John Benjamins Publishing Company

John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. A crosslinguistic typology. Edited by Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie and Valery Solovyev. © 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

Continuity of information structuring strategies in Eastern Khanty Definiteness/topicality Andrei Filchenko

Rice University, Houston, and Tomsk State Pedagogical University The paper addresses the issue of cohesive units in language at the level of grammatical inventory. Based on analysis of discourse-pragmatic functions and propositional-semantic content, I illustrate the continuity in formal morphosyntactic means available in the system that are used for organization and structuring of information, namely identifying topical information vs. new via elision, word order, agreement, case, voice, and possessive markers. Selected methodology includes contrastive contextual analysis, attending to the information structure, in the general cognitive-functional framework. Based on the analysis of the corpus data and elicited tokens it is posited that Eastern Khanty displays strong correlation of reduced morphological complexity to increased pragmatic status of the discourse referents and makes consistent and robust use of possessive markers to manifest pragmatic identifiability/accessibility of the referents in the proposition.

1. Introduction The language of Khanty (a.k.a. Ostyak) forms, together with Mansi, the Ob-Ugric subgroup of the Finno-Ugric group of the Uralic language family. Though often considered to be a single language, Khanty is differentiated into two large dialect clusters (western and eastern) that display considerable variation at all levels of the language system. The dialects of interest in this study are the Vasyugan, Vakh and Yugan Khanty – closely related river dialects, particularly interesting as they are the least described and they represent reportedly more archaic and richer system, in phonological and morphosyntactic terms (Gulya 1970; Honti 1995; Kulonen 1989). The Eastern Khanty now total under 450 fluent speakers, of whom most are the Yugan Khanty speakers, whereas dialects like Vasyugan number less than 10 speakers (Filchenko 2007).1 1. Fieldwork data in 2005–2010.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

 Andrei Filchenko

The empirical base of the discussion is the corpus of the Eastern Khanty texts in the respective dialects, compiled from the field data collected in 1999–2005, and from previously published texts by Tereškin (1961), Gulya (1966), Kalinina (1970, 1976) totaling approx. 25000 words.

1

2 5 6 Іермь

4 3

Eкатеpинбург

Figure 1. Khanty habitat2 and main dialect distribution in Western Siberia (1. Northern (western) dialects, 2. Eastern dialects, 3. Vasyugan, 4. Aleksandrovo, 5. Vakh, 6. Yugan)

2. Overview of the prototypical clause features 2.1 Word order Eastern Khanty syntax demonstrates general correlation to SOV word order p atterns: OV, operator-operand orders, and postpositional markers, among other features. Grammatical relations are mainly distinguished by the word order, case marking and verbal coreferential inflection (Filchenko 2006). (1) a. juɣ ont-nam mən-wəl forest inside-lat go-prs.3sg

2. Map of dialects is prepared by the author in Google Maps (www.google.com/maps).


Continuity of information structuring strategies in Eastern Khanty 

b. juɣ ont-nam ti mən-i forest inside-lat det go-pst0.ps.3sg ‘(He) is going to the woods’ ‘(we) went to the woods ( forest was gone in)’ (2) mä ilkä-s-im kat�’əm-ta löɣ parəm-ta 1sg go-pst2–1sg hunt-inf track path.make-inf ‘I went breaking a ski track’ (3) (mä) ämp-äm tɨɣl-a kari-mta-s-ɨm 1sg dog-1sg/sg det-ill pull-intns-pst2–1sg/sg ‘I pulled my dog closer’

Differentiating between the grammatical relations and semantic roles of the arguments of propositions (Van Valin 1997), and pragmatic functions of the discourse referents expressed by the arguments, we mark grammatical relations as follows (Dixon 1994): S – intransitive subject; A – transitive subject; O – transitive non-subject

Eastern Khanty allows a variety of semantic roles that can be mapped onto the above grammatical relations in accordance with the extent of their participation, control, involvement, affectedness, etc. in every particular situation. The semantic role typically mapped onto the A relation is the Agent, an entity that acts, either intentionally/volitionally or not, in the situation, originating or causing the event, and is most likely relevant to the success of an event (1sg in (2), (3)). The role mapped onto the O relation is typically the one saliently affected by an event, and not mapped onto A, generically – the Target (generalizing both animate referents and those with a low and null animacy status) (2) and (3). Finally the role mapped onto the S relation is understood as that of a single core np of an intransitive verb (active (1a) and passive (1b)). 2.2 Argument structure In Eastern Khanty there is an obligatory agreement between the grammatical relation S/A and the predicate, expressed by the verbal inflection affixes of possessive etymology ((1)3, (2), (3)). The agreement between the grammatical relation O and

