� � � �� � � � �� � � � � ��

� � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � !

VALERIA BENNER

ALINA LOBANOVA

BERNADETA ZAZAC

Spatial relations in Urum:Motion verbs and aspect (1-7)

Expression of spatial relationsin Russian and Urum: topsiderelations (9-12)

Die Realisierung vonstatischen Raumrelationen imUrum am Beispiel derPostpositionen üst- und ič-(13-18)

"��#$���

spatial expressions in Urum

a-l ing

 

Spatial Relations in Urum

Motion verbs and aspect

Valeria Benner

University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany

valeria.benner@uni-bielefeld.de

Abstract

This study deals with the interaction between verbal aspect

and object realization in Urum. In a sentence completion task

four native speakers were asked to complete sentences that

contained a motion verb in either the imperfective or

perfective aspect. Speakers showed a clear preference for

non-directional adjuncts in sentences with the imperfective

aspect and preferred directional objects in sentences with the

perfective aspect.

Index Terms: verbal aspect, motion verbs, Russian, Urum

language, spatial relations

1. Introduction

The verbal aspect is known to be a quite complex part of

grammar across numerous languages and is therefore one of

the most interesting. It is particularly interesting for the

language at hand, Caucasian Urum, in connection to Russian.

Caucasian Urum is a Turkic language spoken in Georgia. Its

origins go back to Anatolian Turkish since a significant

number of Pontic Greeks emigrated from Anatolia to Georgia

at the beginning of the 19th century. Due to the political and

cultural situation in Georgia, Urum speakers of that region

are generally fluent in Russian. Over time, the close contact

with Russian caused Urum speakers to incorporate a large

amount of Russian loanwords into their language.

Nevertheless, Caucasian Urum is very close to Standard

Turkish in its phonology, morphology and lexicon (Skopeteas

2014). Urum is not a written language and has therefore not

been documented exhaustively.

In terms of spatial relations, Urum has a transparent system

to determine static and dynamic relations by making use of

case suffixes. Static relations are expressed by the locative

case (-da/-dä) and dynamic relations are expressed by either

the dative (-a/-ä) or ablative case (-dan/-dän), as illustrated

in (1), (2) and (3) respectively (from Skopeteas 2014):

(1) biz-im halh yaš-ier-di turkia-da.

1.PL-GEN people live-IPFV-PST[3] Turkey-LOC

‘Our people lived in Turkey.’

(2) biz-im halh gäl-di gürjistan-a.

1.PL-GEN people come-PST Georgia-DAT

‘Our People came to Georgia.’

(3) gurjü-lär get-ti-lär bur-dan

Georgian-PL go-PST[3]-PL this.place-ABL

‘The Georgians left from this place.’

In these examples, the case suffixes function in a very similar

way to the English prepositions in, to and from in order to

determine which type of relation is at hand. English has no

such case marking and must make use of suitable

prepositions.

Russian also uses specific prepositions that go hand in hand

with case suffixes in order to determine static and dynamic

relations. This is shown in (4) and (5):

(4) On po-b’ega-l v park-e.

3.SG PFV-run-PST.M in park-PREP

‘He ran in the park.’

(5) On b’eža-l v park.

3.SG run-PST.M in park[ACC]

‘He was running in the park.’

Static relations are typically expressed by the prepositional

case in Russian and dynamic relations can be expressed by

the accusative, dative, genitive or instrumental case

(Timberlake 2012).

Since this study focuses on verbal aspect related to

directionality, dative and locative cases in Urum and

accusative and prepositional cases in Russian will be the

most relevant for the scope of this study.

In an experiment on aspect and argument realization in

Greek, Tsimpli & Papadopoulou (2006) investigated if and

how aspect plays a role in the use of null objects. They tested

verbs that could be used transitively and intransitively in

connection to verbal aspect. Their results revealed that

“the aspectual form of the verb affected the use of null objects:

imperfective verb forms were more frequently used with null objects

than perfective forms.” (Tsimpli & Papadopoulou 2006)

If a verb can be used transitively and intransitively and is

then used in its imperfective form, native speakers of Greek

preferred to omit the object. However, if the verb was used in

its perfective form, an object was likely to be added to the

sentence. This shows that the aspectual form of the verb can

influence or even predict the likelihood of the presence of an

overt object or a null object.

The study on Greek did not differentiate between types of

objects but only focused on whether objects were realized by

the speakers or not.

In the present study on the Urum language, not only the

presence of objects but also the types of objects will be

Valeria Benner

2

relevant. The main objective is to investigate whether the

verbal aspect has a significant influence on which type of

verb complement or verb adjunct follows the verb. The use of

the imperfective aspect already puts emphasis on the duration

of the action itself and adding a goal or direction to that

action should not be necessary.

I hypothesize that a temporary adverb or static location is

more likely to follow a verb in its imperfective form. In

contrast to that, the perfective verbal aspect expresses the

notion that the action has ended and therefore a directional

object can be expected to be added as an endpoint to that

action. In order to ensure that the tested verbs give the notion

of an action that takes place within a particular space and

may have a beginning and an end, only motion verbs are

included in the experiment.

The following section will go further into the verbal aspect

systems of Urum and Russian. The experimental method is

outlined in Section 3. Section 4 presents the obtained results.

In Section 5, possible interpretations of the results are

discussed. Section 6 concludes this study on spatial relations

in Urum.

2. Aspect in Urum and Russian

Aspect in Urum is grammaticalized through an imperfective

suffix which is realized as -ier or -er, the morphologically

unmarked form of the verb expresses the perfective aspect

(Skopeteas 2014). For Standard Turkish, this particular

verbal suffix for the imperfective form is realized as –iyor

(Göksel 2005). Göksel further describes the two possible

interpretations of a verb in the imperfective aspect in Turkish:

habitual and progressive. Whether the verb is understood as

an action being in progress or something that is done

habitually largely depends on the context. The same can be

said for Urum as there are no further morphological

distinctions within the imperfective verbal form.

Example (1) shows the use of the imperfective suffix in a

progressive sense which describes an ongoing state. Example

(2) shows the verb in its unmarked form since it describes a

single completed event in time.

Russian, however, exhibits three different verbal forms that

correspond to aspectual features.

