From SXV to SVX in
Udmurt: a Russian-induced
ongoing change
Erika AsztalosResearch Institute for Linguistics
of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences;
University Eötvös Loránd
OV to VO, VO to OV: Word order change from an areal perspective
23–24 June 2017, Bielefeld University
Claims
• ongoing SOV > SVO change in Udmurt underthe influence of Russian
• influence of Tatar (SOV) � slows down the• influence of Tatar (SOV) � slows down thechange (in trilingual areas)
• via a gradual broadening of the range ofinformation roles associable to the postverbalconstituents
• VP, CP > NP, AdjP; V + O: no particular role
Outline of the talk
1. Background
2. Motivation and aims of the research
3. Data collection and methods
4. Results
5. Conclusions
1. Background1. Background
The Udmurt language
• Uralic language family, Finno-Ugric branch
• spoken by 340 338 native speakers in • spoken by 340 338 native speakers in Russia (2010)
• Udmurt Republic (minority language) + Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Mari El, Perm Krai, KirovOblast, Sverdlovsk Oblast etc.
Udmurt as a Uralic language
policy.hu/filtchenko
(ibtpartners.org)
Sociolinguistic and areal background
• mostly bilingual speakers (Udmurt–Russian)
- old speakers: balanced or Udmurt-dominant bilingualism
- young speakers: balanced or Russian-dominant
bilingualism (Salánki 2007: 59)bilingualism (Salánki 2007: 59)
� influence of Russian (SVO)
• southern areas: Tatar is also spoken
� influence of Tatar (SOV)
(Tatar: - Turkic
- the largest minority language in Russia;
ca. 5,3 million speakers)
Udmurt: SOV (SOV-SVO?)
• non-rigid (but consistent) SOV, non-verb-final sentences are pragmatically marked(Zhuikov 1937, Bulychov 1947, Gavrilova 1970, Suihkonen 1990, Csúcs 1990, Timerkhanova 2011, Vilkuna 1998, Winkler 2011)1990, Timerkhanova 2011, Vilkuna 1998, Winkler 2011)
• SOV–SVO:
- SVX is not marginal (Salánki 2007)
- SVX can also be discourse-neutral(Ponariadov 2010, Asztalos–Tánczos 2014, Asztalos 2016)
Motivation and aim of theresearch
• influence of SVO Russian
• different bilingualism of the old and the younggenerationsgenerations
• SVO is not marginal and can be discourse-neutral
• SOV > SVO in the other Permic languages
� to test whether Udmurt is undergoing an
SOV > SVO change
Data collection and methodsmethods
The examined constructions
• Dryer’s correlation pairs (1992: 108) (except for: Postp, N+Det, V+AuxTemp� strictly head-final)
++
• Adj + AdpP: rich + in minerals
• N + AdpP: presentation + about the
typological change of Udmurt
The questionnaire and the informants
• fieldwork (2014–2015)
• discourse-neutral sentences � context: ‘Whathappened?’ (or topical subject)
• 90 respondents (3 questionnaire variants �29+29+32)29+29+32)
- from all main dialectal groups + Izhevsk
�grouped into: 1. respondents living in Udmurtia
2. in Tatarstan
- age groups: 1. born between 1935–1965 (32)
2. 1970 and 2002 (56)
• non-representative survey
Question types
• closed-ended questions:
1. completing sentences by ordering and conjugating/ declining given words:
- What’s new?
- Nothing interesting. Yesterday _________ (soup, Mary, to cook).- Nothing interesting. Yesterday _________ (soup, Mary, to cook).
2. grammaticality judgement about head-initial phrases:- What’s new?
- Georgy fell off a ladder. а) good b) not too good c) bad
3. grammaticality judgement about both the head-initial
and the head-final variants
• open-ended question: comparing two figures
(‘Anja is taller than Tanja’)
Textual analysis
• % of the head-initial vs. head-final variants in- old folklore texts (from 1891–1892)
vs. blog posts- newspaper articles from 1924 vs. - newspaper articles from 1924 vs.
contemporary newspaper articles
• information structural analysis of sentencescontaining head-initial phrases� only pragmatically marked or also neutral?
ResultsResults
Questionnaire:Head-initial vs. head-final
• with almost all of the constituent types, thehead-initial variants were produced and judged grammatical by a part of the speakers
• still, head-final orders are more frequent and more acceptable
• some speakers for some constituentspreferred the head-initial variants over thehead-final ones
Generational and arealdifferences 1.