3. Passive clause (1b) has the marker /-i/, representing the passive affix and Ø verbal conjugation for the 3sg. However, there is a full passive conjugation paradigm containing personal affixes of possessive etymology: män-nə ämp poro-j-əm 1sg-loc dog bite-pst0.ps.1sg ‘I was bitten by a dog’


 Andrei Filchenko

transitive predicate is contingent upon the pragmatic properties of the O referent: pragmatic identifiability, accessibility and a degree of activation. Contextually, this would imply that this referent has recently been mentioned/discussed or is unambiguous in the situation ((3), (4)). (4) terä-s-im iwes-nə fry-pst2-1sg/sg stick-loc ‘(I) fried (it) on sticks’

Verbal agreement is instrumental in the omission of arguments as free clause constituents as in (4), where both the S/A and the O arguments are omitted from explicit expression, being identifiable, accessible and active in the interlocutors discourse universe. Whenever the S/A argument is overt, it is pragmatically marked as a brand new or reactivated referent, for example in a topic-shift or a presentational clause. Hence, clauses in Khanty are commonly devoid of an overt S/A argument (1a), (4). The O argument can also be omitted (4), when this referent is pragmatically identifiable and active. This feature will be paid more detailed attention shortly below. 3. Information structuring With regard to the pragmatic organization of Eastern Khanty narratives, a new referent is established as primary discourse topic prototypically by a clause-initial full np or a free pronoun in nom case in the S/A grammatical relation and by the respective S/A-V agreement inflection (subject conjugation) (5a). Thereafter, the referent is identifiable as the topic, and its continuation in this function is typically expressed by elision and by verbal S/A-V (subject) agreement inflection (5b). (5) a. mä ilkä-s-im kät�’ə m-tä löɣ parəm-ta 1sg go-pst2-1sg hunt-inf track path_make-inf ‘I went breaking a ski track’ b. tom kor pəlk-a ur-s-əm det swamp side-ill cross-pst2-1sg ‘I went across to the other side of the swamp’

We define a referent in pragmatic relation of topic based on the host of properties such as: its belonging to the presuppositional part of the proposition, its being contextually accessible and active, in dislocation tests (“as for” and “about”) it produces the target clause, it normally does not carry the clause accent, and the rest of the proposition appears to carry a relation of “aboutness” towards it (Kuno 1972; Gundel 1976; Lambrecht 1994). © 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Continuity of information structuring strategies in Eastern Khanty 

More than one discourse referent can have compatible prominence, representing closely associated participants simultaneously occupying the stage in the narrative. They can alternate in the S/A relation in conjoined or adjoined clauses, being marked only by elision and respective verbal agreement inflection. In these cases, the alternation of such pragmatic “equilibrium” is signaled by the reversal to marking of the current central referent with a full np or a free pronoun in the S/A relation and the respective verbal agreement inflection. The stretch of discourse ((6a)–(6e)) represents a sequence of changes of the topical discourse referent from ‘bear’ to the 1sg, and it deviates from the established pattern in that the change is not marked by a full np or free pronoun. Rather each referent takes turns being maintained as the pragmatic center by elision and verbal inflection. In (6a) the 3sg S/A referent ‘he/she/it’ assumes the topic function, marked by a free pronoun, as expected by the pattern, and is maintained in (6b) marked by elision and zero agreement. In (6c), the 1sg reappears topical not marked explicitly by a free pronoun, as expected, but only by elision and verbal inflection. (6) a. jöɣ jɨɣɨ jor-nə nuɣ loɣɨ-m-aɣɨ 3sg river middle-loc up lie-pp-adv/prd ‘In the middle of the river he floats’ b. loɣɨ-wəl lie-pst0.3sg ‘He laid there (on the water)’ c. t�iläɣtä-s-im rut’ saɣɨ “medwed!” cry-pst2-1sg/sg Russian manner “bear” ‘I cried in Russian “Bear!”’ d. nu jem-aki, jiɣata-l-ɨm, “aha, wajaɣ.” OK good-adv/prd look-prs-1sg/sg OK animal ‘So, I look “OK, here it is, the bear”’