Unlike in Urum, the morphologically unmarked verbal form

in Russian is the imperfective form. The perfective form is

typically prefixed with po-. However, as described in

Timberlake (2012), there is another level of distinction

within the imperfective form of the verb. Verbs of motion

have a determinate and indeterminate imperfective verb form.

The determinate imperfective form expresses a unidirectional

motion towards a goal which means it is used in a progressive

sense (see (6)). The indeterminate imperfective verb form

describes a habitual motion or action (see (7)).

(6) Mɨ jexa-l-i v Moskv-u.

1.PL go-PST-PL to Moscow-ACC

‘We were going to Moscow.’

(7) Ona jezdi-l-a v škol-u.

3.SG go-PST-F to school-ACC

‘She used to go to school.’

Example (4) in Section 1 shows an example of the prefixed

perfective verb form. It is noteworthy that the prefix po- can

express the perfective aspect only when added before the

indeterminate imperfective verb form. It creates the

inchoative aspect form when added before the determinate

imperfective verb form, as shown in (8):

(8) On po-b’eža-l v park.

3.SG PFV-run-PST.M to park[ACC]

‘He started to run to the park.’

Urum lacks the differentiation of determinate and

indeterminate verb forms within the imperfective aspect.

The structural differences in the aspectual forms exhibit a

morphological and semantic asymmetry between the

imperfective and perfective verbal aspect. The imperfective

aspect seems to carry additional meaning that is not

grammatically or morphologically realized.

3. Sentence completion task

The sentence completion task in this study is based on the

method used in the study by Tsimpli & Papadopoulou (2006).

The completion task was chosen in order to elicit a specific

type of adjunct or verb complement without giving subjects

the option of omitting this part even if it was syntactically and

grammatically acceptable.

In the imperfective condition, participants were expected to

complete the sentence fragments with a temporal adverb or

another non-directional adjunct to the verb. The perfective

condition was expected to elicit an object or complement that

could be identified as directional.

3.1 Method

3.1.1. Materials

Materials included a total of 16 experimental sentence

fragments which all followed an SV[O] word order, as shown

in (9) and (10):

(9) Bän-im ǧardaš-im ges-ier-ti […]

1.SG-GEN brother-POSS.1.SG go-IPFV-PST[3]

‘My brother was going […]’

(10) Belka-lar čöǧ-du-lar […]

Squirrel-PL climb-PST[3]-PL

‘The squirrels climbed […]’

Each sentence fragment started with a plural or singular

subject followed by a motion verb in past tense and in either

the perfective or imperfective aspect.

All items were presented to an experienced Urum speaker in

full Russian sentences to be translated into Urum. The

stimuli for this study were recorded by the same speaker.

These recordings were then edited in Praat. The last part

which contained the object was cut out of the recording so

that the sentence fragments ended right after the verb and

could be included in the experiment.

In addition, 22 filler sentences were taken from previous

recordings with different Urum speakers and edited the same

way as the experimental sentences for the experiment. They

were not solely recorded for the purpose of this study. Most

of the filler sentences followed the same structure and

Spatial relations in Urum

3

contained no motion verbs. All materials can be found in the

appendix below.

3.1.2 Procedure

Two lists were made from 22 filler sentence fragments and 16

experimental sentence fragments. The same filler items were

used in both lists. Each list contained half of the experimental

items, i.e. all 8 motion verbs in only one of the two verbal

aspects.

Participants heard each verb in either the perfective or the

imperfective aspect but never the same verb twice. In a quiet

room, each participant was asked to listen to 30 sentence

fragments. The task was to vocally complete each sentence

with an argument that seemed natural to them while being

recorded. To minimize noise and other kinds of distraction,

participants were given headphones. All instructions were

given in Russian.

3.1.3. Participants

Four female Urum speakers who are also fluent in Russian

and Georgian took part in the experiment. All reported to be

proficient in Urum.

4. Results

After all data were collected, the participants’ completions of

the sentences were analyzed and categorized into two

categories: directional and non-directional.

Only experimental items were taken into account. Each

speaker completed 4 sentence fragments containing a verb in

the imperfective form and 4 sentence fragments containing a

verb in the perfective form. This results in 16 items in each

condition and 32 items in total.

Locative objects used by the speakers were analyzed as non-

directional adjuncts as they describe a static relation (see

(11)). Dative objects were categorized as directional

complements (see (12)).

(11) Ušax juvarlan-ier-di jerd-e

child crawl-IMPF-PST floor-LOC

‘The child was crawling on the floor.’

(12) O üz-di göl-ä

she swim-PST lake-DAT

‘She swam into the lake.’

The obtained data almost exclusively consisted of nouns.

Participants did not use temporal adverbs; however, locative

adverbs were produced by two speakers:

(13) Ǧuš-lar uč-du-lar joǧuša joǧuša.

Bird-PL fly-PST-PL up up

‘The birds flew up, up.’

(14) Ǧuš-lar uč-er-di-lar uzaǧ

Bird-PL fly-IMPF-PST-PL far

‘The birds were flying far.’

The occurrences of the two types of complements provided by

the speakers were counted and are illustrated in Table 1:

Table 1: Number of occurrences

Imperfective aspect Perfective aspect

n % n %

Non-directional

adjuncts

10 62.5 6 37.5

Directional

complements

6 37.5 10 62.5

In the imperfective condition 62.5 % of all completions were

non-directional adjuncts while the remaining 37.5 % were

directional complements. In the perfective condition, ten out

of 16 completions, i.e. 62.5 %, were directional complements

and 37.5 % were non-directional. Percentages depending on

condition are illustrated below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Percentages of verb complements and adjuncts

0

20

40

60

80

100

Imperfective

aspect

Perfective

aspect

Directional

complement

Non-Directional

adjunct

5. Discussion

The results fortify the initial hypothesis. The majority of

sentence fragments in the imperfective condition were

completed with non-directional adjuncts and with directional

complements in the perfective condition. However, since no

temporal adverbs were produced by the speakers in the

imperfective condition there is no evidence for a durational or

temporal notion that is inherent to the imperfective verbal

aspect. It is possible that the experimental design was not

precise enough to elicit this type of complement.

Nevertheless, there is strong evidence for the notion of

directionality in the perfective aspect and a clear preference

for the imperfective form of motion verbs to describe a static

relation.

