial, instrumental, terminative,

genitive

f. Mansi (2 adverbial cases out of 6 cases): instrumental, translativeg. Dyirbal (3 adverbial cases out of 9 cases): instrumental, simple genitive, general

genitive

h. Gooniyandi (2 adverbial cases out of 13 cases): comitative, deprivative

i. Guugu Yimidhirr (4 adverbial cases out of 11 cases): purposive, causal, instrumental,

abessive

j. Yidiny (36, or 69 adverbial cases out of cases): instrumental (locative, allative), fear,

causal (ablative)

Generally, there are many locative cases in both Finno-Ugric and Australian, and when I take

away the locative cases and the grammatical cases, the remaining adverbial cases are few.

However, every language has at least two adverbial cases, which means that when there are

case markings, at least two cases are adverbial.

3.1. Characteristics of Finno-Ugric adverbial cases

I give examples of the adverbial cases in each Finno-Ugric language, and then consider thespecific characteristics of Finno-Ugric. Morphologically, all Finno-Ugric languages construct

the noun-case in the inflectional form, but the distributions of the adverbial cases are

different among Finno-Ugric languages. For example, the genitive case is observed in Finnic

(Finnish, Mari, and Udmurt), but not in Ugric (Hungarian, Eastern Khanty, and Mansi)

languages.

(7) Finnish (Karlsson 1999:123, 125, 127128)

a. Essive

Heikki on Jms-ss lkri-n

Heikki is Jms-loc doctor-ess

Heikki is (working as) a doctor in Jms.

b. Translative

Tyttaikoo insinri-ksi.

girl intend-3sg engineer-tra

The girl intends to become an engineer.

c. Instructive (it is used with a few fixed plural expressions)


7/19

7

om-i-n silm-i-n

own-pl-ins eye-pl-ins

with (ones) own eyesd. Abessive

Hn lhti ulkomai-lle raha-tta ja passi-tta.

he leave-3sg.past foreign country-pl-loc money-abe and passport-abe

He went abroad without money and without a passport.

e. Comitative

Lsn oli Viljo Kohonen vaimo-ine-en.

present was Viljo Kohonen wife-com-possPresent was Viljo Kohonen with his wife.

In Finnish, there is the essive case and the translative case in (7a, b). The essive case conveys

the temporal state, and translative case conveys the resulting state. In (7c), the instructive case

has limited usage, and it does not carry an instrumental function. Finnish lacks the instrumental

case, but there is an abessive case meaning without in (7d). In (7e), the comitative case is

also limited in its usage, and always followed by a possessive suffix. Its meaning is with,

accompanied by.

(8) Hungarian (Rounds 2001:114-118)

a. Terminative

El-ksr-t bennnket a sarok-ig.

Pre-accompany-3sg.past us-acc the corner-ter

He accompanied us to the corner.

b. Essive-formal

Egy v-ig tanr-knt dolgoz-ott.

one year-ter teacher-ess work-3sg.past

She worked as a teacher for a year.

c. Instrumental

Inkbb ceruz-val rok, mint tol-lal.

rather pencil-inst write-1sg than pen-inst

I prefer to write with a pencil, than a pen.

Mr rgta jr v-val.


8/19

8

already long time go.3sg Eva-inst

Hes been going with va for a long time.

d. TranslativeHallgatag ember-r vl-t, miutn meg-hal-t a felesg-e.

quiet person-tra change-3sg.past after pre-die-3sg.past the wife-poss

He became a quiet man after his wife died.

e. Causal-final

Minden-t meg-tesz a csald-j-rt.

everything-acc pre-do the family-poss-cau

He does everything for his family.f. Associative (Sociative, with people or objects associated with each other)

Mindig csald-ostul utazik.

always family-ass travel-3sg

He always travels with his family.