The absence of explicit expression of both of the participants (‘man’ and ‘bear’) suggests that, at this point in the narrative, they together constitute the foreground in the narrative. As both literal (spatial) and pragmatic distance between them decreases, they are simultaneously on the stage. This also allows the speaker to maintain a certain economy/dynamicity in the narrative that is pertinent to the particular described situation. This is supported by the fact that this kind of “dynamic pragmatic alternation” is used repeatedly in the subsequent discourse for the same referents. This pattern is extremely strong in Eastern Khanty. The exceptions to this mapping from the pragmatic function – to the semantic role – to grammatical relation are either clauses with no clear topical referent (Sentence-Focus, Back© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

 Andrei Filchenko

ground setting, Thetic, Event reporting) or clauses with the central referent expressed by an argument with the semantic role of Target in the S grammatical relation – passives (1b). Passive constructions also show that the correlation between the pragmatic and grammatical relation prevails over that between the semantic role and grammatical relation. The latter is evident from the fact that, although the correlation between the pragmatic function, the semantic role of Agent and the grammatical relation of S/A has overall prevalence, in passive clauses the arguments with the semantic role of Target correlate with the topic function and with the grammatical relation of S. At the same time, in such constructions, arguments with the semantic role of Agent are oblique-case marked and assume a non-S relation (Shibatani 1985). We can re-affirm the universal correlation (Lambrecht 1994) of the pragmatic status of a referent and the formal complexity of the argument expressing it. The degree of morphological explicitness is counter-proportionate to the pragmatic status (topicality), activation and unidentifiability. From the Eastern Khanty perspective, the S/A argument has high activation status, is topical in the proposition, is typically expressed by elision and verbal coreference agreement affix.

4. Possessive markers and information structuring 4.1 O–V (objective) conjugation 4.1.1 Structure and motivating factors As was mentioned above, the agreement is obligatory between the grammatical relation of S/A and the predicate V ((1)–(6)), while the agreement between the grammatical relation of the O and the transitive predicate is contingent upon the pragmatic properties of the referent in the O relation ((2) vs. (3), (4)). That is, predicates always agree with the S/A argument (subject conjugation), but transitive predicates may also agree with the O argument (object conjugation), expressing pragmatic identifiability, accessibility and high degree of activation of this referent in the interlocutors’ discourse universe (cognitive availability). This is evident from the pragmatic context, where a new, unidentifiable referent is introduced into the discourse expressed by an O argument in the part of the proposition that asserts new information, and the predicate bears the S–V (subject conjugation) inflection (2). Thus slightly altered (4*) below, with the predicate marked with the O–V object conjugation, will be unacceptable in the sense of a comment asserting new information and containing a brand-new referent. In this form, with the O–V object conjugation inflection, the only available reading is © 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Continuity of information structuring strategies in Eastern Khanty 

one where the referent expressed by the O argument is an identifiable, accessible discourse referent with relatively high degree of pragmatic activation: (4*)

(mä) sart terkä-s-im iwes-nə 1sg pike fry-pst2-1sg/sg stick-loc ‘(I) fried the pike on sticks (made fish kebab)’, and not *‘I fried a pike on sticks’

In case of marked O–V agreement, the O agreement markers form an individual set of morphemes – distinct from the S/A agreement set ((1), (2)) vs. ((3), (4)). The existing terminological tradition of describing the Khanty verbal agreement is in terms of two paradigmatic sets or conjugations: Subjective or Indefinite Conjugation and Objective or Definite Conjugation (Tereškin 1961; Gulya 1966, inter alia). The most frequently cited property of the O argument that is central to the O–V agreement of the predicate is definiteness and specificity, understood as having to do with the formal grammatical properties of the O argument: possessive constructions, pronouns, constructions with demonstratives, embedded clauses, elided/zero objects (Tereškin 1961; Gulya 1966; Comrie 1977; Honti 1984, among others). Similarly to what was previously noted (Čeremisina & Kovgan 1991; Solovar 1991; Nikolaeva 1999) on the related Northern Khanty data, however, that there are attested examples where O arguments with the traditional definiteness properties do not necessarily co-occur with the O–V agreement inflection on the predicate, i.e. while these properties are indeed typical of the O arguments that cooccur with the O–V predicate agreement, they are not necessarily the triggering factor. For example, the definite and specific nominal O argument preceded by the dem (7a) does not display O–V predicate agreement: (7) a. mä t�u sart wel-ɣäl-əm 1sg det pike-fish kill-pst1-1sg ‘I caught that fish’

Neither does the definite, specific possession-marked O in (7b): b. wojəɣ uɣ-əɬ noq t�ut� panə nurəɣɬəɣ animal head-3sg up turn.pst0.3sg and run.pst0.3sg ‘The animal turned up his head and ran away’