The structural asymmetry between aspectual forms mentioned

above in Section 2 raises the question why the differences

exist and how they are related to the findings in this study.

The reason for these preferences may lie in the telicity of

motion verbs. A preference for one aspectual form over

another was described in Tsimpli & Papadopoulou (2006) as

well but gains additional meaning for the study at hand

because the results were achieved with motion verbs. Motion

verbs in the imperfective form were interpreted as atelic and

as telic in their perfective form which caused speakers to add

a goal to sentence fragments in the perfective condition in

more than half of the cases. The perfective verb forms may

encourage a telic interpretation of the verbs because it

Valeria Benner

4

contains the notion of a specific goal. Imperfective verb

forms, however, seem to evoke the need of a location to

describe where the action is taking place rather than where

the motion is directed to. By adding a locative object, the

location provides a boundary in which the motion can take

place.

Semantically, speakers could be less likely to choose a

directional complement with the imperfective verb form

because they may feel there is a certain kind of

incompatibility of two concepts: directionality manifested in a

concrete goal and the imperfectivity of an ongoing motion

which by definition should lack such a goal.

6. Conclusion

This study was conducted to investigate the interaction

between verbal aspect of motion verbs and directional

complements. Urum speakers participated in a sentence

completion task in which motion verbs were presented in

their imperfective or perfective form. The hypothesis

suggested that sentence fragments containing the imperfective

aspectual verb form would be completed with non-directional

adjuncts while sentence fragments containing the perfective

aspect would more likely be completed with a directional

complement. Results showed that speakers had a clear

preference for non-directional adjuncts in sentences with the

imperfective aspect and preferred directional objects in

sentences with the perfective aspect. These findings support

the hypothesis. In accordance with Tsimpli & Papadopoulou’s

(2006) findings, the results supports the idea that verbal

aspect has an influence not only on object realization but can

to some extent predict the specific type of

complement/adjunct (directional or non-directional) that will

be realized in the sentence.

7. Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the native speakers for their help and

participation, Violeta Moisidi for her continual willingness to

help and for kindly providing our group with a place to stay,

my fellow students for the most helpful discussions and

remarks and Stavros Skopeteas for his never-ending patience

and indispensable advice.

8. Abbreviations

ABL : ablative ; ACC : accusative ; DAT: dative; IPFV :

imperfective ; NOM: nominative; PFV : perfective ; PL:

plural; PREP : prepositional ; PST: past ; SG: singular.

References

Göksel, Aslı. 2005. TURKISH: A COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMAR.

Routledge.

Skopeteas, Stavros. 2014. Caucasian Urum people and Urum language.

Submitted to the Handbook of Endangered Turkic Languages.

Eds. Süer Eker and Ülkü Çelik.

Timberlake, Alan. 2012. A Reference Grammar of Russian.

Cambridge University Press.

Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria & Despina Papadopoulou. 2006. Aspect and

argument realization: A study on antecedentless null objects in

Greek. Lingua, 2006, 116, 10,1595.

Appendix I: List of stimuli

List 1

ambu av This house is

säna ošüri, san For you, you are

ušax genä The child again

bänim ǧardašim gesierti My brother was walking

o aǧaš That tree is

bu su savsem This water is very

o bäni ogrätti She explained to me

učenik ǧacherdi The student ran

qöv burdan The village is located

banim babam amasha My father is always

bän gördum ölda I saw many

ǧušlar učdular The birds flew

bänim birzaman varidi I once had

petrosun jebinda Petrus has in his pocket

bän unuttum qi siz bögün I forgot that you are

belkalar čöǧierdilar The squirrels were climbing

bu kastruläda vardir In this pot, there is

itlärin var Dogs have

o üzierdi She was swimming

bu emaqtä var In the food, there is

gälän eli bänim olajax Next year I will have

o getti He drove

banim kövimda vardir In my village, there is

o nagisiqi getti, oni The one who left is the one

ušaxlar sučerdilar The children jumped

sannan oǧlun birbiriza You and your son are

aqmäk ederlär The bread is made from

ušax juvarlandi The child crawled

bän tezdän istieram gidäm I want to go early to

bän daima düshünierim bänim I always think about

Valeria Benner

6

List 2

ambu av This house is

säna ošüri, san For you, you are

ušax genä The child again

o üzdi She swam

o aǧaš That tree is

bu su savsem This water is very

o bäni ogrätti She explained to me

ušax juvarlanierdi The child was crawling

qöv burdan The village is located

banim babam amasha My father is always

bän gördum ölda I saw many

bänim ǧardašim getti My brother went

bänim birzaman varidi I once had

petrosun jebinda Petrus has in his pocket

bän unuttum qi siz bögün I forgot that you are

ušaxlar sučerierdilar The children were jumping

bu kastruläda vardir In this pot, there is

itlärin var Dogs have

belkalar čöǧdular The squirrels climbed

bu emaqtä var In the food, there is

gälän eli bänim olajax Next year I will have

ǧušlar učerdilar The bird were flying

banim kövimda vardir In my village, there is

o nagisiqi getti, oni The one who left is the one

učenik ǧachdi The student ran

sannan oǧlun birbiriza You and your son are

aqmäk ederlär The bread is made from

o getierdi He was driving

bän tezdän istieram gidäm I want to go early to

bän daima düshünierim bänim I always think about

Spatial relations in Urum

7

Appendix II: List of results

Stimulus Completion

učenik ǧach-er-di dut-maja su-da student run-IMPF-PST catch-X water-DAT The student was running to catch in the water.

učenik ǧach-er-di gazm-ä student run-IMPF-PST walk-DAT The student was running to the walk/outing.

ǧuš-lar uč-er-di-lar uzaǧ bird-PL fly-IMPF-PST-PL far The birds were flying far.

