Content uploaded by Matti Miestamo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matti Miestamo on Aug 07, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
SUSA/JSFOu 93, 2011
Matti MIESTAMO (Stockholm)
the features in the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) database. The relevant
properties of Skolt Saami are discussed and the language is assigned a value for each
feature. The features cover phonology, different domains of grammar – morphology,
and these other languages.
1. Introduction
language. The typological profile is based on the features in the World atlas of lan-
guage structures-
tains information on 142 typological features from different (mostly grammatical)
domains and includes 2560 languages in total.1 The number of features coded in the
database varies from language to language, some languages having information for
the typology of the feature. A typological profile of Skolt Saami emerges from the dis-
cussion. Skolt Saami is also compared to other languages in the database, especially
to its closest relatives and geographical neighbours. At many points, the discussion
touches upon the nature of the WALS features, and is therefore interesting from a gen-
2
3. Thanks are also due to the Institute for the Languages of Finland (Kotus) for the permission to use the
Skolt Saami materials in their archives.
112 Miestamo
Skolt Saami is spoken by some 300 people out of an ethnic group of 600, most of
lands became part of the Soviet Union. Culturally Skolt Saami speakers have had close
the 15th–16th Centuries. Finnish influence has been more prominent since the first
-
The Saami languages constitute a branch of the Uralic language family. Within
Kildin Saami, Akkala Saami, and Ter Saami. Inari Saami is spoken in Inari in Finland,
Skolt Saami territories.
on Skolt Saami have appeared and information on the language is also included in
Itkonen (1931), Lagercrantz (1961), and Koponen et al. (2010). Itkonen (1958) has
published a detailed scientific dictionary, and Sammallahti & Moshnikoff (1991) and
Moshnikoff & Sammallahti (1988) have published smaller dictionaries aimed at more
practical use. There is a grammar sketch (Korhonen, Moshnikoff & Sammallahti
1973) and a school grammar (Moshnikoff, Moshnikoff & Koponen 2009) both focus-
ing on phonology and especially morphology, but containing little information on
Detailed phonological analysis can be found in Korhonen (1971, 1975). Furthermore,
songs), recorded
3 The language can be con-
sidered to be highly endangered, and despite the recent appearance of a descriptive
The main sources used in the research behind this paper have been the published
4 Some analy-
3 Further linguistic analysis of the materials has not been made to date, but I am currently leading
a project funded by the Finnish Cultural foundation that aims to produce an annotated corpus of the
4 Unfortunately, Feist’s (2010) grammar became available to me only after the submission of this paper
*
the Kotus archives.5
archival number of the recording (signum).
Section 2 discusses the WALS features in Skolt Saami, Section 3 compares the
or genealogical terms, and Section 4 concludes the paper. Needless to say, this is not a
comprehensive or authoritative treatment of the grammar of Skolt Saami, but rather a
collection of typologically relevant information that I hope can give typologists some
2. The WALS features in Skolt Saami
This section discusses the WALS features in Skolt Saami. The features belong to the
-
categories 65–80 (Tense and aspect 65–69, Modality 70–78, Suppletion 79–80),
Valence and voice 106–111, Negation and questions 112–116, Predication 117–121),
Other 141–142.
-
WALS database. The name of the feature and the name of the value assigned to Skolt
the other values of each feature, the reader is referred to WALS).6 The value assign-
ment and possible problems posed by the analysis of the feature in Skolt Saami are
-
bouring languages in Section 3, it is also relevant to pay attention to the value assign-
ments given in WALS for these languages. The value assignments for the related or
114 Miestamo
A. Phonology
1. Consonant Inventories. 4. Moderately large. 116/562. According to Korhonen
et al. (1973: 18–20) and Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 12–15), Skolt Saami has 29 conso-
7
(1) Skolt Saami consonant phonemes
p /p/ t /t/ /c/ k /k/
b /b/ d /d/ , g /g/
c /ts/ -
/dz/ .
f /f/ h
v /v/ /ð/ j /j/ /
s /s/ š-
z /z/
r /r/
l /l/ llj0
m /m/ n /n/ nj1
The feature value “moderately large” is defined as an inventory of 26–33 consonants
range.8 Most of the consonants occur both short and long. Furthermore, the quality
and minimal pairs are found distinguished solely by palatalization, but palatalization
is a suprasegmental property affecting several segments at the same time. Palatalized
and non-palatalized variants are therefore not analysed as different phonemes.9
2. Vowel Quality Inventories (7–14). 183/563. There
-
2
contrast: /342 GEN.SG of 354 SG.PRES of
Itkonen (1958: 53a, 706a). A referee points out that the distinction may also be considered to be a matter
of allophony.
range of “moderately large”.
9 In the WALS chapter, Finnish is analysed as having a “moderately small” consonant inventory (15–18
loans, absent from the repertoire of many speakers, are disregarded, the size of the Finnish inventory is as
small as 13, thus falling into the “small” category (6–14 consonants), Feature value 1.
*
(2)
i /i/ u /u/
e /e/ õ 6 o /o/
â 7 å 8
ä /æ/ a 9
3. Consonant-Vowel Ratio. 3. Average. 234/563. This feature measures the rela-
calculated from Features 1 and 2 by dividing the number of consonants by the num-
-
4. Voicing in Plosives and Fricatives. 4. Voicing contrast in both plosives and frica-
tives. 158/566. As seen above, the consonant inventory contains both voiceless and
voiced plosives and fricatives. The sources characterize the voiced plosives as semi-
10
5. Voicing and Gaps in Plosive Systems. 2. /p t k b d g/. 256/566. Skolt Saami has
11
6. Uvular Consonants. 1. No uvulars. 468/566. See inventory above.
7. Glottalized Consonants. 1. No glottalized consonants. 412/566. See inventory
above.