The more precise triggering factors are a host of pragmatic and semantic properties of the referent expressed by the O argument. Such properties may be revealed while observing the syntactic behavior of the O arguments in the narrative discourse environment. (8) a. mä ät�-im sart qaɣarɨmta-ɣɨn, 1sg brother-1sg pike catch-pst0.3sg © 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

 Andrei Filchenko

b. toɣoj päɣä-tə, away drop-pst0.3sg/sg ‘My brother caught a pike fish,…’ ‘… and dropped (it), …’ c. pɨrnə ös qaɣarɨmta-tə after again catch-pst0.3sg/sg ‘…and then caught (it) again’

A useful example is (8), where in (8a), the referent ‘pike’ is introduced as a brand-new unidentifiable and unrecoverable, being a part of the pragmatic assertion (new information) in the Argument-Focus type clause, which is corroborated by the S–V (subject) conjugation of the predicate ‘caught’. In case of Predicate-Focus (8b) and (8c) the O referent is identifiable and active, not expressed explicitly while the predicates ‘dropped’ and ‘caught again’ show the O–V agreement. Thus, similarly to the pattern established above for the S/A arguments, the conjugation inflection on the predicate is effectively the only formal expression of the pragmatically active referent of the O argument. There is an obvious resonance here to the correlation between morphological complexity of the argument and the pragmatic status of its referent in the proposition. 4.1.2 Word order/syntactic flexibility The O arguments that trigger the O–V (object) predicate agreement are more flexible in their constituent position (9b), or may be altogether elided (9c), whereas the O argument without the O–V agreement is fixed in its overt SOV position (9a). (9) a. mä sart wel-s-əm əllə 1sg pike kill-pst2-1sg big ‘I caught a pike fish, big one’ b. əllə sart män-nə löɣöli-s-im big pike 1sg-loc get ready-pst2-1sg/sg ‘I got the big pike ready’ c. terkä-s-im iwes-nə fry-pst2-1sg/sg stick-loc ‘I fried it on sticks’

The omission of the identifiable and active Target referent in the O relation is attested only co-occurring with the (objective) conjugation, i.e. O–V agreement inflection. Such omission is naturally far less frequent than the S/A omission, as the Target referent in the O relation is typically a part of the pragmatic assertion (new information), rather than of the presupposition; and even once identifiable, it is still more often than not overtly present. © 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Continuity of information structuring strategies in Eastern Khanty 

Formal presence of the O argument may also be seen as consistent with the very nature of this grammatical relation, which differs from that of the S/A by a host of properties, such as autonomy (Keenan 1976) – i.e. greater dependence of the action, or property expressed by the predicate, on the argument, etc. Thus, similarly to what was reported for the northern dialects (Nikolaeva 1999), in the SOV Eastern Khanty, the position of the argument in O grammatical relation may vary, licensed by its pragmatic properties, that is, while brand new, inactive, unidentifiable O referents are always rigidly fixed in SOV order clauses, in other cases pragmatically active and identifiable O referents may cause OSV and occasional SVO orders. 4.1.3 Control over reflexivization In Eastern Khanty clauses containing reflexivization, the reflexives can be bound either with the S/A argument or the O argument triggering the O–V agreement (10a). Yet similar to Northern Khanty data (Nikolaeva 1999), the O argument not triggering the O–V agreement, i.e. unidentifiable referent, c annot control reflexivization. In (10a), the reflexive/possessive affix (poss.3sg/sg) marking the 3sg of the possessor and sg of the possessed on the locative ‘house’ may refer both to the possessor referent of the S/A argument ‘bear’ and the identifiable possessor referent of the O argument ‘dog’ that co-occurs with the O–V (object) agreement. (10) a. iɣ-nə ämp joɣ nirimtä-s-tä animal-loc dog home take-pst2-3sg/sg t�imin ont-qat-al there inside-house-3sg/sg

‘The bear hid the dog inside his (bear’s)/ (dog’s) house.’

Whereas in (10b), this 3sg/sg affix may only be coreferential with the possessor referent of the S/A ‘bear’, and not with the unidentifiable possessor referent O ‘dog’ not triggering O–V (object) agreement (the predicate in (10b) displays just the obligatory S–V (subject) agreement). b. iɣ-nə ämp joɣ nirimtä-s-əɣən bear-loc dog home take-pst2-3sg t�imin ont-qat-al det inside-house-3sg

‘The bear hid a dog inside his (bear’s) house’/*’(dog’s) house.’