ǧuš-lar uč-er-di-lar ǧape-da bird-PL fly-IMPF-PST-PL street-LOC The birds were flying outside.

o üz-ier-di su-vin ič-in-da she swim-IMPF-PST water-GEN inside-3.POSS.SG-LOC She was swimming in the water.

o üz-ier-di su-in ič-in-dä she swim-IMPF-PST water-GEN inside-3.POSS.SG-LOC She was swimming in the water.

o get-ier-di iš-in-ä he drive-IMPF-PST work-POSS.3.SG-DAT He was driving to her/his work.

o get-ier-di mišä-ä he drive-IMPF-PST woods-DAT He was driving to the woods.

bän-im ǧardaš-im ges-ier-ti pragulga-da me-GEN brother-GEN walk-IMPF-PST walk-LOC My brother was walking on a walk.

bän-im ǧardaš-im ges-ier-ti ulitsa-da me-GEN brother-GEN walk-IMPF-PST street-LOC My brother was walking in the street.

ušax-lar sučer-ier-di-lar ǧape-da child-PL jump-IMPF-PL street-LOC The children were jumping outside.

ušax-lar sučer-ier-di-lar ürtü-dä child-PL jump-IMPF-PL bed-LOC The children were jumping in the bed.

belkalar čöǧ-ier-di-lar čam-in üst-ün-a squirrel-PL climb-IMPF-PST-PL tree-GEN topside-POSS.3.SG-DAT The squirrels were climbing on the tree.

belkalar čöǧ-ier-di-lar čam-a squirrel-PL climb-IMPF-PST-PL tree-DAT The squirrels were climbing onto the tree.

ušax juvarlan-ier-di jerd-e child crawl-IMPF-PST floor-LOC The child was crawling on the floor.

ušax juvarlan-ier-di ürtij-ä child crawl-IMPF-PST bed-DAT The child was crawling into the bed.

učenik ǧach-di škola-dan student run-PST school-ABL The student ran out of the school.

učenik ǧach-di ǧapi-da student run-PST street-LOC The student ran outside.

ǧuš-lar uč-du-lar joǧuša joǧuša bird-PL fly-PST-PL up up The birds flew up up.

ǧuš-lar uč-du-lar gög-ä bird-PL fly-PST-PL sky-DAT The birds flew to the sky.

o üz-di göl-ä she swim-PST lake-DAT She swam into the lake.

o üz-di suda she swim-PST here She swam (to) here.

o get-ti daǧ-in baš-in-a he drive-PST mountain-GEN top-POSS.3.SG-DAT He drove to the mountain top.

o get-ti gäzm-ä he drive-PST walk-DAT He drove to the walk/outing.

bän-im ǧardaš-im get-ti armia-ja me-GEN brother-GEN go-PST army-DAT My brother went to the army.

bän-im ǧardaš-im get-ti oǧomä-a me-GEN brother-GEN go-PST studies-DAT My brother went to study/to university/to school.

ušax-lar sučer-di-lar daǧ-in baš-in-a child-PL jump-PST-PL mountain-GEN top-POSS.3.SG-DAT The children jumped on (to) the top of the hill.

ušax-lar sučer-di-lar čam-da child-PL jump-PST-PL tree-LOC The children jumped in the tree.

belka-lar čöǧ-du-lar čam-in baš-in-a squirrel-PL climb-PST-PL tree-GEN top-POSS.3.SG-DAT The squirrels climbed to the top of the tree.

belka-lar čöǧ-du-lar čali-lar-a squirrel-PL climb-PST-PL tree-PL-DAT The squirrels climbed onto the trees.

ušax juvarlan-di pol-ün üst-ün-da child crawl-PST floor-GEN topside-POSS.3.SG-LOC The child crawled on the floor.

ušax juvarlan-di ürtü-dä child crawl-PST bed-LOC The child crawled in the bed.

 

Expression of Spatial Relations in Russian and in Urum: Topside Relations

Alina Lobanova

University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany alinlobanova@yandex.ru

Abstract

This paper examines the expressions of spatial relations in superior space in Russian and in Urum. In both languages, the basic pre-and postpositions were explored considering the role of contact in the vertical axis. The results showed that in Urum only the feature of superior is relevant for determining topside relations, while in Russian the feature of contact is crucial. Index Terms: spatial relations, topside relations, contact, Russian, Urum, vertical axis

1. Introduction

The present study is dedicated to the ways of expressions of spatial relations in superior space in Russian and in Urum. The goal of the study is to discover the role of vertical axis and the criteria of contact and without contact prepositions in determining topside relations. The research question is as follows: Which factor denotes spatial relation in topside space in Urum? The hypothesis of the present study is that the vertical relation of üst- to the topside of the reference object (RO) must be crucial in Urum. The research is based on the interviews with Urum native speakers who were asked to describe the pictures presented to them. Audio files with Urum data are used for this study.

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Ways of encoding spatial relations The meaning of locative expression is based on two essential features: the meaning of spatial prepositions (‘containment’, ‘support’, ‘contiguity’); and the level of ‘geometric conceptualization’ [1]. According to Herskovits (1985), the prepositional category is organized around a focal relation, the ideal meaning. Thus the uses of the preposition can be subcategorized into use types which correspond to different senses, and each subclass manifests the ideal meaning, but after some transformation. Šarić (2003) also states that the prepositional category as a whole is structured by resemblance to an idealised relation [2]. The central idea connected with prototypical meaning of a preposition is reflected by it. The spatial relation which is expressed in any particular use of the preposition is derived from that idealised relation. A simple relation, according to Šarić, exists that is a “precondition” for an expression construed with a preposition to be acceptable [2, p. 188]. Šarić claims that prepositions have a certain kind of meaning. The meaning of prepositions can be even more complex than the meanings of other lexical categories, however the nature of this meaning has not been definitely determined yet [2].