8. Lateral Consonants. 2. /l/, no obstruent laterals. 388/566. See inventory above.
9. The Velar Nasal (). 2. Velar nasal, but not initially. 88/468. The velar nasal
Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 13, passim).
10. Vowel Nasalization
inventory above.
11. Front Rounded Vowels
10 The WALS chapter assigns the same value to Finnish, but in reality a voicing contrast is only present
in recent loans, cf. Feature 1, and, in fact, many speakers do not make the distinction in their speech. If
recent loans are disregarded and the indigenous phonological system of Finnish is taken into account,
there is no voicing contrast in Finnish, and Value 1 should be assigned to Finnish.
11 If Finnish is analysed according to the indigenous system (cf. Note 10), it should fall into the
category “other”, Feature value 1.
116 Miestamo
12. Syllable Structure
-
12
13. Tone. 1. No tones. 306/526. Skolt Saami has no tones.
. 2. Initial: stress is on the first syllable. 92/500. See
Korhonen et al. (1973: 23–24).
15. Weight-Sensitive Stress
23–24).
16. Weight Factors in Weight-Sensitive Stress Systems:
or closed syllables [are heavy for stress]. 35/500. Chapters 14 and 15
focused on primary stress, but this chapter takes into account secondary stresses as
-
-
-
second syllable has a stronger secondary stress, and furthermore, certain case endings
also affect the secondary stress on the preceding syllable. On this basis, Skolt Saami
-
this analysis, Skolt Saami can be assigned Value 4 for this feature.
17. Rhythm Types. 4. Undetermined: no clear foot type. 37/323. This feature
value means that there are secondary stresses but they form no clear foot type. In ear-
a trochaic foot type. The present-day system (cf. Feature 16 above) does not seem to
*
18. Absence of Common Consonants. 1. All present. 502/566. This chapter is
about languages lacking bilabials, nasals or fricatives. The Skolt Saami consonant
inventory features representatives of all these categories (see above).
19. Presence of Uncommon Consonants
has the voiced dental fricative /ð/ but none of the other uncommon consonant types
referred to in the chapter (see Korhonen et al. 1973: 18, 20).
The features in the phonology section of WALS do not address the length of
length contrasts are an important part of the vocalic and consonantal systems of Skolt
B. Morphology
20. Fusion of Selected Inflectional Formatives. 6. Ablaut/concatenative. 5/162.
-
accusative case and past tense in the case of Skolt Saami. The singular accusative is
-
ing -d-i
accusative forms of jokk
(3) jokk
NOM.SG jokk ACC.SG
NOM.PL ACC.PL
-
kuullâd
the indefinite person – serve to illustrate this (4).
(4) kuullâd
PRESENT PAST
1SG
2SG
3SG kooll kuuli
1PL kuullâp kuulim
2PL
3PL
INDEF
118 Miestamo
-
-
nations are properly analyzed, strings of concatenative formatives can be segmented
into clear-cut morphemes. Nonlinear formatives are not amenable to this because they
are realized not in linear sequence but by direct modification of their host.” (Bickel
& Nichols 2005a: 86.) On the basis of this definition, Skolt Saami is to be assigned
Value 6 for this feature.13
maps.
69/160. Attention is paid to the
accusative as in Chapter 20. The accusative singular is marked by stem variation and
-d
-i- (see
paradigm of võrr
(5) võrr
SINGULAR PLURAL
NOM võrr võõr
GEN võõr võõri
ACC võõr võõrid
ILL
LOC võõrâst võõrin
COM
ESS võrrân
PART võrrâd
ABE võõrtää võõritää
. 2. TAM + agreement.
19/160. Attention is paid to the past tense as in Chapter 20. Past tense markers are
et al. (2009: 88–91, 354ff), and cf. the paradigm in (4) above.
22. Inflectional Synthesis of the Verb
13 It is notable that in the authors’ analysis ablaut is only found in Afro-Asiatic and Nilo-Saharan
tense marking in sing–sang should be analysed as non-linear (ablaut). It seems only regular past tense
in -edsing–sang (or the Skolt Saami
not just synchronic phonological alternations.
*
inflected verb, inflectional category being understood as “any grammatical category
inflectional categories: tense/mood and person-number (see Korhonen et al. 1973:
-
for number and case (see Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 126–127, 346–353), but these forms
may not be considered to be verbs and are thus irrelevant here. The synthesis of the
verb may of course be increased by various derivational categories, and furthermore,
various discourse clitics may also be added on verbs, but they may occur on other
categories.
23. Locus of Marking in the Clause. 2. P is dependent-marked. 63/235. The
WALS chapter pays attention to the marking of direct objects (P). In Skolt Saami,
-
dependent marked by case or adpositions, and furthermore, head marking is present
in the form of subject agreement on the verb.
24. Locus of Marking in Possessive Noun Phrases. 3. Possessor is double marked.
-
see and genitive case on the possessor, but they are not simultaneously present (see
14 The analysis of the
-
ent marking are in complementary distribution. The typology does not have the type
-
. 5. Inconsistent marking or other
-
ferences in the locus of marking in the clause (dependent) and in possessive NPs (head
or dependent) and is therefore classified as inconsistent or other. This chapter contains
a submap: Zero marking of A and P arguments. 2. Other (non-zero marking).
. 2. Predominantly suf-
double marking might occasionally occur due to Finnish influence, but is not a feature of Skolt Saami.
120 Miestamo
27. Reduplication. 3. No productive reduplication. 56/367. No indication of redu-
plication found in the sources.