In Hungarian, there is the terminative case, meaning till, to in (8a). The terminative case is

related to locatives in that it can carry the destination of location. In (8b), the essive case

basically expresses a temporal state, and it has a figurative meaning as well. In (8c), the

instrumental case carries both instrumental and comitative meanings. In (8d), there is the

translative case in Hungarian as well as in Finnish. The causal-final case basically carries cause,

reason, and purpose in (8e). Moreover, the causal-final case is used for marking a price, 100

forint-rt (100 forint). In (8f), the associative case means with people or objects closely

associated with each other.

(9) Eastern Khanty (Csepregi 1998:2021)

a. Translative

t

as a house

b. Instructive-final

wntat

(to feed) with fish food

tat

for a house


9/19

9

c. Comitative-instrumental

tnat

with a housed. Abessive

t

without a house

Khanty has two major dialects, the eastern and the northern dialects. The numbers of cases

are different in each. This study focuses only on the eastern dialect, which has four adverbial

cases: the translative, the instructive-final, the comitative-instrumental, and the abessive.

(10) Mari (Kangasmaa-Minn 1998:227, 237)1

a. Modal-comparative

mar-la ojla

speaks Mari (toward)

totar=la solk

tatar scarf adjectival meaning

b. Comitative

kum ig-ge

with three cubs

c. Caritive

jol-de

without legs

d. Genitive (indicating only animate owner)

kuga-n dr

the Tsars daughter

Mari has 11 cases, and many cases are classified in locative cases. Kangasmaa-Minn (1998)

calls four cases as marginal cases, which are adverbial cases: modal-comparative, comitative,

caritive, and genitive. Functionally, the function without of the caritive case is identical with

that of the abessive case.

(11) Udmurt (Winkler 2001:21, 24, 2728)


10/19

10

a. Caritive

so mum-tek bub-tek bud-i-z.

he/she mother-caritive father-caritive grow up-past-3sgHe/she grew up without mother and father.

b. Adverbial

bgat-em-e-ja

be able-particple-1sg-adverbial

according to my ability

c. Instrumental

tir-en/Pedor-en uani (to work with the axe/with Fedor)including comitative meaning

d. Terminative -o

mi ur-o b-i-m

we river-ter run-past-1pl

We ran to the river (locative meaning)

temporal meaning: ukna-o until the morning

e. Genitiveta so-len pi-jez.

this he/she-gen son-3sg

This is his/her son.

Mari has 15 cases and the observed cases are mainly locative cases. Six cases are classified

as adverbial cases: the caritive, the adverbial, the instrumental, the terminative, and the genitive,

as in (11). The instrumental case carries comitative meaning as well, and the terminative case

is basically regarded as locative indicating the destination, but at the same time, it carries the

temporal meaning until. This study considers that the terminative case in Udmurt (also

terminative in Hungarian) as a kind of adverbial case, since the main function of the

terminative is considered to be limiting the point of things.

(12) Mansi (Riese 2001:26)

a. Instrumental

wram ka-l joni

child-nom doll-inst play-3sg


11/19

11

The child plays with the doll.

b. Translative

jk wit-i jmtiice-nom water-tra become-3sg

The ice turns into water.

Translative carrying essive meaning

taw l kkar-i rpiti

he/she doctor-tra work-3sg

He/she works as a doctor.

Finally, Mansi has six cases, two of which carry adverbial meanings. The two cases are the

instrumental and translative case, as in (12). The instrumental case does not have a comitative

meaning although other Ugric languages (Hungarian and Eastern Khanty) subsume the

instrumental and comitative cases. The comitative function is realized in the postposition jot

(with). In contrast, the translative case can imply essive meaning, as in (12b).