The level of “geometric conceptualization” mediates between people’s naive representation of the physical world and the application of locative terms. Herskovits argues that “prepositional meaning applies in effect to schematic images (geometric descriptions) matched onto the objects” [1, p. 343]. Contextual factors bear on the choice and interpretation of a locative expression: relevance, salience, tolerance, typicality. Some pragmatic principles relating to these can explain many characteristics of the situation of use. Then the following question recurs: which aspects of the locative expressions’ meaning are arbitrary, and which are motivated? Languages differ with respect to the lexicalization of the conceptual distinction between the region “Superior and Contact” (e.g. English on), i.e. in a place which is higher than the landmark and in contact to it, and the region “Superior and Non-Contact” (e.g. English above), i.e. in a place which is higher than the landmark and without contact to it. Both concepts are examples of the superordinate concept of “Superior”. It is the space in the positive domain of a vertical coordinate which originates at the landmark. The Superior spatial region contains the space in the positive domain of the vertical lines that fall within the outline of the landmark. The subordinate concepts combine the concept of Superior with the Contact / Non-Contact concepts. It is important that the Contact concept does not necessarily imply physical contact between the localized object and the landmark. Languages can be divided into ones that lexicalize the subordinate concepts, e.g. German and Russian; ones that only lexicalize the superordinate concept, e.g. Korean; ones lexicalizing the superordinate concept and one of the subordinate concepts, e.g. Nanafwe; and ones lexicalizing the superordinate concept in one paradigm of local relators and the subordinate concepts in another, e.g. Modern Greek. In this study the basic pre-and postpositions are explored in Russian and Urum considering the role of vertical axis and the criteria of contact and without contact prepositions. 2.2. Outline of the article The relevant properties of the grammatical system of the Russian and Urum languages are presented in section 3. Section 4 explains the methodology of the study. The obtained results are presented in section 5 with a final conclusion being drawn in chapter 6. In section 7 the author acknowledges the people contributed to the study. Section 8 presents the list of references and is followed by an Appendix containing the set of pictures used as stimuli for the research.

3. The languages at issue In the following subsections the author observes some aspects of Russian and Urum grammar to be able to explore

Alina Lobanova

10

10

expressions of spatial relations in superior space in these languages.

3.1. Russian The Russian language, ranking fifth in number of native speakers (after Chinese, English, Hindi and Spanish), is one of the world's major languages and the most widely spoken language in Europe - both geographically and in the number of native speakers. The structure of the modern Russian language has some features that distinguish it from other languages. Russian is an inflected and synthetic language. There are 6 cases in Russian, and all cases, except the nominative one, can be used with prepositions. The combination between prepositions and cases in Russian is quite complicated as some prepositions can be used in more than one case. Cases along with prepositions can encode both static and dynamic spatial relations in Russian [3]. There are a great number of spatial prepositions in the Russian language. As it has been mentioned above Russian lexicalizes the subordinate concepts. The two main prepositions are used to express the meaning of being in a place which is higher than the landmark (i.e. on and above it): they are na and nad. The central meaning of na + prepositional is ‘on, on top of’ (see example 1). (1) Knigy na polke. ‘The books are on the shelf.’ This preposition has a number of other meanings when combined with other cases. E.g. it takes the accusative to denote movent to a place or position: (2) Poidem na ozero. ‘Let’s go to the lake.’ The preposition nad is used with the instrumental case only. It means ‘over,’ ‘above’, whether motion is involved or not (3): (3) Polka nad stolom. ‘ The shelf is over the table.’ Nad does not take the accusative to denote movement to a position. According to Šarić (2003), it seems important that the object under consideration and the landmark are conceptualised as a part of the same mental image. In this mental image an imagined vertical line binds one object of the image with the other [2]. She argues that the semantic component of closeness is a common element of the meaning of the Russian prepositions na and nad, but the relation expressed by nad, unlike na does not signal direct contact [2]. Thus the contexts in which the preposition na appears in its prototypical meaning in Russian include not only the location on the higher level, but also a notion of closeness (direct contact). 3.2. Urum Caucasian Urum is a language spoken by a minority Greek population in Georgia. Urum speakers identify themselves as Turkish-speaking Pontic Greeks who left Anatolia at the beginning of the 19th century [4]. This language should not to be confused with the Urum language spoken in Turkey and the Urum language spoken in Ukraine (the Crimean Urum). The language is considered as endangered now and it is important to note that it has no writing. A major group of Urum people immigrated to the highlands of K’vemo K’art’li, where they are still living today, and conserved the variety of the Turkish language spoken by their ancestors before their emigration. The language was enriched by influences from some languages in their new environment,

in particular from the Russian language, as Urum people are bilingual in Russian. Nowadays Urum has substantial similarities with the Turkish dialects of Anatolia, however it also displays some unique developments as well as properties that can be traced back to the influences from the Russian language (e.g., in the use of subordinate clauses). The currently spoken Urum language has a great amount of borrowings from Russian [4]. The Russian influence is the reason why it is necessary to compare the ways of expressions of spatial relations in superior space in Russian and in Urum. The Urum language, beyond the spatial use of dative, has three purely thematic case suffixes: the locative suffix -dA that expresses static location, the ablative suffix -dAn that expresses the origin of motion, also used as a partitive, and the instrumental suffix -(I)nIn/-(I)nAn used for comitatives and instruments [4]. The locative case suffix –da is typically used to convey spatial location, like in the Turkish language [5]. The Urum language also has an item “üstündä” inherited from Turkish. According to Kornfilt (1997) to express the meaning “Superior – contact” (long object) they use üst- un –de that means a motion ‘along (on top of)’ in Turkish [6]. To express the motion past surface (long object) they use -DA / -DAn; üst- un -de(n) It means ‘along’ [5]. Thus the Uruam language has several means to express the spatial relations in superior space.

4. Methodology

Four native speakers of the Urum language were recruited for the study that took place in 2015 in Georgia. The stimuli consisted of 24 pictures (see the Appendix). Each picture depicted two objects arranged in a particular way – one on or above another (book/shelf, cloud/mountain, cat/mat, etc.). The informants were asked to describe the pictures using the necessary means of expressing the spatial relations in superior place. The answers were recorded with a dictating machine and then analysed.

5. Results

5.1. Spatial relations in superior space in Russian The two Russian prepositions expressing the spatial relations in superior space have been analysed, namely na and nad. Their general meanings have been discussed above. Their usage in contexts have been analysed and compared. It has been detected that speakers of the Russian language always include the concept of contact / non-contact in their descriptions, irrespective of the relevance for the discourse situation. In case of the spatial relations in superior space with contact na is used in Russian, e.g. (4) Chashka na stole. ‘The cup is on the table.’ In case of the spatial relations in superior space without contact nad is used in Russian, e.g. (5) Oblako nad goroi. ‘The cloud is above the mountain.’ It has been proved that the semantic component of closeness is a common element of the meaning of the prepositions na and nad in Russian, but the relation expressed by nad does not signal direct contact, unlike na. In case of the direct contact na