28. Case Syncretism. 3. Inflectional case marking is syncretic for core and non-
core cases. 22/197. In the singular, genitive and accusative are identical (and the nom-
identical, see Korhonen et al. (1973: 30ff) and Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 28ff), cf. also
the paradigm given in (5) above. In personal pronouns in the plural, nominative and
29. Syncretism in Verbal Person/Number Marking. 3. Subject person/number is
never syncretic. 80/197. See Korhonen et al. (1973: 67ff) and Moshnikoff & al. (2009:
83ff), see also the paradigm in (4) above.
C. Nominal Categories
30. Number of Genders. 1. None. 144/256. See Korhonen et al. (1973: 30ff) and
Moshnikoff & al. (2009: 28ff).
: 1. No gender system.
144/256. See Korhonen et al. (1973: 30ff) and Moshnikoff & al. (2009: 28ff).
32. Systems of Gender Assignment. 1. No gender system. 144/256. See Korhonen
et al. (1973: 30ff and Moshnikoff & al. (2009: 28ff).
33. Coding of Nominal Plurality-
consonant gradation or other changes in the stem, the nominative singular and plural
are identical in form). In other cases than the nominative the plural ending i occurs
and stem changes are also common, cf. also the paradigms in (3) and (5) above. See
Korhonen et al. (1973: 30ff) and Moshnikoff & al. (2009: 28ff)
34. Occurrence of Nominal Plurality
the noun is animate or inanimate. See Korhonen et al. (1973: 30ff) and Moshnikoff &
used if the numeral is singular in form: SG.GEN house.SG.ILL)
15
35. Plurality in Independent Personal Pronouns. 4. Person-number stem.
-
15 The numeral may also be in the plural, and then the noun is also plural in form:
PL.ILL house. . It may be further noted that in addition to the
With the numerals 2–6 in the nominative, the noun occurs in the genitive (or alternatively the partitive),
genitive after a nominative numeral). See Sammallahti & Moshnikoff (1991: 165).
*
native forms of plural personal pronouns in the case of Skolt Saami. The form of the
Korhonen et al. (1973: 61) and Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 59ff).
36. The Associative Plural. 2. Special bound associative plural marker. 48/237.
- derived from the noun -
37. Definite Articles. 5. Neither definite nor indefinite article. 188/566. See
Korhonen et al. (1973: passim) and Moshnikoff et al. (2009: passim).
38. Indefinite Articles. 5. Neither indefinite nor definite article. 188/473. See
Korhonen et al. (1973: passim) and Moshnikoff et al. (2009: passim).
. 3. No inclusive/
(2009: 56).
opposition. 79/200. See Korhonen et al. (1973: 67ff) and Moshnikoff et al. (2009:
83ff).
41. Distance Contrasts in Demonstratives
demonstratives: tät tut tõt tiet-aa
-
16
42. Pronominal and Adnominal Demonstratives. 3. Different inflectional fea-
they are identical, differ in their stems or in their inflection. In Skolt Saami, demon-
-
tive, locative and abessive they are identical to the genitive in form and in the plural
distinguish these cases normally (Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 67). Note that some other
adnominal.
43. Third Person Pronouns and Demonstratives. 1. Unrelated. 100/225. Third
person pronouns and demonstratives are formally unrelated. Their nominative forms
tämäse
tuo
122 Miestamo
son 3SG, suäna 3DU, sij 3PL vs. tättuttõttiet-aa
44. Gender Distinctions in Independent Personal Pronouns. 6. No gender dis-
tinctions. 254/378. See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 56, 59–65) and Korhonen et al.
(1973: 61).
45. Politeness Distinctions in Pronouns. 1. Second person pronouns encode no
politeness distinctions. 136/207. The sources do not report politeness distinctions in
17
46. Indefinite Pronouns. 1. Interrogative-based indefinites. 194/326. The indef-
mii mii-ne
is
respectively. It is further noted (ibid.) that in stories is often used to refer to the
48. Person Marking on Adpositions. 3. Person marking for pronouns only. 83/378.
Most adpositions require genitive case on the accompanying nominal (Moshnikoff
appear instead of genitive modifiers (see Feature 24 above) it could be the case that
grammatical descriptions, but some adpositions found in Moshnikoff & Sammallahti
-
sons in singular and plural: loonnan, loonnad,,,,,
and
singular and plural meâldan, meâldad,,,,(pp. 64,
adpositions is only possible for pronominal complements of adpositions.
49. Number of Cases. 7. 8–9 case categories. 23/261. Nine cases: nominative,
genitive, accusative, illative, locative, comitative, abessive, essive, and partitive (see
the 10th case but it is not productive, cf. (Ylikoski 2009: 86).
50. Asymmetrical Case-Marking. 2. Symmetrical case marking. 79/261. Case
-
tinctions available in different subclasses. In Skolt Saami, the case distinctions availa-
17 According to Tiina Sanila-Aikio, p.c., although pronouns do not code politeness distinctions, isolated
*
paradigms of comparative and superlative adjectives do not have abessive forms, but
they do have them in Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 52–55). The pronominal paradigms
given in Korhonen et al. (1973: 61, 64–65) also lack some cases (abessive, partitive,
-
due to their semantic improbability rather than being morphologically impossible.
-
noun could hardly be seen as constituting a nominal subclass alone. Note also that the
Feature 42 above) is an effect of the syntactic position of these elements, not a mor-
(2009: 23–82) and Korhonen et al. (1973: 30ff).
52. Comitatives and Instrumentals. 1. Identity. 76/322. Skolt Saami treats comi-
-
also mentioned in Korhonen et al. (1973: 34), but it may be disregarded as it is not pro-
ductive (see Ylikoski 2009: 86). There is also the postposition mie’ldd
a meaning of movement (see Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 144, 150), and is thus irrelevant
53. Ordinal Numerals-
-
nals: õhttvuõss~vuõssmõskoumm
kuälmadnelljneelljad
Korhonen et al. 1973: 59–61).
