Predicative possession in Novgorod Birch Bark documents in the Ural-Altaic context

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikelVetenskapligPeer review

Sammanfattning

This paper discusses predicative possessive constructions in the East Slavic languages, with a particular focus on the Old Novgorod Slavic dialect, in connection to the neigh-bouring Ural-Altaic languages. An areal-typological investigation shows that the East Slavic languages prefer the use of a locational possessive (mihi est), while the rest of Slavic and Europe’s Indo-European languages primarily use a have-possessive (habeo). Serving as primary data for this study, the dialect written in the Novgorod Birch Bark documents confirms a preference of the locational possessive over the have-possessive. The current study also evaluates three hypotheses on the origin of the East Slavic locational possessive, proposed in earlier studies: 1) a Uralic substrate, 2) a Slavic archaism and 3) a Northern Eurasian areal pattern. Given the typological survey as well as the empirical and historical comparative investigation, the locational possessive can be considered a preferred areal pattern across Northern Eurasia. Being a part of the macro contact zone of Northern Eurasia, the choice of locational possessive in the East Slavic languages is reinforced by the areal diffusion, especially from the close neighbouring languages, Uralic and Turkic.
Originalspråkengelska
TidskriftJournal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne
Volym97
ISSN0355-0214
DOI
StatusPublicerad - 2 maj 2019
MoE-publikationstypA1 Tidskriftsartikel-refererad

Vetenskapsgrenar

  • 6121 Språkvetenskaper

Citera det här

@article{21d56aadf52840cb867dbd79fb9597d9,
title = "Predicative possession in Novgorod Birch Bark documents in the Ural-Altaic context",
abstract = "This paper discusses predicative possessive constructions in the East Slavic languages, with a particular focus on the Old Novgorod Slavic dialect, in connection to the neigh-bouring Ural-Altaic languages. An areal-typological investigation shows that the East Slavic languages prefer the use of a locational possessive (mihi est), while the rest of Slavic and Europe’s Indo-European languages primarily use a have-possessive (habeo). Serving as primary data for this study, the dialect written in the Novgorod Birch Bark documents confirms a preference of the locational possessive over the have-possessive. The current study also evaluates three hypotheses on the origin of the East Slavic locational possessive, proposed in earlier studies: 1) a Uralic substrate, 2) a Slavic archaism and 3) a Northern Eurasian areal pattern. Given the typological survey as well as the empirical and historical comparative investigation, the locational possessive can be considered a preferred areal pattern across Northern Eurasia. Being a part of the macro contact zone of Northern Eurasia, the choice of locational possessive in the East Slavic languages is reinforced by the areal diffusion, especially from the close neighbouring languages, Uralic and Turkic.",
keywords = "6121 Languages",
author = "Chingduang Yurayong",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "2",
doi = "10.33340/susa.74592",
language = "English",
volume = "97",
journal = "Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja",
issn = "0355-0214",

}

Predicative possession in Novgorod Birch Bark documents in the Ural-Altaic context. / Yurayong, Chingduang.

I: Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, Vol. 97, 02.05.2019.

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikelVetenskapligPeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Predicative possession in Novgorod Birch Bark documents in the Ural-Altaic context

AU - Yurayong, Chingduang

PY - 2019/5/2

Y1 - 2019/5/2

N2 - This paper discusses predicative possessive constructions in the East Slavic languages, with a particular focus on the Old Novgorod Slavic dialect, in connection to the neigh-bouring Ural-Altaic languages. An areal-typological investigation shows that the East Slavic languages prefer the use of a locational possessive (mihi est), while the rest of Slavic and Europe’s Indo-European languages primarily use a have-possessive (habeo). Serving as primary data for this study, the dialect written in the Novgorod Birch Bark documents confirms a preference of the locational possessive over the have-possessive. The current study also evaluates three hypotheses on the origin of the East Slavic locational possessive, proposed in earlier studies: 1) a Uralic substrate, 2) a Slavic archaism and 3) a Northern Eurasian areal pattern. Given the typological survey as well as the empirical and historical comparative investigation, the locational possessive can be considered a preferred areal pattern across Northern Eurasia. Being a part of the macro contact zone of Northern Eurasia, the choice of locational possessive in the East Slavic languages is reinforced by the areal diffusion, especially from the close neighbouring languages, Uralic and Turkic.

AB - This paper discusses predicative possessive constructions in the East Slavic languages, with a particular focus on the Old Novgorod Slavic dialect, in connection to the neigh-bouring Ural-Altaic languages. An areal-typological investigation shows that the East Slavic languages prefer the use of a locational possessive (mihi est), while the rest of Slavic and Europe’s Indo-European languages primarily use a have-possessive (habeo). Serving as primary data for this study, the dialect written in the Novgorod Birch Bark documents confirms a preference of the locational possessive over the have-possessive. The current study also evaluates three hypotheses on the origin of the East Slavic locational possessive, proposed in earlier studies: 1) a Uralic substrate, 2) a Slavic archaism and 3) a Northern Eurasian areal pattern. Given the typological survey as well as the empirical and historical comparative investigation, the locational possessive can be considered a preferred areal pattern across Northern Eurasia. Being a part of the macro contact zone of Northern Eurasia, the choice of locational possessive in the East Slavic languages is reinforced by the areal diffusion, especially from the close neighbouring languages, Uralic and Turkic.

KW - 6121 Languages

U2 - 10.33340/susa.74592

DO - 10.33340/susa.74592

M3 - Article

VL - 97

JO - Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja

JF - Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja

SN - 0355-0214

ER -