Expression of Spatial Relations in Russian and in Urum: Topside Relations

11

11

is used, and in case of non-contact nad is used. Thus in Russian the criterion of contact and without contact is crucial along with the criterion of vertical axis for determining topside relations. 5.2. Spatial relations in superior space in Urum The data presented in this section were collected with native speakers of Urum in 2015 in Georgia. The findings were as follows. When the native speakers saw a picture of an object situated directly on the surface of another object or directly above it they used the item üst-. Thus the item üst- in Urum is used in the sense of ‘top, top surface /above’. In case of the spatial relations in superior space with contact üst-ün-dä is used in Urum in the meaning of ‘on’, e.g. (6) Polka-nin üst-ün-dä kniga. shelf -GEN. top-3.SG-LOC. book ‘The book is on the shelf.’ In case of the spatial relations in superior space without contact üst-ün-dä is used in Urum in the meaning of ‘above’, e.g. (7) Daɣ-in üst-ün-dä bulut. mountain-GEN. top -3.SG -LOC. cloud ‘The cloud is above the mountain.’ However, if an object was not directly on or above the horizontal surface the native speakers used the locative -da, e.g (5-7). (8) Cham-da alma asilir. tree -LOC. apple hang ‘There is an apple hanging on the tree.’ (9) Duvar-da asilir chakil. wall -LOC. hang 3.SG picture ‘There is a picture hanging on the wall.’ (10) Cham-da alma asilir. tree -LOC. apple hang ‘There is an apple hanging on the tree.’ However in the following case üst-ün-dä is used: (11) Cham-in üst-ün-dä alma-lar. tree -GEN. top -3.SG -LOC. apple -PL ‘There are apples hanging on the tree.’ The examples presented above prove that in the Urum language only the criterion of vertical axis is relevant for determining topside relations, and the criterion of contact and without contact is not crucial. At the same time it should be noted that Urum speakers frequently do not use an expression of topside relation at all.

6. Conclusion

Returning to the questions posed at the beginning of this article (“Which factor denotes spatial relation in topside space in Urum?”), it may be possible to conclude that in the Urum language only the criterion of vertical axis is relevant for determining topside relations, and, unlike the Russian language, the criterion of contact and without contact is not crucial in this language. Thus the data obtained reveal two differences between languages: (a) with respect to the expression of contact, (b) with respect to the obligatoriness of expressing the notion of superior.

It is now also possible to state that my findings support my hypothesis about a crucial role of vertical axis in denoting spatial relations in topside space in Urum.

7. Abbreviations

RO – reference object.

8. Acknowledgements

The author thanks the native speakers of Urum for their help.

9. References [1] Herskovits A. (1985) Semantics and Pragmatics of Locative Expressions. Institute of Cognitive Studies. University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 [2] Šarić L. (2003) Prepositional categories and prototypes: Contrasting some Russian, Slovenian, Croatian and Polish examples. Jezikoslovlje: 187-204. [3] Kemple B. (1993) Essential Russian Grammar. Dover Publications. [4] Skopeteas S. (2013) The Caucasian Urums and the Urum Language. TDD/ JofEL Winter 2013 [5] Göksel A.; Kerslake C. (2006) Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Taylor & Francis e-Library www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk [6] Kornfilt J. (1997) Turkish. Routledge. London EC4P 4EE.

.

Alina Lobanova

12

12

Appendix

13  

 

Die Realisierung von statischen Raumrelationen im Urum

Postpositionen üst- und ič-

Bernadeta Zajac

Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Deutschland

bernadeta.zajac@gmail.com

Abstract

The static spatial relations were investigated delving into the range of uses of two kinds of terms: obligatory generalized spatial terms (locative case) and facultative specific spatial terms (postpositions). The findings show the interplay between semantic and pragmatic elements that determine the use of the latter. Index Terms: static spatial relations, postpositions, locative case, on, in.

1. Einleitung

Urum ist eine Minderheitensprache in der Region Trialeti in Georgien (Kleiner Kaukasus), die von einer griechischen Bevölkerungsgruppe gesprochen wird. Diese griechische Gemeinde ist Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts aus der östlichen Region der Türkei (Kars) in den Kaukasus ausgewandert. Urum ist stark von Türkisch, Russisch, Armenisch und pontischem Griechisch beeinflusst. Nach den Ergebnissen der Volkszählung aus dem Jahr 2006 ist die Anzahl der Urumsprecher in der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts drastisch gesunken und betrug ca. 1500 Personen. Somit zählt Urum zu den bedrohten Sprachen. (vgl. [7])

In diesem Artikel werden die Ergebnisse einer Studie zu Raumrelationen im Urum dargestellt, die im Rahmen einer Feldforschung in Tiflis realisiert wurde. Der Fokus der Studie wurde auf Postpositionen üst- und ič- und deren Verbindlichkeitsgrad zum Ausdruck von statischen Raumrelationen gelegt.

Im Anschluss an die Einleitung werden die Grundlagen der Raumrelationen im Urum erläutert. Im Einzelnen wird auf die Kasusmarkierungen und die Postpositionen eingegangen. Im dritten Teil wird die Studie mitsamt der Fragestellung, der Methode und der Ergebnisse dargestellt. Anschließend werden die gewonnenen Erkenntnisse im Hinblick auf die Fragestellung diskutiert und interpretiert und es wird ein Ausblick zur Weiterforschung geboten.

2. Die Realisierung der Raumrelationen im Urum –

Ausgangspunkt

Das Urum ist eine agglutinierende Sprache mit SOV-Stellung. Somit ist die Stellung der determinierten Konstituenten links von der determinierenden Konstituente. Im Einklang mit diesem Prinzip werden auch die Raumrelationen mit nachgestellten sprachlichen Mitteln zum Ausdruck gebracht.

2.1.Kasusmarkierung

Die elementar lokalen Beziehungen werden mit Kasussuffixen (-da/-a/-dan) am Bezugsobjekt realisiert. Hierbei besitzen diese Kasussuffixe keinen eigenen Bedeutungsanteil. Lokativ: statische Lokalisierung

(1) biz-ım halh baš-tan yaš-ier-di 1.PL-GEN people first live-IPFV-PST turcia-da Turkey-LOC ‘First our people lived in Turkey.’