54. Distributive Numerals. 1. No distributive numerals. 62/250. No indica-
-
55. Numeral Classifiers. 1. Numeral classifiers are absent. 260/400. See
Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 78–82) and Korhonen et al. (1973: 59–61).
56. Conjunctions and Universal Quantifiers. 1. Formally different. 40/116.
124 Miestamo
Sammallahti & Moshnikoff (1991) that count as conjunctions or universal quantifiers
according to the definition used in the WALS chapter (the original Finnish translations
found in the dictionaries are given after the equal sign): CONJUNCTIONS: da
dide ja~jäše -ijoba
~~
däspâi
UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIERS:
puktäättas
See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 58) and Korhonen et al. (1973: 62–63).
58. Obligatory Possessive Inflection. 2. No obligatorily possessed nouns.
59. Possessive Classification. 1. No possessive classification. 125/243. See
Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 30–32, 58) and Korhonen et al. (1973: 31, 62–63).
. 6. Highly differentiated. 77/138.
a special attributive form (usually distinct from the nominative singular [=predicative]
form), and relative clauses are finite clauses introduced by a relative pronoun (see
-
to relative clauses and can be identified as relative clauses in a functional sense, and
on this analysis a type of relative clause comes closer to adjectives, but there is still
a difference in that the attributive form of participles is identical to the nominative
-
tive singular.
61. Adjectives without Nouns-
out marking. 73/124. See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 48). Note that in difference to
attributive adjectives, substantivized adjectives inflect for case and do not bear the
attributive marker.
62. Action Nominal Constructions. 4. Double-Possessive: All major arguments
treated as possessors. 7/168. This chapter is about the marking of arguments in action
nominal constructions such as John’s running and the enemy’s destruction of the city.
In Skolt Saami, The verb form used is the action nominalization form (see Moshnikoff
-
the genitive (Moshnikoff & al. 2009: 121). According to Jussi Ylikoski (p.c., cf. also
Ylikoski 2009: 75), Skolt Saami puts both agents and patients in the genitive in action
nominal constructions.
*
63. Noun Phrase Conjunction. 1. AND-
-
junction da
case), see Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 37–38, 151–152) and Korhonen et al. (1973: 33).
64. Nominal and Verbal Conjunction. 1. Nominal and verbal conjunction are
largely identical. 161/301. Conjunction da
E. Verbal Categories
65. Perfective/Imperfective Aspect. 2. No grammatical marking of perfective/
(1973: 67–68).
66. The Past Tense. 1. Past/non-past distinction marked, no remoteness distinc-
tion. 94/222. See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 83–91) and Korhonen et al. (1973: 67–68).
67. The Future Tense. 2. No inflectional marking of future/nonfuture distinction.
112/222. See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 85–88) and Korhonen et al. (1973: 67–68).
68. The Perfect. 3. Other perfect. 80/222. See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 92–98)
and Korhonen et al. (1973: 94–95). In Skolt Saami the perfect is marked by the verb
that the language has a perfect but it is neither a have-perfect, nor a perfect derived
have no perfect.
Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 88–90) and Korhonen et al. (1973: 67–68).
70. The Morphological Imperative. 1. The language has morphologically dedi-
present tense indicative negatives, but since there is no plausible semantic connection
chapter.
71. The Prohibitive. 2. The prohibitive uses the verbal construction of the second
singular imperative and a sentential negative strategy not found in (indicative) declar-
atives. 183/495. The chapter focuses on 2nd person singular negative imperatives and
is the same as or different from the imperative form used in positive imperatives. In
126 Miestamo
clear that the construction belongs either to Type 2 (“The prohibitive uses the verbal
construction of the second singular imperative and a sentential negative strategy not
found in (indicative) declaratives”) or to Type 4 (“The prohibitive uses a verbal con-
struction other than the second singular imperative and a sentential negative strategy
form used in present tense indicative negatives is identical in form, and it could also
be argued that the negative imperative uses this connegative form, not the imperative
form used in positive imperatives. We could then say that imperative marking is on
form of the verb. It could then be concluded that, in this respect, prohibitives use the
-
son singular negative imperatives and both of the possible analyses discussed so far,
18
72. Imperative-Hortative Systems
homogenous if they are formed using the same kinds of morphological or syntac-
tic means. A system is minimal if the 2nd person singular imperative is not homog-
18 Value 1 is assigned to North Saami although it has a suppletive imperative stem for the negative
Saami.
*
73. The Optative. 2. Inflectional optative absent. 271/319. The optative is defined
in 3rd person has optative uses, but there is no form in Skolt Saami dedicated to the
74. Situational Possibility -
& Moshnikoff’s (1991) dictionary (their original Finnish translations are given after
the equal sign):
able=osata, pystyä’ (p. 99), -
responding entries in Moshnikoff & Sammallahti (1988) and Itkonen (1958).
75. Epistemic Possibility
) and in Korhonen et al. (1973: 105),19
-
sibility, particles, adverbs, are of course also found, e.g.
& Moshnikoff 1991: 8).
76. Overlap between Situational and Epistemic Modal Marking. 1. The language
has markers that can code both situational and epistemic modality, both for possibil-
only the same types of markers but the same morphemes) can be used for both situ-
ational and epistemic modal marking. In some languages this is not possible, in some
languages it is possible only for necessity or possibility and in some languages it is
possible for both. In Skolt Saami, the verbal inflectional categories do not offer this
possibility: the potential is only used for epistemic possibility and the imperative is
1973: 67–69). As to verbal constructions, most of them are specialized to either situ-
et al. (2009: 129–131): õlggâd and -
128 Miestamo
-
sity as (one of) their meaning(s): (32a), õuggâd~õlggâd
noun päkk
of) their meaning(s): (242b), (477a), (526a), (567b),
(710a), (766b), äppšed
and . For
overlap of situational and epistemic modal marking is possible for both possibility
20
77. Semantic Distinctions of Evidentiality. 1. No grammatical evidentials.
181/418. There are no dedicated evidential morphemes reported in the sources, and
the sections on verbs in Moshnikoff et al. (2009) and Korhonen et al. (1973) contain
no information on secondary uses of TAM categories as evidentials. Whether some of
the verbs used for coding modality (cf. discussion of Feature 76 above) have gram-
maticalized evidential uses is not clear from the sources either. These issues need
more investigation in Skolt Saami.