• younger speakers produced more frequently and judged more favourably the head-initial variants thanolder ones
� apparent time-hypothesis: an age-stratified� apparent time-hypothesis: an age-stratified
variation can be the sign of a linguistic change in
progress (cf. Trudgill 1992)
• speakers from Udmurtia produced more frequentlyand judged more favourably the head-initial variantsthan speakers from Tatarstan
Generational and arealdifferences 2.
� older speakers from Tatarstan: almost
exceptionless preference for the head-final
variants
� younger ones from Udmurtia: the highest %
of production and acceptance of the head-
initial variants
V + S (existential sentences) – arealdifference
Context: ′Our village is big and nice.'
(8) a. Otyn vań kinoťeatr no klub.
there is cinema and clubhouse
b. Otyn kinoťeatr no klub vań.
′There is a cinema and a clubhouse.'′There is a cinema and a clubhouse.'
84%
44%
71%
16%
56%
29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Udmurtia
Tatarstan
Total
Head-initial
Head-final
V + AdpP – areal + generational
(9) Mon śulmaśkiśko D’ima śaryś.
I worry Dima about
‘I am worried about Dima.’
(head-final: Mon D’ima śaryś śulmaśkiśko.)
100%
45,5%
62,5%
76%
45,5%
25%
100%
20%
12,5%
4%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Young (U. + T.)
Old (U. + T.)
Old / Udmurtia
Old / Tatarstan
Total
Grammatical
Degraded
Ungrammatical
Corrected
Comp + Sent – generational difference
(10) a. Tren’erjos veralo, čto sport tuž pajdajo.
trainers say that sport very useful
b. Tren’er-jos veralo, sport tuž pajdajo šuysa.
trainers say sport very useful that
c. Tren’er-jos veralo, čto sport tuž pajdajo šuysa.
‘Trainers say that sport is healthy.’‘Trainers say that sport is healthy.’
37,5%
30,5%
5%
4,5%
58%
100%
65%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Young
Old
Total
Head-initial
2 complementizers
Head-final
′want’ + VP – areal + generational
(11) Jegitjoslen potiz šuldyrjaśkemzy (…)
of_youngs came_out having_fun
(head-final: Jegitjoslen šuldyrjaśkemzy potiz (…))
′Young people wanted to have fun (…)’
92%
25%
65%
54%
8%
50%
25%
100%
38%
13%
5%
4%
13%
5%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Udmurtia / young
Udmurtia / old
Udmurtia
Tatarstan
Total
Grammatical
Degraded
Ungrammatical
Corrected
Textual analysis
• Head-initial variants of someconstituents: higher frequency in thecontemporary texts than in the old onescontemporary texts than in the old ones
• Information structural analysis: theinformation structural distribution of the SVX sentences is rather wide
Information structural analysis of VX sentences 1.
• Focused/negated verb (+ backgrounded postverbalconstituent)
(characteristic for SOV languages, cf. Ponariadov 2010):
(12) Tatyn badźymjos todo udmurtez,(12) Tatyn badźymjos todo udmurtez,
here old.PL know.PRS.PL.3 udmurt.ACC
noš jegitjos kutskemyn ińi vunetyny.
but young.PL begin.PTCP already forget.INF(udmurto4ka.blogspot.ru)
‘Here old people do speak the Udmurt language, but
the youngsters have already began to forget it.’
Information structural analysis of VX sentences 2.
• Preverbal focus (+ backgrounded postverbalconstituent)
(characteristic for SOV languages, cf. Ponariadov2010):2010):
(13) Arlydoosyzleśges kylyli udmurtez.
old.PL.ABL.CMPR hear.PST.1SG udmurt.ACC
‘It was mainly from older people that I heard
Udmurt speech.’ (udmurto4ka.blogspot.ru)
Information structural analysis of VX sentences 3.
• Postverbal focus
(influence of Russian, cf. Ponariadov2010, Tánczos 2010):
Context: ’Of course, some of the votes can be given to thecandidates of other parties.’
(14) No trosez med luoz A. ponna.
but lot.DET PTCL.IMP be.FUT.3SG A. for
‘But most of them have to be given for A.’(marjamoll.blogspot.ru)
Information structural analysis of VX sentences 4.
• All-new / discourse-neutral sentences(influence of Russian):
(Initial sentence of a blog post)
(15) Odig džyte öťi kollegaosme
one este.ILL invite.PST.1SG colleague.PL.1SG.ACC
doram kunoje.to.ILL.1SG guest.ILL
‘One evening I invited my colleagues to my place.’(udmurto4ka.blogspot.ru)
• gradual broadening of the range of the possible information structural roles of the postverbal elements
(cf. Asztalos&Gugán&Mus 2017)(cf. Asztalos&Gugán&Mus 2017)
discourse-old → discourse-new → discourse-
neutral
Inclination of the constituents for wordorder change
Highest
inclination
Average
inclination
Lowest
inclination
CPCP
IPIP
NPNP
AdjPAdjP[ ]
inclination inclination inclination
V + S(existential +
possessive
structures)
Comp + Sent.