Thus, discourse-pragmatic features of identifiability and activation, expressed by agreement and reflexive markers of possessive etymology, are instrumental in identifying possible antecedents, controllers of reflexivization. © 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

 Andrei Filchenko

4.1.4 O-Focus clauses, Q/A sequences In clauses with focus referents expressed by the O argument of the proposition, such as WH-question/answer sequences, no O–V (objective) agreement on the predicate is attested. After Lambrecht (1994), we understand the pragmatic relation of focus as a relation between the referent of the proposition in a given context and the proposition as a whole, that is in any given proposition typically containing two pragmatic parts: pragmatic presupposition (old information) and pragmatic assertion (new information) there is an element that is unpredictable and unrecoverable at the time of utterance (Lambrecht 1994: 212). Focus element is “the semantic component of a pragmatically structured proposition whereby the assertion differs from the presupposition” (Lambrecht 1994: 212–213). Focus relation is the relation between the element belonging to the part of the proposition containing pragmatic assertion (new information) and the semantic role of the sentence argument, normally bearing some degree of clause accent. The proposition of the interrogative (11a) may be said to have two pragmatic components: pragmatic presupposition ‘the dog bit X’ and the unknown pragmatic assertion ‘X is unknown’, expressed by the interrogative nominal pronoun kojoɣi ‘who, whom’. The predicate is therefore marked with the S–V (subject) agreement conjugation, and not the O–V (objective) agreement, as the O argument is clearly unknown, unidentifiable. The proposition of the answer (11b) while having the same pragmatic presupposition, specifies pragmatic assertion ‘X – is a (this) man’. The focus of the proposition (11b) is the referent (tam) iki ‘a (this) man’, while focus relation is the fact that focus is mapped onto the semantic role of Target in the given proposition. The focus domain of (11) is an argument of the proposition, namely the np with the semantic role of Target in the grammatical relation O. The transitive predicate ‘bite’ displays only the S–V (subject) agreement inflection. Presence of the O–V (object) agreement is highly improbable, i.e. it is neither attested, nor judged acceptable by speakers in elicitation, which is consistent with the established pattern of this (object) agreement to manifest identifiability of the O referent. (11) a. ämp kojoɣi por / *por-əttə dog who bite.pst0.3sg / *bite-pst0.3sg/sg ‘Who did the dog bite?’ b. ämp (tam) iki por / *por-əttə dog (det) man bite.pst0.3sg / *bite-pst0.3sg/sg ‘Dog bit a (this) man’

Moreover, in the answer part of the sequence, the predicate still typically displays the S–V (subject) agreement, that is O–V (object) agreement is still improbable, even when the O argument expressing the Target referent in this proposition collocates with the demonstrative (tam ‘this’). © 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Continuity of information structuring strategies in Eastern Khanty 

Regardless of the focus domain, as long as it involves the Target referent in the O grammatical relation, O–V (objective) agreement is highly improbable, thus illustrating the tendency in Eastern Khanty to dissociate the expression of pragmatic relation of focus from the O–V (object) agreement. In (12) and (13), the focus domain is Sentence-Focus, thus including the Target np in the O relation and has the whole proposition coinciding with the pragmatic assertion (new information). (12) �as qotɨ je-s’ now what become-pst2.3sg ‘What happened?’ qaləw qolla-s net end-pst2.3sg ‘The fishing net is finished’ (13) �as (nuŋ) muɣuli wer-l-ən now (2sg) what do-prs-2sg ‘What are (you) doing now?’ (mä) �as qaləw(-əm) jersätə-l-əm 1sg now net(-1sg) sort_out-prs-1sg ‘Now, (I) am sorting out (my)fishing net’

The predicates display only the obligatory S–V (subject) agreement, whereas the O–V (object) agreement is unattested and felt unacceptable. That is not to say, that in Eastern Khanty, focus domain may not occasionally involve definite Target referents (13). However, importantly, neither the grammatical expression of the pragmatic feature of unidentifiability, nor the grammatical expression of the pragmatic relation of focus is typically associated with the O–V (object) agreement. 4.2 Embedded non-finite clauses One of the dominant, if not exclusive, devices of clause subordination in Eastern Khanty is the use of non-finite constructions. These non-finite forms are of three morphological types: infinitival, participial and converbial. They appear to share the functions of adverbial clauses of purpose, aspect/mood, manner, time/space ((14), (15)) and relative clauses ((16), (17)) (Gulya 1966; Kulonen 1989; Koškareva 1991; Kovgan 1991; Čeremisina, Koškareva 1991; Nikolaeva 1999). Eastern Khanty non-finite relative clauses are such that the grammatical relation of the relativized nominal argument is prototypically not overtly marked ((16), (17)), which is c onsistent with the gap relativization strategy (Givón 2001). © 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