78. Coding of Evidentiality. 1. No grammatical evidentials. 181/418. No evi-
dence of grammatical evidentials found in the sources (cf. the discussion of Feature
77 above).
79. Suppletion According to Tense and Aspect. 4. No suppletion in tense or
aspect. 123/193. The chapter focuses on strong and unique cases of stem supple-
-
Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 402–403) are the verbs piijjâd
but their irregularity is not of the strong suppletive type. According to Korhonen et al.
verb åårrad
inflection, and furthermore, it cannot even be considered suppletion: it is not a case
of phonologically unrelated forms living in the same paradigm, but rather of one verb
having a defective paradigm and the missing forms being provided by another verb,
to Nickel (1994: 463–466), the verbs fertet
both situational and epistemic modality, and Value 3 should therefore be assigned.
*
79A. Suppletion in Imperatives and Hortatives. 5. No suppletion in imperatives
the declarative, but it is not suppletive in the strong sense (see Moshnikoff et al. 2009:
80. Verbal Number and Suppletion. 1. No singular(-dual)-plural pairs/triples in
the reference material. 159/193. In the WALS chapter, verbal number refers to the
quantification of the action rather than the nominal participants. This chapter pays
attention to the presence of pairs (or triples) of forms contrasting in verbal number,
established agreement patterns. No verbal pairs/triples are found in the Skolt Saami
reference materials.
F. Word Order
. 2. Subject-Verb-Object (SVO). 435/1228.
See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 33, 163, passim) and Korhonen et al. (1973: passim).
82. Order of Subject and Verb. 1. Subject precedes verb (SV). 1060/1344. See
Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 33, 163, passim) and Korhonen et al. (1973: passim).
83. Order of Object and Verb
Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 33, 163, passim), Korhonen et al. (1973: passim).
. 1. Verb-object-oblique order (VOX).
location (source and goal), instruments, benefactives and comitatives (recipients and
passim), these obliques are predominantly placed after the object (Korhonen et al.
of this paper. At this point, assuming that the most neutral order is reflected in the
(2009).
85. Order of Adposition and Noun Phrase. 1. Postpositions. 520/1074. Both
prepositions and postpositions occur, but the latter are clearly dominant: the inven-
tory of postpositions in Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 142–150) is much larger than that of
prepositions.
86. Order of Genitive and Noun
Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 30–32).
87. Order of Adjective and Noun. 1. Modifying adjective precedes noun (AdjN).
340/1213. See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 42–43).
88. Order of Demonstrative and Noun
(DemN). 496/1085. See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 66–69).
130 Miestamo
89. Order of Numeral and Noun. 1. Numeral precedes noun (NumN). 430/1001.
See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 81–82).
90. Order of Relative Clause and Noun
507/705. See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 164–165). If the non-finite (participial) func-
91. Order of Degree Word and Adjective
samai
92. Position of Polar Question Particles. 3. Question particle in second position
in sentence. 45/777. The question particles -a, -go and -son occur after the first con-
stituent (see Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 154–155).
93. Position of Interrogative Phrases in Content Questions. 1. Interrogative
phrases obligatorily initial. 241/803. See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 69–74).
94. Order of Adverbial Subordinator and Clause. 1. Adverbial subordinators
367/611. Subordinate clauses are introduced by free-standing initial conjunctions (see
95. Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of
Adposition and Noun Phrase. 3. Verb-object and postpositional (VO&Postp).
38/1033. See Features 83 and 85 above.
96. Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of
Relative Clause and Noun
370/756. See Features 83 and 90 above.
97. Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of
Adjective and Noun. 3. Verb-object and adjective-noun (VO&AdjN). 100/1170. See
Features 83 and 87 above.
G. Simple Clauses
98. Alignment of Case Marking of Full Noun Phrases. 2. Nominative-accusative
(standard). 46/190. The core argument (S) of a canonical intransitive predicate is
marked by the nominative, and the nominative also marks the more agent-like argu-
ment (A) of a canonical transitive predicate. The more patient-like argument (P) of
a canonical transitive predicate is marked by the accusative. See Moshnikoff et al.
(2009: 28–34) and Korhonen et al. (1973: 31–32).
99. Alignment of Case Marking of Pronouns. 2. Nominative-accusative (stand-
100. Alignment of Verbal Person Marking. 2. Accusative alignment. 212/380. The
*
67ff).
. 6. More than one of the above types
are obligatory or optional. In Skolt Saami, verbs have subject agreement, and sub-
the presence of subject pronouns is much more common than their absence, but both
these sources for either 3rd person pronominal subjects (in any number) or for dual
21 The obliga-
toriness of dual subject pronouns is understandable since verbal agreement does not
102. Verbal Person Marking. 2. Person marking of only the A argument. 73/378.
See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 83ff) and Korhonen et al. (1973: 67ff).
103. Third-Person Zero of Verbal Person Marking. 4. Zero-realization of all third
are given in (6).