V + O
‘want’ + VP
Auxmod + VP
Adj + AdpP(pred.)
V + Advmanner
Cop + Pred
N + Gen
N + AdpP
Adj + AdpP(attr.)
V + AdpP
N + Rel
Conclusions• VO grammar also present in Udmurt
• but OV grammar still dominant
• generational differences � change from head-final to head-initial
• influence of Russian (head-initial) – a part of the younger• influence of Russian (head-initial) – a part of the youngerspeakers are Russian-dominant bilinguals
• influence of Tatar (head-final) � slows down the change intrilingual areas
• VP, CP > NP, AdjP
• presumably via a gradual broadening of the range ofinformation roles associable to the postverbal constituents
AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks to
• Erasmus Mundus „Aurora” scholarship
• OTKA118079
• all of my Udmurt informants• all of my Udmurt informants
• Ferenc Havas, Éva Dékány, MariiaZolotariova, Liubov Kiseleva, AleksandrKorepanov, Olesia Polatova, TatianaIumina, András Bárány, Vera Hegedűs, Katalin É. Kiss, Orsolya Tánczos, Barbara Egedi, Nikolett Mus, Katalin Mády
References
• Asztalos, Erika & Tánczos, Orsolya 2014. Competing Grammars in nowadays Udmurt.
Conference presentation. 7th Budapest Uralic Workshop. 2014. 02. 03–05.
• Asztalos, Erika & Gugán, Katalin & Mus, Nikolett (forthcoming). Uráli VX szórend: nyenyec, hanti és udmurt mondatszerkezeti változatok. Nyelvelmélet és diakrónia 3.
• Asztalos, Erika 2016. A fejvégű grammatikától a fejkezdetű felé: generációs különbségek a mai udmurt beszélőközösségben a szórendhasználat és -megítélés terén. In É. Kiss Katalin – Hegedűs Attila – Pintér Lilla (ed.) Nyelvelmélet és kontaktológia 3. Szent István Társulat. – Hegedűs Attila – Pintér Lilla (ed.) Nyelvelmélet és kontaktológia 3. Szent István Társulat. Budapest–Piliscsaba. 126–156.
• Bulychov, M. N. 1947. Poriadok slov v udmurtskom predlozhenii. Udmurtgosizdat. Izhevsk.
• Csúcs, Sándor 1990. Chrestomathia Votiacica. Tankönyvkiadó. Budapest.
• Dryer, Matthew 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.
• Gavrilova, T. G. 1970. Poriadok slov v udmurtskom prostom povestvovatelnom
predlozhenii. Zapiski Udmurtkogo NII istorii, ekonomiki, literatury i jazyka pri SoveteMinistrov Udmurtskoj ASSR. Izhevsk.
References 2.
• Ponariadov, V. V. 2010. Poriadok slov v permkikh jazykakh v sravnitelno-tipologicheskom osveshchenii (prostoe predlozhenie). Syktyvkar.
• Salánki, Zsuzsanna 2007. Az udmurt nyelv mai helyzete. Doktori disszertáció. Kézirat. Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem. Budapest.
• Suihkonen, Pirkko 1990. Korpustutkimus kielitypologiassa sovellettuna udmurttiin. Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 207. Suomalaisugrilainen Seura. Helsinki.
• Trudgill, Peter 1992. Introducing Language and Society. Penguin Group. London.• Timerkhanova, N. N. 2011. Osobennost porjadka slov v prozaicheskikh• Timerkhanova, N. N. 2011. Osobennost porjadka slov v prozaicheskikh
proizvedenijakh G. E. Vereshchaginai v sovremennom udmurtkom jazyke. In: Tipologicheskie aspekty mnogojazychiia v sovremennom obrazovatelnomprostranstve. Izdatelstvo „Udmurtskii universitet”. Izhevsk. 180–185.
• Vilkuna, Maria 1998. Word Order in European Uralic. In: Siewierska, Anna (ed): Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe. Empirical approaches to languagetypology 20–1. Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin–New York. 173–233.
• Winkler, Eberhard 2011. Udmurtische Grammatik. Veröffentlichungen der SocietasUralo-Altaica 81. Harrassowitz. Wiesbaden.
• Zhuikov, S. P. 1937. Osnovy grammatiki udmurtkogo jazyka: tezisy k pervoirespublikanskoi iazykovoi konferencii. Udmurtgosizdat. Izhevsk.