Table 2 summarizes the Finno-Ugric adverbial cases, as follows:

Table 2: Distributions of the Finno-Ugric adverbial casesEssi

veTranslati

veInstrument

alComitati

veAbessi

veGeniti

veOthers

Finnish NA KSI INE TTA N(acc)

Instructive

Hungarian

KENT

V VAL Terminative,Causal-final,Associative

EasternKhanty

AE NAT SAE Instructive-final

Mari GE DE N Modal-comparative,Udmurt EN TEK LEN Adverbial,

TerminativeMansi I AEL

First, the essive case and the translative case are observed in Finnish and Hungarian moreover,

Eastern Khanty and Mansi have only the translative case subsuming both functions. Second,

the instrumental and comitative cases are realized in one form, like -val/-vel in Hungarian. In

addition to Hungarian, Eastern Khanty and Udmurt use the identical form for both functions. In

contrast, Finnish, Mari, and Mansi use discrete forms for each function. Third, the abessive

case is observed in Finnish, Eastern Khanty, Mari, and Udmurt, and the abessive case is

sometimes called the caritive. Finally, there are other minor cases, and in particular,

terminative and causal (causal-final case in Hungarian and instructive-final in Eastern Khanty)

functions are also characteristics of Finno-Ugric.


12/19

12

3.2. Characteristics of Australian adverbial casesNext, I give examples of adverbial cases in each Australian language, and then consider the

specific characteristics of Australian. Morphologically, Australian languages construct the

noun-case form as they do in Finno-Ugric, but the distributions of the Australian adverbial

cases are different from Finno-Ugric. For example, two genitive cases are observed only in

Dyirbal. The instrumental case is generally considered to be related to the comitative, but the

form of the instrumental case is identical with ergative case.

(13) Dyirbal (Dixon 1972:93, 107, 109)

a. Instrumental (identical with ergative)

balam ugu bagugara-gu ba-gu gaind-u bagan

there-nom yam-nom two people-erg three-inst yamstick-inst dig-present

the two (women) are digging yams with yamstick.

b. Simple genitive

bayi waal baul yaau

there-nom boomerang-nom there-gen man-gen

bulganu bagun ugumbiu buan

big-gen there-erg woman-erg see-present/past

Woman saw big mans boomerang.

c. General genitive

ayguna yaagu minban

I man-erg shoot-present/past

margindu waybalamigu

gun-inst white man-general gen-inst

man shot me with the gun from the white man (i.e., that the white man gave or soldhim).

In Dyirbal, the adverbial cases are instrumental and simple/general genitive cases. The

instrumental case does not include a comitative function, and the instrumental case form

-gu is identical with the ergative. The simple and general genitive cases differ in that the

simple genitive carries present ownership, and the general genitive carries past ownership.

(14) Gooniyandi (McGregor 1990:343, 347, 350)


13/19

13

a. Comitative

rope-ngaddi thoodgani

rope-com he:descendedHe climbed down with a rope.

joogoo-ngaddi wardjiddi

child-com we:went

We went with the children.

b. Deprivative

gamba-winiyja riminyloondi

water-deprivative I:got:thirstyI got thirsty for lack of water.

Gooniyandi has two ablatives and four allatives. Therefore, there are only two adverbial

cases: the comitative and deprivative in (14a-b). The case name of (14a) -ngaddi is

comitative, but it carries instrumental function as well. In (14b), the deprivative case indicates

for lack of, and this case can be considered functionally identical with the abessive case.

(15) Guugu Yimidhirr (Haviland 1979:53-54, 108109, 112)

a. Purposive

mayi-ingu

food-purp

for food

Wal-aa dyaarba-angu dyinda-ya

rise-imperative snake-purp bit-caution

Watch out for that snake! It might bite!

b. Causal

Nyulu milbiir biniirr-nganh balga-y.

3sg.nom wommera ironbark-cau make-past

He made the wommera from ironbark (wood).

c. Instrumental (it is identical with ergative)

Nyulu bidha-al gudaa wagi naaybu-unh.

3sg.nom child-erg dog-abs cut-past knife-inst

The child cut the dog with a knife.


14/19

14

d. Abessive

Yarraman ngayu biida-aga man-ni

horse-abs 1sg.nom father-abe take-pastI got the horse from (my) father.