14  

Dativ: dynamische Lokalisierung, zielgerichtet

(2) gäl-dı-lär beštaš-a come-PST-3.PL Beshtasheni-DAT ‚They came to Bestasheni.‘

Ablativ: dynamische Lokalisierung, ursprungs-bestimmt

(3) sora bur-dan gurǰü-lär get-tı-lär then this.place-ABL Georgian-PL go-PST-3.PL ‘Then Georgian left from this place.’

2.2 Postpositionen

Des Weiteren existieren im Urum Postpositionen, die einer präziseren Bestimmung der Relation zwischen einem zu lokalisierenden Objekt (LO) und einem Bezugsobjekt (BO) dienen. Analog zu den türkischen Postpositionen können sie als „unechte“ Verhältniswörter (vgl. [8]) bezeichnet werden. Ursprünglich sind sie nämlich Substantive, die aber eine postpositionale Funktion erfüllen. Sie flektieren wie Nomen, stimmen mit der Person ihrer Ergänzung überein und sind immer kasusmarkiert. Dem Bezugswort werden sie in genitivischer Verbindung nachgestellt. üst = die obere Seite üst-POSS.Ergänzung-LOC → oberhalb, auf

(4) kletka-nın üst-ün-da Käfig-GEN auf-POSS.3.SG-LOC ‘auf dem Käfig‘

ič = die innere Seite ič- POSS.Ergänzung-LOC → innerhalb, in

(5) kastrülka-nın ič-in-da Schmortopf-GEN in-POSS.3.SG-LOC ‘im Schmortopf‘ 

In dem Sätzekorpus zu Urum [9] sind dennoch Beispiele zu finden, in denen die Relationen zwischen LO und BO, die eine Inklusion oder Superiorität auf der vertikalen Achse auszudrücken haben, ohne jegliche Postpositionen und lediglich mithilfe einer Kasusendung realisiert werden.

(6) kastrulya-nın ič-in-da su Schmortopf-GEN in-POSS.3.SG-LOC Wasser ‘Wasser im Schmortopf‘

Aber auch:

 (7) kastrulka-da su Schmortopf-LOC Wasser 

‘Wasser im Schmortopf‘

 

3. Empirischer Teil

3.1 Fragestellung

In dieser Studie soll die Realisierung der statischen Raumrelationen im Urum am Beispiel der Postpositionen üst- und ič- untersucht werden. Hierbei soll den Fragen nachgegangen werden, inwiefern der Gebrauch dieser Postpositionen zwingend notwendig ist und in welchen Fällen die statischen Raumrelationen zwischen zwei Objekten ausschließlich mittels des Lokativsuffixes realisiert werden können.

3.2 Methode

In der Studie wurden vier erwachsene urumische Muttersprachler im Alter zwischen 25 und 45 interviewt. Als Stimuli dienten 15 Bilder im DIN- A4-Format aus dem Set von Bowerman (vgl. [1]), auf denen statische Raumrelationen (Inklusion, Superiorität auf der vertikalen Achse) zwischen zwei Objekten (LO und BO) abgebildet waren. Einige Bilder wurden zwecks Erzeugung weniger typischen Situationen teilweise modifiziert. Das LO war mit einem Pfeil markiert. Bild 1 Bild 2

Alle Stimuli sind im Appendix einzusehen. Die Probanden wurden gebeten, die Frage „Wo ist (LO)?“ zu beantworten und dabei alle möglichen Antworten zu nennen. Die Antworten wurden mithilfe eines Aufnahmegeräts festgehalten.

3.3 Ergebnisse

Es konnten zwei Tendenzen zur Auswahl von Markierung von einer Relation zwischen LO und BO festgestellt werden:

Kasusmarkierung (K) oder Postposition (P) Wenn die Lage eines Objekts in Relation zu einem Bezugsobjekt kanonisch ist, ist die Markierung mit einer Postposition fakultativ. Bei der kanonischen Situierung des Objekts handelt es sich um solche, die bereits aus dem Weltwissen eindeutig klar ist.

15  

Im Sinne der Konversationsmaxime der Quantität von Grice (vgl. [4]) („Gestalte deinen Beitrag so informativ wie möglich, aber nicht informativer als nötig“) ist es somit nicht zwingend notwendig, diese Raumrelation explizit zu markieren.

(8) Target: Das Kaninchen ist im Käfig. (vgl (8a) K: krolik kletka-da Kaninchen Käfig-LOC (8b) P: krolik kletka-nın ič-ın-da Kaninchen Käfig-GEN in-POS.3.SG-LOC

(9) Target: Der Bleistift ist auf dem Tisch. (9a) K: stol-da karandaš Tisch-LOC Bleistift (9b) P: stol-un üst-ün-da var karandaš Tisch-GEN oben-POSS.3.SG sein.3.SG Bleistift

(10) Target: Die Katze ist auf dem Teppich. (10a) K: pısık halı-da Katze Matte-LOC (10b) P: pısık oturer hali-nın üst-ün-da  Katze sitzen.3.SG Matte-GEN oben- POSS.3.SG-LOC

Obwohl es sich bei einem Tisch, Käfig oder Teppich um ganze Objekte handelt, ist jeweils einer ihrer Teile (Oberfläche oder die innere Seite) salienter und steht unter normalen Verwendungsbedingungen für das ganze Objekt (vgl. [5]). Somit bezieht sich eine kanonische Relation zwischen einem Bleistift und einem Tisch auf dessen Oberfläche. In solchen Situationen ist die Verwendung der Postpositionen nicht zwingend notwendig, da die Relation bereits durch die Lokativmarkierung eindeutig ist.

Postposition (P)

Postpositionen werden in jenen Situationen stark eingesetzt, in denen die Relation zwischen LO und BO markiert ist und sich von der kanonischen unterscheidet.

(11) Target: Das Kaninchen ist auf dem Käfig. P: krolik kletka-nın üst-ün-da Kaninchen Käfig-GEN oben-POSS.3.SG-LOC

Die bloße Markierung mit der Lokativendung würde in diesem Fall zu falscher Interpretation der Relation führen, siehe (8a): „Das Kaninchen ist im Käfig.“ (12) Target: Der Apfel ist auf der Schüssel. P: vaza-nın üst-ün-dä Schüssel-GEN oben-POSS.3.SG-LOC

(13) Target: Der Apfel ist im Schuh. P: tuflı-nın ıč-ın-da alma Schuh-GEN in-POS.3.SG-LOC Apfel

Im Falle von (12) und (13), handelt es um untypische und somit markierte Relationen zwischen LO und BO. Demzufolge würde das Weglassen der Postpositionen verschiedene Interpretationsmöglichkeiten auslösen. Um der Konversationsmaxime der Relevanz von Grice (vgl. [4]) („Sei relevant“) gerecht zu werden, ist die quantitative Markierung der Raumrelation notwendig.