(6) a. poorrâd
påårr 3SG.PRES 3PL.PRES poori 3SG.PST 3PL.PST
b. laullad
läull 3SG.PRES läulla 3PL.PRES lääulai 3SG.PST laullu 3PL.PST
(Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 86, 89)
According to Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 86, 89, 101, 107) and Korhonen et al. (1973:
-i
that stem-internal changes make the 3rd singular forms distinct from a [theoretical]
pure stem). As to the 3rd person plural, both of these sources agree on the status of
the endings e or a
e or u, used in the past: they are interpreted as past
(1973: 67). My interpretation of these analyses is that in the present, the 3rd singular
(Korhonen et al. 1973: 117), but it can be seen as a case of ellipsis of a subordinate clause subject made
132 Miestamo
22
104. Order of Person Markers on the Verb. 1. A and P do not, or do not both,
occur on the verb. 187/379. Only A is marked on verb (see Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 86,
. 1. Indirect-object construction.
plural and the difference in coding these roles thus only applies to the singular.
106. Reciprocal Constructions. 2. All reciprocal constructions are formally dis-
in the sources, and there is a distinct reciprocal construc-
tion:
see Itkonen 1958: 170b). A similar reciprocal construction based on -
107. Passive Constructions. 1. There is a passive construction. 162/373. The
Note that according to Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 136), there is no passive as an inflec-
tional voice but passive derivation can be applied to most transitive verbs.
108. Antipassive Constructions. 3. No antipassive. 146/194. No antipassive is
109. Applicative Constructions. 8. No applicative construction. 100/183. No
1973: passim).
110. Periphrastic Causative Constructions. 2. Purposive type but no sequential
causative constructions of the sequential or the purposive type, or both. In the sequen-
-
by an overt marker (e.g., subjunctive mood, or dative case marking). Moshnikoff et
al. (2009) and Korhonen et al. (1973) discuss only non-periphrastic causatives. Some
of person and tense: -i in 3rd singular and -e/-u
value “Zero-realization of some third person singular S forms” for Skolt Saami. Diachronically, the 3rd
*
piijjâd
complement clause, e.g. (7).
(7)
ACC.PL put.PST.3PL carry.INF thing.ACC.PL
These are clearly periphrastic causatives of the purposive type, the infinitive acting as
the purposive marker in the relevant sense. No indication of sequential constructions
are found in the data sources.
111. Nonperiphrastic Causative Constructions. 2. Morphological type but no
ted, e.g.
poorrâdpoorted
construction is found in the sources.
112. Negative Morphemes
ij
et al. 1973: 95–97).
(8) take-1SG vs. NEG-1SG take.CNG
take-PST-1SG vs. jiõ-m viikkâ-m NEG-1SG take-PST.PTCP
113. Symmetric and Asymmetric Standard Negation. 2. Asymmetric standard
negation only: Type Asy. 53/297. Since standard negation (the negation of declarative
114. Subtypes of Asymmetric Standard Negation. 1. In finiteness: subtype A/
a subtype of A/Fin asymmetry, defined by the loss or reduction of finiteness of the
true that in the present tense indicative, the connegative is identical to the 2nd singu-
lar imperative. This could lead one to think that there is (also) asymmetry of type A/
134 Miestamo
connection to the imperative is more apparent than real and asymmetry of type A/
115. Negative Indefinite Pronouns and Predicate Negation. 1. Negative indef-
adding ni in front of interrogative pronouns mii
anybody’ and [ij] ni mii
110).
116. Polar Questions: 1. Question particle. 520/842. Polar interrogation is
a-
tribution also -go, -son, or -šât
constituent, it is the finite verb that is fronted and carries the interrogative clitic, and
-
inflected for the same person and number (see e.g. Itkonen 1931: 204, 206). These
may be analysed as instances of the so-called A-not-A construction type found in
-
in Chapters 92 and 116 in WALS.)
117. Predicative possession. 1. Locational possessive. 48/240. Predicative pos-
and the possessee is the grammatical subject of the verb
118. Predicative Adjectives. 2. Predicative adjectives have nonverbal encoding.
132/386. Predicative adjectives use the verb -
cates do (see Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 42–48).
119. Nominal and Locational Predication. 2. Shared (i.e. identical) encoding of
nominal and locational predication. 117/386. Locational predicates use the verb
92–93, 96).
120. Zero Copula for Predicate Nominals. 1. Zero-copula is impossible. 211/386.
found in Moshnikoff et al. (2009: passim).
121. Comparative Constructions. 1. Locational comparative. 78/167. The
standard of comparison is in the partitive, e.g. (small.COMP.SG.NOM
brother.SG.PART
*
-
tive) case, this construction is to be analysed as a locational/separative comparative in
is a marginal case in contemporary Skolt Saami and its remaining functions are being
standard of comparison. The genitive does not have locative functions in Skolt Saami
and this usage cannot therefore been analysed as a locational comparative. It may be
coding of the standard is typologically rare and it is not attested in Stassen’s (1985,
2005) typology. Note also that although the available grammatical descriptions do not
marked by ko
(9)
it.NOM be.PST.3SG fun.CMPR job.SG.NOM than hay.job.SG.NOM
122. Relativization on Subjects
75, 165). If the non-finite clauses that have similar functions as relative clauses are
123. Relativization on Obliques
are relativized using relative pronouns (see Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 57, 75, 165). As
to the non-finite functional equivalents of relative clauses, they can only be used to
relativize on subjects and objects and are thus not relevant here (see Moshnikoff et al.
2009: 121–122, 126–128).
124. ‘Want’ Complement Clauses. 1. The complement subject is left implicit.
(Itkonen 1958: 35b) and
tättad (Itkonen 1958: 576a).
125. Purpose Clauses. 2. Balanced/deranked. 30/170. A balanced purposive
što (see Sammallahti &
diõtt
136 Miestamo
126. ‘When’ Clauses. 2. Balanced/deranked. 39/174. Balanced constructions can
ko (Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 153, 164), and deranked
een-gerund
(Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 123, 124).
127. Reason Clauses
often balanced and use the conjunction ko
diõtt
Ylikoski 2009: 75).