 Andrei Filchenko

(14) joɣ jö-m-in-nə qul pənt�alt-əqən home come-pp-3du-loc fish cook-pst0.3du ‘When they came home, they cooked fish’

(Gulya 1966)

(15) jöɣ mən-m-əl pɨrnə mä ät�-im jö-s 3sg go-pp-3sg after 1sg father-1sg/sg come-pst2.3sg ‘When he left, my father came’ (Gulya 1966)

The non-finite complement clauses may modify either the S (16) or O grammatical relation (16), which observed in earlier studies (Gulya 1966; Nikolaeva 1999). (16) jarnas jant-əm ni mən-əɣɨn shirt sew-pp woman go-pst0.3sg ‘Woman who made the shirt, left’ (17) mɨnət-a pən-əm waɣ äl qɨlalt-ɨtən coffin-ill put-pp coin neg take-imp.2du ‘Don’t touch the money that was put in the box’

(Tereškin 1961)

In most instances these are subject-controlled embedded non-finite clauses, i.e. the S of the non-finite clause is coreferential with the S of the matrix clause ((14), (16)). This, however, is not mandatory, and there are numerous examples of adverbial, complement and relative non-finite clauses where the S of the non-finite predicate is not coreferential with the S of the matrix clause ((17), (18)). (18) ji-min aməs-t-ɨl-oɣ iki qɨlɣ-əl-a eat-cnv sit-impp-3pl-prl old.man grandkids-3sg-ill t’u köl tɨɣtə-s det word say-pst2.3sg ‘while sitting and eating their supper, the old man told this to his g randchildren’ (Gulya 1966)

It is seen in (14) through (18) that complement clauses can either have ((15), (18)) or not have ((16), (17)) possessive affixes coreferential with the head argument that they modify. Thus, in (18) the 3du possessive affix on the imperfective participle ‘sitting’ is coreferential with the referent ‘grandkids’, which is an addressee of ‘saying’ in the matrix clause. Similarly, in the adverbial of time participial clause (14), the 3pl possessive affix on the participial form ‘coming’ is coreferential with the 3du referent – the S argument of the matrix clause. The grammatical role or the semantic role do not appear to be relevant factors (cf. (17) vs. (18), and ((14), (15)) vs. (16)). As follows from (16) and (17), this agreement is not obligatory and frequently absent in the non-finite clause. What triggers this agreement is not readily available from the analysis of the formal features of the clause arguments. The analysis of the functional-pragmatic status of the referents of propositions that correspond to the head of the embedded non-finite clause, however, may © 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Continuity of information structuring strategies in Eastern Khanty 

prove revealing. Similar to the O–V agreement pattern in the finite matrix clauses, the agreement between the head and the non-finite predicate of the embedded clause is motivated by the pragmatic properties of this referent (identifiability, activation). In (14), (15), the referent controlling the possessive markers on the non-finite predicates of the embedded clauses is clearly identifiable and activated in the interlocutors’ discourse universe, being expressed by personal pronouns, whereas in (16) the head referent of the participial clause is unidentifiable and not activated, expressed by a full np, or is unknown (17). The full np expression (‘grandkids’) of the head referent controlling 3pl possessive marking in (18) can be explained by the fact that this is the first, topic-setting clause of the narrative, where the referent expressed by this possessive-marked np enjoys a high degree of topicality, and is situationally accessible (Lambrecht 1994; Nikolaeva 1999). Finally, there is a rare, but cross-dialectally attested (Nikolaeva 1999) possessive marking of the S argument of the matrix clause coreferential with the head of the embedded non-finite clause. It appears only in clauses with head referent of the relative clause expressed by a pronoun (19), rather than a full np ((16), (17)). (19) noŋ masməlt-əm wajaɣ-ən mən 2sg shoot-pp animal-2sg go.pst0.3sg ‘The bear that you shot went away’

Predictably, Eastern Khanty possession constructions demonstrate agreement patterns similar to those described above for the relative clauses, in the sense that it is the pragmatic (referentiality) status that is relevant in motivating the agreement. Thus, while the identifiable and accessible possessor referent expressed by a proform or a zero (elided) argument triggers the possessive inflection on the possessed np ((20a), (20b)), the possessor referent expressed by the full np usually does not (20c). (20) a. (mä) pät�kän-əm (1sg) gun-1sg ‘my gun’ b. pöt�kän-əl gun-3sg ‘his gun’ c. Sidar t�öŋwä pöt�kän Sidor late gun ‘the late Sidor’s gun’