In Guugu Yimidhirr, there are four adverbial cases: the purposive, the causal, the

instrumental, and the abessive cases. In (15a) and (15b), there is a distinction between the

purposive and causal. The causal case is related to the ablative, and it indicates cause, and

the source of something given or transferred, or the material from which something is made.

As shown in Dyirbal, the instrumental case in Guugu Yimidhirr is identical with the ergative,and it excludes the comitative function (comitative is realized with the derivational suffix).

Finally, the abessive case is used to mean a person in or into whose presence an action takes

place, or moves, or to whom speech is directed. Thus, the abessive case in Guugu Yimidhirr is

different from the abessive because of the meaning without, although the case name is

abessive.

(16) Yidiny (Dixon 1977:262, 300)

a. Instrumental, identical with locative, allative (not having comitative meaning)

aa wugul uu: ugi:l buna:

I-object marker nape-abs that-erg stick-inst hit-past

That [person] hit me in the back of the neck with a stick.

b. Causal, identical with ablative

mugun yina:ri wawal gala-m

wound-abs this sort-abs see-present spear-causal

These sort of wounds can be seen [on a certain man] caused by spears.

c. Fear, something to be avoided

aa munubuun ina: / bama-yida.

child-abs inside-still sit-past person-fear

The child still sat inside [the hut] for fear of [being seen by] the people.

In Yidiny, several case forms are identical, and the number of cases ranges from six to nine

according to the definition. The instrumental case is identical with the locative and the allative,

and the causal case is identical with the ablative. Among the cases in Yidiny, the instrumental,


15/19

15

causal, and fear are classified in the adverbial cases. The instrumental case does not include the

comitative or the ergative. It is remarkable that there is a fear case, meaning for fear of.

Table 3 summarizes the Australian adverbial cases. The functions of the cases in Table 3 aredifferent from those in Table 2.

Table 3: Distributions of the Australian adverbial casesInstrumental Comitative Causal-purpose Abessive Genitive Others

Dyirbal NGU U/MI two genitivesGooniyandi NGADDI WINYJA comitative-instrumentalGuugu

YimidhirrUNH (Ergative) INGU/NGANH AGA Purposive carries fear

functionYidiny :L

(Locative,allative)

M (Ablative) Fear

First, the instrumental case is observed in all four languages. The instrumental case is mainly

related to the ergative case but not completely. In contrast, the comitative case lacks in the

three languages, the comitative function is realized with the derivational suffix, except in

Gooniyandi. Second, the causal or purposive case is observed in Guugu Yimidhirr and Yidiny,

as there is a causal-final case holding cause and purpose functions in Hungarian. Third, the

abessive case is observed in Gooniyandi and Guugu Yimidhirr. But the abessive in Guugu

Yimidhirr does not mean without, for lack of, but away from. Although the case name is

abessive, the observed functions are different. Finally, there are two genitives in Dyirbal, butthere is no genitive case in the other three languages. It is remarkable that Yidiny has fear case

and this function for fear of is also realized in Guugu Yimidhirr by using the purposive case.

4. Discussion

In this section, I discuss the relationships between adverbial case functions and other

cases/forms by contrasting the adverbial cases of Finno-Ugric and those of Australian.

To start with, I discuss four kinds of adverbial functions: the instrumental, the essive, thefear, and the genitive. As I already pointed out, the instrumental function accompanies the

comitative function in Finno-Ugric and Guugu Yimidhirr in these languages, the instrumental

and the comitative functions are realized in one case form (the case name instrumental is

basically used for integrating both functions). In contrast, the instrumental in Australian

languages (except in Yidiny) is identical with the ergative case form. This means that the

instrumental and ergative functions are related to each other, and this polysemy is observed in

other languages in the world. Then, the essive case is observed in Finnish, Hungarian, andMansi (the translative case carries the essive function), but there is no essive case in Australian


16/19

16

languages. The essive and translative cases are considered to be peculiar functions observed in

Finno-Ugric, but out of the other Australian languages, we can find the essive case in

Nunggubuyu, and the translative case in Ungarinjin. Thus, the essive and translative arefrequently observed in Finno-Ugric, but it is probable that these cases can be found in other

languages that have a rich case system as well. Last, the fear case is observed in Yidiny, and

moreover, the purposive case in Guugu Yimidhirr carries the fear function as well (see the

example (17)). Moreover, there is a fear case in other Australian languages (for example,

Pitjantjatjara), which is peculiar to this area. There is no fear case in Finno-Ugric, and

alternately the locative case (-tl/-tl: ablative) is used for the fear function, in Hungarian.