128. Utterance Complement Clauses. 1. Balanced. 114/143. These have bal-
što
Deranked constructions are not found for utterance complements (see section on
nominal verb forms in Moshnikoff et al. 2009: 119–128). This is further confirmed
clauses cannot be used to replace finite subordinate clauses (in contrast to Finnish),
-
junction što
129. Hand and Arm
.23
130. Finger and Hand
suõrmm
Moshnikoff 1991: 53, 117).
131. Numeral Bases. 1. Decimal. 125/196. See Moshnikoff et al. (2009: 78–80)
and Korhonen et al. (1973: 59–60).
132. Number of Nonderived Basic Colour Categories. 7. 6 categories. 29/119.
-
guage may have a separate term for each of these or arrange them in composite cat-
käsikäsivarsi for
kämmen
*
(primary or composite) categories receiving basic colour terms.24
beyond the scope of the present paper, but a preliminary idea may be gained by look-
viõlggâd ruõpssâd viskkâd ruõnâs
(used of plants)’, ruânn
It is probably safe to say that there is a basic colour term for every primary colour
category. For green, there is also a more specialized term used for plants, but the
more general term can still be seen as a basic term for this category.
133. Number of Basic Colour Categories -
ries.
golubai
for pink and light blue are compositional, formed from red and blue by compound-
compositional:
132. Needless to say, a thorough study of colour terminology should be conducted
134. Green and Blue -
guished, see above.
135. Red and Yellow . -
guished, see above.
136. M-T Pronouns. 2. M-T pronouns, paradigmatic. 27/230. This chapter pays
attention to the first consonant in 1st and 2nd person singular pronominal elements.
M-T pronoun systems have M in 1st and T in 2nd person singular. M is basically
defined as [m] and T as any apical obstruent. By paradigmatic is meant that the con-
sonants form a paradigm, both occurring in the same form class(es) of their respective
pronouns. Skolt Saami has M in 1st person singular independent pronouns, possessive
-
24 Surprisingly, the WALS chapter does not give a definition of the notion of basic colour term.
objects, meaning not subsumable under the meaning of another term) and salient (readily elicitable,
consensus among individuals), cf. Hardin & Maffi (1997: 3–4).
138 Miestamo
Korhonen et al. 1973: 61–63, 67–68). The 2nd person singular -k/-ending in verbs
is historically derived from a -t ending (see Korhonen 1981: 271). There is a submap
focusing on 1st person singular only: . 2. M in first
person singular. 53/230.
137. N-M Pronouns. 1. No N-M pronouns. 194/230. This feature is similar to
1st person singular and M in 2nd person singular. N is basically defined as dental or
1
67–68). There is a submap focusing on 1st person singular only:
Person Singular. 1. No M in second person singular. 152/230.
138. Tea. 1. Words derived from Sinitic cha
25
J. Sign Languages
139. Irregular Negatives in Sign Languages. Not applicable to Skolt Saami.
140. Question Particles in Sign Languages. Not applicable to Skolt Saami.
K. Other
141. Writing Systems
documents in the 19th century.
142. Paralinguistic Usages of Clicks. No information on this feature can be found
Finnish and Skolt Saami, and that Finnish speakers use clicks for affective meanings,
-
it is beyond the scope of this paper to verify this for Skolt Saami.
3. Typological distance between Skolt Saami and other languages
WALS features. The Skolt Saami features and the emerging typological profile of the
language are the main topic of this paper, but since a value has been assigned to Skolt
languages are typologically closest to Skolt Saami.
25 As pointed out by Jussi Ylikoski and noted in the Online version of WALS, there is a value
assignment error in the WALS database for this feature in North Saami, the correct value being 2, “Words
derived from Min Nan Chinese te”.
*
database is estimated using a distance measure proposed by Dahl in his (2008a) con-
The analysis is based on Features 1–138. The measure pays attention to the propor-
tion of shared values and shared features. Shared features are those features that are
coded for both Skolt Saami and the language in the database that Skolt Saami is being
compared to. In the present case, since Skolt Saami is coded for all features, the num-
ber of shared features is simply the number of features coded for each language in
i.e. Skolt Saami in the present case. The formula for counting typological distances is
simple: the number of shared values is divided by the number of shared features, the
the languages.26
;
that are not in the database are naturally left out of the comparison. Since the number
of features coded in the database varies from language to language, the reliability of
certain the typological distance measure is for that language, and the reliability of the
results is highest for the languages that are coded for most features (i.e. languages
measure does not take into account the fact that some values of a feature are closer to
to no case marking at all. And finally, the WALS features only cover a selection of
be considered as giving a rather rough measure of typological similarity.
are typologically closest to Skolt Saami.27 For the sake of the reliability of the results,
and as a result of this restriction, only 410 of the 2560 languages are included in
shared features. The actual feature values for these languages have not been repro-
duced in this article, but they are easily available in the online version of WALS
140 Miestamo
Shared values Shared features Distance
1. Finnish 109 134 18
2. Saami (Northern) 33 41 19
3. 35 48 27
4. Tuvan 37 54 31
5. Dagur 32 49 34
Tatar 28 43 34
7. Bashkir 33 51 35
86 134 35
9. Brahui 59 93 36
10. 53 85 37
Bulgarian 44 70 37
Nenets 59 95 37
Yakut 33 53 37
14. Hungarian 81 132 38
Serbian-Croatian 31 50 38
16. Buriat 25 41 39
Kashmiri 41 68 39
Latvian 68 112 39
25 41 39
Ukrainian 25 41 39
21. 27 45 40
Hindi 73 123 40
Marathi 36 60 40
Telugu 31 52 40
25. Breton 33 56 41
81 138 41
Table 1. Typological distance from Skolt Saami.