Functional and structural similarity between the relative and the possessive constructions is widely attested typologically, as invoking a relation to one entity for identification of another (Lehmann 1984; Langacker 1993; Nikolaeva 1999). © 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

 Andrei Filchenko

Although the empirical data, especially for the above S-Rel agreement (19) are scarce, the general hypothesis holds. It is the pragmatic status of the referent (identifiability, activation), that is relevant in triggering the coreferential (agreement) affixes of possessive etymology on both the head referents expressed by the modified nps and modifiers themselves such as non-finite clauses functioning, due to their nominalization nature,4 as modifier nps bearing possessive inflection. It is, perhaps, most evident in (21) below, where the head of the 1sg participial clauses is coreferential with the topical referent of the matrix clause expressed by elision and the S–V (subject) agreement on the predicate. (21) puran pɨr-i qot-m-am-nə n’aɣt-əm, snowmobile back-el trod-pp-1sg-loc laugh-pst0.1sg ot’ ɬiɣpil yard inside ‘While running behind the skidoo, I laughed, once in the front yard,…’ łaŋ-m-am-a imat sar-nam n’aɣ-ta jǝɣ-ǝm enter-pp-1sg-ill more ahead-lat laugh-inf become-pst0.1sg ‘…(I) laughed even more’

These apparently pragmatics-driven possessive agreement patterns within the non-finite clauses are, in some of their features, unorthodox, in light of typological generalizations made cross-linguistically for the embedded clauses. Similar agreement patterns for the embedded participial clauses are, however, reported for some Uralic languages, related and distant to Khanty: Mansi (Skribnik & K ovgan 1991), Samoyedic (Ubrjatova, Litvin 1986), Turkic (Ubrjatova & Litvin 1986) etc. which may be indicative of the genetic or/and local contact tendency in the distribution of the pattern. The combination of the above functional features indicates the importance of the discourse-pragmatic function of the referent in triggering this possession-type agreement. Possessive markers appear to be consistently and robustly employed by the Eastern Khanty system to signal the pragmatic status of the referents of the proposition: identifiability, accessibility, activation. That is, the correlation of syntactic flexibility and omissibility, control over reflexivization are consistently associated with the overall pragmatic prominence of the referents’ inferability, pragmatic identifiability, activation through a relation of possession to an already active referent. On the other hand, the correlation of syntactic rigidity, obligatory overtness, inability to control reflexivization, 4. Nominalization-modifier and the head noun with which it is in construction can indeed be seen functioning as two juxtaposed nominal elements [nom] [nom], the modifying relationship between them being inferred by the language users (Comrie & Thompson 1985: 394).


Continuity of information structuring strategies in Eastern Khanty 

absence of association via possession with an active discourse referent manifesting uninferability, is consistent with the pragmatic relation of focus and pragmatic assertion (new information) (Lambrecht 1994; Nikolaeva 1999; Givón 2001). 5. Conclusion There is a systematic consistency in the strategies of structuring information in Eastern Khanty, originating in the fixed grammatical inventory of this language system. The pragmatic features of identifiability, activation, definiteness, and topicality are consistently expressed by the grammatical features of [± predicate agreement], case marking, anaphora, ellipsis. The grammatical continuum 〈np-Proform-Personal Inflection-Ø〉 is to a great degree iconic of the pragmatic continuum 〈Brand-new referent- Identifiable/Accessible–Active–Topical〉. Accidentally, this correlation of the pragmatic features and grammatical means is resonant with the hypothesized etymological make-up/grammaticalization route: 〈Proform-(Prono-minal) Possessive I nflection–(Pronominal)Agreement Inflection〉 posited for the possessive and agreement markers.

Abbreviations a acc adv/prd car com dem det du el ger ill impp inf instr intens lat loc mom neg nom

transitive subject accusative case adverbializer/predicator affix caritive comitative demonstrative determiner dual elative gerundial non-finite verb form illative imperfective participle infinitive instrumental case intensive action aspect lative case locative case modifier (nominal, verbal) negator nominative case

np o pl/3sg num of the O and pers/num of the s/a pl 1sg 2sg 3sg pp prs ps pst S-Rel s sap sg tr


noun phrase transitive non-subject agreement in (pl) (3sg) plural 1 person singular possessor 2 person singular possessor 3 person singular possessor perfective participle present tense passive past subject of Relative clause intransitive subject speech act participant singular transitivizer (verbal affix)