(17) Guugu Yimidhirr (Haviland 1979:116)

Gamba-gamba nhayun yinil dyaarba-angu

old woman-abs that-abs afraid snake-purp

The old lady is afraid of snakes.

(18) Hungarian

fl az ember-tl.

he afraid the person-loc

He is afraid of the person.

Second, I discuss the possibilities and limits of the adverbial cases in Finno-Ugric and

Australian. Since there are blanks in Table 2 and Table 3, case markings cannot always cover

all probable adverbial functions. For example, Tok Pisin (an English-based creole spoken in

Papua New Guinea) does not have any case form, but has a multifunctional preposition,

long, which carries many kinds of grammatical, locative, and adverbial meanings

accompanying nouns. Thus, we can assume that there are possibilities of forms of modifying

nouns and their grammatical relations. They are carried by changing word orders, verbal

agreements, cases, prepositions, postpositions, and so on. In particular, even if the sample

languages have many case forms and adverbial cases, there are still missing functions. We

examine which forms are used for some blank functions in Tables 2 and 3. The results are

shown in (19)(22). In (19), there is no instrumental case in Finnish, and the instrumental

function is substituted by the adessive -lla, one of the locative cases. Hungarian lacks the

abessive case, and this function is substituted for the postposition nlkl, as in (20).

Moreover, the abessive function in Dyirbal is not realized in case form, but in the suffix -


17/19

17

agay, as in (21). There is instrumental case in Yidiny, but it excludes the comitative

function. Instead, the comitative affix -di ~ -yi is used in (22).

(19) Instrumental function in Finnish (Karlsson 1999:116): adessive case

Syn keittoa lusika-lla.

eat-1sg soup-part spoon-loc

I eat soup with a spoon.

(20) Abessive function in Hungarian (Rounds 2001:): postposition

egy kvt krem, cukor nlkl.

one coffee-acc ask-1sg sugar postpPlease a cup of coffee, without sugar

(21) Abessive function in Dyirbal (Dixon 1972:223): suffix of abessive

bayi yaa yugu-agay bani u

there-nom man-nom stick-suffix coming

man without a stick in coming

(22) Comitative function in Yidiny (Dixon 1977:139): comitative affix

uu aa gada biba:y bu anuyi

that child-abs come paper-com-abs woman-gen-com-abs

That child is coming with the womans paper (letter).

To summarize, when the sample languages lack possible cases for the adverbial functions,

the substituting forms are usually the following three morphological options: locative cases,

postpositions, or suffixes. Other forms such as prepositions, prefixes, or grammatical cases are

not probable since the sample languages (both Finno-Ugric and Australian) are dependent on

morphological cases, and these types of languages prefer postpositions and suffixes. Finally,

we can conclude that the distributions and characteristics of the adverbial cases of Finno-Ugric

and Australian can be explained in terms of the following two points: The first is the

geographical tendency of each area, and the second is the typologically probable form/function

combinations.

5. Conclusion

This study concludes that the functions of the adverbial cases partly show geographical

tendencies (e.g., the essive and translative case in Finno-Ugric, and the fear case in Australian),


18/19

18

but for the most part, there are universally the same kinds of functions (e.g., the instrumental,

the abessive, and the causal) in Finno-Ugric and Australian. Moreover, the adverbial cases are

still related to other grammatical and locative cases, and the case selections/omissions of theadverbial functions are dependent on each language.