-
cally closest to Skolt Saami, are also genealogically and areally very close, namely
North Saami and Finnish. A second immediate observation is that the typologically
are closest to Skolt Saami in areal or genealogical terms. Table 1 only listed the 25
*
three Saami languages in the database: North Saami, South Saami28
-
Shared values Shared features Distance
Saami (Kildin) 34 25
Saami (Northern) 33 41 19
Saami (South) 81338
Finnish 109 134 18
Karelian 56 16
Komi-Zyrian 30 37 18
Nenets 59 95 37
86 134 35
29 55 47
33 64 48
Table 2
not among the 25 languages typologically most similar to Skolt Saami. The former is
the case for Kildin Saami, South Saami, Karelian and Komi-Zyrian, and the latter for
be noted that in the case of South Saami all of the shared features concern phonology,
Komi-Zyrian, the number of shared features is close to the 41-feature threshold, but
has only four more shared features, the distribution of the features is much more even
across the different domains of grammar.
-
this language, all language names in this paper are as in the WALS database.
142 Miestamo
29
Saami values in the WALS database in the footnotes in Section 2. For Finnish, taking
-
North Saami, enabling a more reliable count.
languages. In the light of these numbers, the much shorter presence of Nenets on the
Kola Peninsula has not brought Nenets and Skolt Saami typologically closer than
fact that Komi-Zyrian, just like Nenets, has also been present on the Kola Peninsula,
but as noted above, the results are not very reliable for Komi-Zyrian. According to
have not resulted in contact-induced structural changes in the respective languages.
Coming briefly back to Table 1 and looking at the typologically closest top 25
-
-
pronouns (F122, F123) (cf. Dahl 2008a: 554). Furthermore, it may be noted that,
that although not dominant in the language and thus not reflected in the feature value
gaining ground in the language.
-
guages in the WALS database, focusing more closely on languages that are genealogi-
cally or areally close to Skolt Saami. A more comprehensive picture of the typological
*
-
beyond the features in WALS and pay attention to any typological features that are of
4. Conclusion
typological features in the World atlas of language structures (WALS). The proper-
been assigned to Skolt Saami for every feature. A typological profile of the language,
The comparison has revealed no big surprises, the genealogically and areally closest
languages, North Saami and Finnish, being typologically closest to Skolt Saami. It is
of a language. It offers a set of features covering a variety of linguistic domains, and
gives a firm typological background for discussing these features in the language
-
guage.
The WALS features are primarily intended for studying large-scale areal pat-
on a smaller area or genealogical grouping, such as the neighbours of Skolt Saami,
WALS database, and for many or these only a subset of the features have been coded.
or genealogically restricted set of languages, but a thorough investigation of the areal
are interesting in terms of the contact history of the region.
The main contributions of this paper are, on the one hand, the general typologi-
cal picture painted of Skolt Saami, and on the other, the discussion of each individual
-
ing on Skolt Saami.
144 Miestamo
Abbreviations
1 = first person
2 = second person
3 = third person
ABE = abessive
ACC = accusative
CNG = connegative
COM = comitative
CMPR = comparative
ESS = essive
GEN = genitive
ILL = illative
INF = infinitive
LOC = locative
NEG = negative
NOM = nominative
PART = partitive
PL = plural
PRES = present
PST = past
PTCP = participle
SG = singular
References
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna 2005a: Fusion of selected inf lectional formatives. –
WALS: Chapter 20, 86–89.
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna 2005b: Inflectional synthesis of the verb. – WALS:
Chapter 22, 94–97.
-
Lan-
guage contact in times of globalization
Virittäjä 112 (4): 545–559. [Trans-
Language Typology and
Universals 61 (3): 208 –220.
-
ter.
Hardin, C. L. & Maffi, Luisa 1997: Introduction. – C. L. Hardin & Luisa Maffi (eds), Color
categories in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–18.
The
world atlas of language structures
The
Itkonen, Toivo Immanuel 1931: Koltan- ja kuolanlappalaisia satuja. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen
Seuran Toimituksia 60. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Itkonen, Toivo Immanuel 1958: Koltan- ja kuolanlapin sanakirja – Wörterbuch des Kolta-
und Kolalappischen, -
lais-Ugrilainen Seura.
. Koti-
maisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen verkkojulkaisuja 14. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten
*
Korhonen, Mikko & Moshnikoff [Mosnikoff], Jouni & Sammallahti, Pekka 1973: Koltan-
saamen opas. Castrenianumin toimitteita 4. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston Castrenia-
numin laitokset – Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
-
maattiseksi transkriptioksi. – Lapin murteiden fonologiaa. Castreaniumin toimitteita 1.
Helsinki. 69–86.
Korhonen, Mikko 1975: Zur Phonologie des Skoltlappischen. – Symposion phonologische
Analyse der uralischen Sprachen-
Koukkari, Tuomas 2010: Koltansaamen nesessiiviverbeistä. Proseminar paper, Finno-Ugrian
Studies, University of Helsinki.
Lappische Volksdichtung V: See- und skolte-lappische Texte des
südlichen Varangergebiets. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 124. Helsinki:
Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
-
tic analysis
Institute for Inner Asian Studies.
Koltansaamen koulu-
. Inari/Aanar: Saamelaiskäräjät/
<<
Moshnikoff [Mosnikoff], Jouni & Sammallahti, Pekka 1988:
Pieni koltansaame-suomi sanakirja. [Utsjoki]: Jorgaleaddji Oy.
Sammallahti, Pekka & Moshnikoff [Mosnikoff], Jouni 1991: Suomi-koltansaame sanakirja.
Stassen, Leon 1985: Comparison and universal grammar
Stassen, Leon 2005: Comparative constructions. – WALS: Chapter 121, 490–493.
The world atlas of language structures
Ylikoski, Jussi 2009: Non-finites in North Saami. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia
257. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