 Andrei Filchenko

References Čeremisina M.I. & Koškareva N.B. 1991. Složnoe i osložnennoe predloženie v xantyjskom jazyke. Metodičeskie ukazanija i laboratornyje raboty k kursu “Obščee Jazykoznanije”. Novosibirsk: NGU. Čeremisina M.I. & Kovgan E.V. 1991. Xantyjskij glagol. Metodičeskie ukazanija i laboratornyje raboty k kursu “Obščee Jazykoznanije”. Novosibirsk: NGU. Comrie, B. 1977. Subjects and direct objects in Uralic languages: A functional explanation of case-marking systems. Études Finno-Ougriennes 12 (1975): 5–17. Comrie, B. & Thompson, S. 1985. Lexical nominalization. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon III, T. Shopen (ed.), 349–398. Cambridge: CUP. Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. Filchenko, A. 2007. Aspects of the Grammar of Eastern Khanty. Ph.D. dissertation, Rice University. Filchenko, A. 2006. The Eastern Khanty Loc-Agent constructions. Functional discourse- pragmatic perspective. In Demoting the Agent [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 96], T. Solstad & B. Lyngfelt (eds) 47–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, T. 2001. Syntax. An Introduction, 2 Vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gulya, J. 1966. Eastern Ostyak Chrestomathy. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press. Gulya, J. 1970. Aktiv, Ergativ und Passiv im Vakh-Ostjakischen. In Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, 3: Folge, Philologisch-historische Klasse 76, Hrsg. von W. Schlachter, 80–83. Gundel, J.K. 1976. Topic-comment structure and the use of tože and takže. Slavic and East European Journal 19: 174–176. Honti, L. 1984. Chrestomathia Ostiacica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Honti, L. 1995. Vaxovskij dialekt xantyjskogo jazyka. In Narody Severo-zapadnoj Sibiri 2, 3–22. Tomsk: Tomskij gosudarstvennyj universitet. Kalinina L.I. 1970. Na beregu čertovoj rečki. In Jazyki i Toponimija Sibiri. A.P. Dulzon, 88–95. Tomsk: Tomskij gosudarstvennyj universitet. Kalinina L.I. 1976. Skazki i bytovye teksty (Vasjugan). In Skazki narodov Severa. Čast’ 2, T.I. Porotova (ed.). 124–138. Tomskij gosudarstvennyj universitet. Keenan E.L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In Subject and Topic, C.N. Li (ed.), 303–333. New York NY: Academic Press. Koškareva, N.B. 1991. Konstrukcii s infinitnymi formami glagola v xantyjskom jazyke. Dissertacija na soiskanie učenoj stepeni kandidata filologičeskix nauk, Sibirskoe otdelenie AN SSSR, Institut filologii, Novosibirsk. Kovgan, E.V. 1991. Opredelitel´nye konstrukcii v zapadnyx dialektax xantyjskogo jazyka. Dissertacija na soiskanie učenoj stepeni kandidata filologičeskix nauk. AN SSSR. Institut filologii, Novosibirsk. Kulonen, U.-M. 1989. The Passive in Ob-Ugrian [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 203]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Kuno, S. 1972. Functional sentence perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320. Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. Langacker, R. 1993. Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1–38.


Continuity of information structuring strategies in Eastern Khanty 

Lehmann, C. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik [Language Universals Series 3]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Nikolaeva, I. 1999 Ostyak [Languages of the World, Materials 305]. Munich: Lincom. Shibatani, M. 1985. Passives and related constructions. Language 61(4): 821–848. Skribnik, E.K. & Kovgan, E.V. 1991. Sistema pričastnyx opredelitel´nyx konstrukcij v obsko-ugorskix jazykax. In Jazyki Narodov Sibiri. Grammatičeskie Issledovanija. 84–108. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Solovar, V. 1991. Strukturno-semantičeskie tipy prostogo predloženia v xantyjskom jazyke. Dissertacija na Soiskanie Učenoj Stepeni Kandidata Filologičeskix Nauk. Novosibirsk. Tereškin, N.I. 1961. Očerki dialektov xantyjskogo jazyka, čast´ pervaja: Vaxovskij dialekt. Moscow–Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Ubrjatova, E.I. & Litvin, F.A. 1986. Strukturnye tipy sintetičeskix polipredikativnyx konstrukcij v jazykax raznyx system, 209–218. AN SSSR, Sibirskoe otdelenie, Institut istorii, Tula. Ubrjatova, E. & Litvin, F. 1986. Strukturnye tipy sintetičeskix polipredikativnyx konstrukcij v jazykax raznyx sistem. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Van Valin, R. & LaPolla, R.J. 1997. Syntax. Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: CUP.