This study claims that the characteristics of the adverbial cases are different between

Finno-Ugric and Australian regardless of partly selectional similarity. In particular, there are

two functional characteristics in the two sample languages: The first characteristic is that the

specific case functions are different even if the case names are identical. The instrumental in

Finno-Ugric usually accompanies the comitative function, and the instrumental in Australian is

identical with the ergative. The second characteristic is that when the languages do not have anequivalent case for certain adverbial functions, both Finno-Ugric and Australian have

morphologically alternative means: locative cases, suffixes, or postpositions.

Notes*Abbreviations: abe: abessive case abs: absolutive case ass: associative case acc: accusativecase cau: causal(-final) case com: comitative case erg: ergative case ess: essive case gengenitive case ins: instructive case inst: instrumental case loc: locative case nom: nominative

part: partitive case past: past tense poss: possessive affix postp: postposition pre: preverbalelement purp: purposive case ter: terminative tra: translative case sg: singular pl: plural 1, 2,

3: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person respectively.

1 This study adopts the data described by Kangasmaa-Minn (1998), but I also checked thedescriptions of Alhoniemi (1985).

R e f e r e n c e s

Abondolo, Daniel (ed.). 1998. The Uralic languages. London/New York: Routledge.Alhoniemi, Alho. 1985. Marin kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilanen Seura.Blake, Barry. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Borin, Lars. 1986. Is Hungarian a case language? Fenno-Ugrica Suecana (Journal of

Finno-Ugric Research in Sweden) 8: 133.Csepregi, Mrta. 1998. Szurguti Osztjk Chrestomathia. Szeged: JATE Finnugor Tanszk.Dixon, Robert.M.W. 1972. The Dyibal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: CUP.Dixon, Robert.M.W. 1977. A Grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: CUP.Haspelmath Martin. 2009. Terminology of case. In: Malchukov & Spencer (eds.).: 505517.Haspelmath Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. The World

Atlas of Language Structures (WALS). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Haviland, John B. 1979. Guugu Yimidhirr sketch grammar. In: R. M. W. Dixon and B.

Blake(eds.). Handbook of Australian Languages Vol I.: 26180.Iggesen, Oliver A. 2005. Number of cases. In: Haspelmath et al. (eds.): feature 49 in WALS:

202205.Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1998. Mari, In: Abondolo(ed.): 219248.Karlsson, Fred. 1999. Finnish: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.


19/19

19

Keresztes, Lszl. 1995. A practical Hungarian grammar. Debrecen: Debreceni NyriEgyetem.

Malchukov, Andrej & Andrew Spencer(eds.). 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.McGregor. 1990. A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.

Moravcsik, Edith A. 2009. The distribution of case. In: Malchukov & Spencer (eds.).: 231245.Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Ostyak. Mnchen: Lincom Europa.Riese, Timothy. 2001. Vogul. Mnchen: Lincom Europa.Rounds, Carol. 2001. Hungarian: an essential grammar. London/ New York: Routledge.Winkler, Eberhard 2001. Udmurt. Mnchen: Lincom Europa.

Abstract

This study examines case forms and functions in the Finno-Ugric and Australianaboriginal languages, particularly focusing on adverbial functions like theinstrumental, comitative, essive cases, and so on. It is well known that there are richcase systems in both the Finno-Ugric and Australian languages. For example,whereas Finnish has 15 cases and Hungarian has 18, Dyirbal has nine cases, andGuugu Yimidhirr has 12. This study chooses 10 sample languages from bothlanguage groups, examining the similarities and differences of their adverbialfunctions. Finally, it claims that there are common and unique characteristics of theadverbial cases in the Finno-Ugric and Australian languages, which can be explained

by the universal characteristics of the adverbial cases and geographical tendency.Moreover, it finds that there are other substituting forms (locative cases, suffixes,

and postpositions).

Keywords: adverbial cases, case functions, typology, Finno-Ugric, Australian

Masahiko NoseReitaku University, [email protected]

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	masahiko-nose
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

100227 Nose Szeged Cases3

Documents