4. Diskussion

Durch die Ergebnisse dieser Studie konnte aufgezeigt werden, dass Postpositionen im Urum nicht obligatorisch zum Ausdruck von statischen Raumrelationen sind. Solche Relationen werden zwingend mittels Lokativsuffixes -da realisiert. Komplexe lokale Beziehungen können zusätzlich durch eine Präzisierung des Bezugsobjekts durch Postpositionen ausgedrückt werden. Über die Notwendigkeit des Gebrauchs der Postpositionen entscheidet jedoch in erster Linie nicht deren Semantik, sondern vielmehr eine Vielzahl von pragmatischen Prinzipien. Die Verwendung der Postpositionen scheint dann notwendig zu sein, wenn das zu lokalisierende Objekt und das Bezugsobjekt nicht in einem kanonischen Verhältnis zueinander stehen und somit dieses Verhältnis ein zusätzliches semantisches Element trägt, was im Einklang mit dem Prinzip des konstruktionellen Ikonismus von Pierce (vgl. [6]) steht. In der sprachlichen Strukturbildung ist nämlich die Tendenz zu erkennen, inhaltliche Komplexität ikonisch abzubilden. Markierte und somit inhaltlich komplexere Kategorien werden durch ein formelles „Mehr“ ausgedrückt, um den Informationsfluss zu vereinfachen. Das Weglassen der Postpositionen könnte in solchem Fall zu Missverständnissen führen. Nach Givón (vgl. [2]) "The less predictable/accessible/continuous a topic is, the more coding material is used to represent it in language". Dies entspricht dem Kooperations-prinzip und insbesondere den Konversations-maximen der Relevanz („Sei relevant“) und der Quantität („Gestalte deinen Beitrag so informativ wie möglich, aber nicht informativer als nötig“) von Grice. (vgl. [4]) Diese Erkenntnisse lassen die Vermutung nahe, dass im Urum Informationen über Raumrelationen häufig aus dem gemeinsamen

16  

Diskurswissen entnommen werden, ohne dass diese durch die Wahl einer entsprechenden Postposition explizit ausgedrückt werden müssen.

5. Fazit und Ausblick

Die vorliegende Forschungsarbeit hatte zum Ziel die Realisierung der statischen Raumrelationen am Beispiel der Postpositionen üst- und ič‐  zu überprüfen. Es konnte gezeigt werden, dass diese Postpositionen nur in bestimmten Fällen notwendig sind, in denen semantische und pragmatische Elemente eine Rolle spielen. Aufgrund der geringen Datenmenge erhebt die vorliegende Studie nicht den Anspruch, allgemein gültige Aussagen zu machen. Die aus dieser Arbeit gewonnenen Erkenntnisse sollen vielmehr als Beitrag und Ausblick für weitere Untersuchungen dienen, die mit einer größeren Muttersprachlergruppe unter Einbeziehung weiterer Postpositionen der statisch relationierenden Prozedur, sowie der Positionsverben (liegen, stehen, hängen usw.) durchgeführt werden sollten, um die gewonnenen Erkenntnisse zu bestätigen und ein breiteres Bild über die Realisierung der statischen Raumrelationen zu gewinnen.

5. Danksagung

An dieser Stelle möchte ich mich zum einen beim Herrn Prof. Dr. Stavros Skopeteas bedanken, der die Feldforschungsreise nach Georgien ermöglicht hat und mit wertvollen Ratschlägen die Durchführung des Projekts fortwährend unterstützt hat. Zum anderen geht ein besonderer Dank an Violeta Moisidi für ihre tatkräftige Hilfe insbesondere bei der Organisation und Koordination von Probanden, Übersetzungs-arbeiten, sowie große Gastfreundschaft während des Aufenthalts in Tiflis.

6. Abkürzungen

ABL: Ablativ; DAT: Dativ; GEN: Genitiv; IPFV: imperfektiv; LOC: Lokativ; PL: Plural; POSS: Possessor; PST: Vergangenheit; SG: Singular

Referenzen

[1] Bowerman, Melissa; Pederson, Eric (1992): Topological relations picture series. In: Levinson, Stephen C. (Ed.): Space stimuli kit 1.2: November 1992, 51. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

[2] Givón, T.(1985): Iconicity, Isomorphism, and

Non-arbitrary Coding in Syntax. In: J. 

Haiman (ed.) (1985a). 187‐219.

[3] Grießhaber, Wilhelm (1999): Die relationierende Prozedur. Zu Grammatik und Pragmatik lokaler Präpositionen und ihrer Verwendung durch türkische Deutschlerner. Münster/New York: Waxmann.

[4] Grice, Paul (1989): Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Univ. Pr.

[5] Herskovitz, Annette (1985): Semantics and Pragmatics of Locative Expressions. In: Cognitive Science 9, 341-378.

[6] Mayerthaler, Willi (1980): Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Linguistische Forschungen, 28. Wiesbaden: Akad. Verl.-Ges. Athenaion.

[7] Skopeteas, Stavros. Universität Bielefeld (2015): Urum. Dokumentation Project. http://urum.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/ (06.04.2015)

[8] Tekinay, Alev (1984/85): Die Wiedergabe der deutschen Präpositionen im Türkischen. In: Die Muttersprache 95/1984-85, 20-29.

[9] Verhoeven, Elisabeth; Moisidi, Violeta; Yordanoglu, Efy (2011): Sentences. Urum basic grammatical structures. Online verfügbar unter: http://urum.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/download/docs/uum-sentence.pdf (06.04.2015)

17  

Anhang: Stimuli

Stimulus 1

Stimulus 2

Stimulus 3

Stimulus 4

Stimulus 5

Stimulus 6

Stimulus 7

Stimulus 8

Stimulus 9

Stimulus 10

18  

Stimulus 11 Stimulus 12

Stimulus 13

Stimulus 14

Stimulus 15