Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T09:09:09.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A typological perspective on negation in Finnish dialects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2011

Matti Miestamo
Matti Miestamo*
Affiliation:
Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms universitet, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. matti.miestamo@ling.su.se
Get access

Abstract

This paper looks at negation in Finnish dialects from a typological perspective. The focus is on standard negation, i.e. the negation of declarative verbal main clauses. The dialectal variation that Finnish shows in its negative construction is examined in the light of current typological knowledge of the expression of negation. Developmental trends connected to the micro-typological variation are also discussed, Finnish dialects are compared with related and neighbouring languages, and relevant theoretical and methodological issues relating to the meeting point of typology and dialectology are addressed.

Keywords

dialectologyFinnishnegationtypology
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 34 , Special Issue 2: The Nordic Languages and Typology , October 2011 , pp. 83 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andersson, Paula & Kangassalo, Raija. 2003. Suomi ja meänkieli Ruotsissa [Finnish and Meänkieli in Sweden]. In Jönsson-Korhola, Hannele & Lindgren, Anna-Riitta (eds.), Monena suomi maailmalla. Suomalaisia kielivähemmistöjä [Finnish in many forms around the world: Finnish language minorities] (Tietolipas 190), 30–163. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2004. Dialectology and typology – an intergrative perspective. In Kortmann (ed.), 11–45.Google Scholar
Capell, Arthur & Hinch, H. E.. 1970. Maung Grammar (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 98). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchward, C. Maxwell. 1953. Tongan Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Negation and other verb categories in the Uralic languages. In Ikola, Osmo (ed.), Congressus Quintus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, vol. VI, 350–355. Turku: Suomen kielen seura.Google Scholar
Cornyn, William. 1944. Outline of Burmese Grammar (Language Dissertation 38: Supplement to Language 20(4)). Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17, 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1988. Universals of negative position. In Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith & Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology (Typological Studies in Language 17), 93–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68, 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg. 2004. A typology of relative clauses in German dialects. In Kortmann (ed.), 211–243.Google Scholar
Gordon, Lynn. 1986. Maricopa Morphology and Syntax (University of California Publications in Linguistics 108). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hajdú, Péter. 1988. Die samojedischen Sprachen. In Sinor, Denis (ed.), The Uralic Languages: Description, History and Foreign Influences (Handbuch der Orientalistik, achte Abteilung, Handbook of Uralic Studies, vol. I), 3–40. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86, 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2000. Towards a typology of typologies. In Siemund, Peter (ed.), Methodology in Linguistic Typology, special issue of Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 53, 5–12.Google Scholar
Honti, László. 1997a. Die Negation im Uralischen I. Linguistica Uralica 23 (2), 81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honti, László. 1997b. Die Negation im Uralischen II. Linguistica Uralica 23 (3), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honti, László. 1997c. Die Negation im Uralischen III. Linguistica Uralica 23 (4), 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 2005. Analogy as Structure and Process: Approaches in Linguistics, Cognitive Psychology and Philosophy of Science (Human Cognitive Processing 14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kálmán, Béla. 1965. Vogul Chrestomathy (Uralic and Altaic Series 46). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Kasik, Reet. 1994. Hakkame rääkima, viron kielen peruskurssi [Basic course in Estonian] (Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 37). Turku: Turun yliopisto.Google Scholar
Koehn, Edward & Koehn, Sally. 1986. Apalai. In Derbyshire, Desmond C. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 1, 33–127. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd (ed.). 2004. Dialectology Meets Typology: Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 153). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kotilainen, Lari. 2007. Kiellon lumo. Kieltoverbitön kieltokonstruktio ja sen kiteytyminen [The fascination of negation: The negative construction without negative verb and its crystallization] (Suomi 193). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2004. Suomen kieltoverbikonstruktio typologisessa valossa [The Finnish negative verb construction in the light of typology]. Virittäjä 108 (3), 364–368.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard Negation: The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main Clauses in a Typological Perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2006. On the complexity of standard negation. In Suominen, Mickael, Arppe, Antti, Airola, Anu, Heinämäki, Orvokki, Miestamo, Matti, Määttä, Urho, Niemi, Jussi, Pitkänen, Kari K. & Sinnemäki, Kaius (eds.), A Man of Measure: Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th Birthday (Special Supplement to SKY Journal of Linguistics 19), 345–356. Turku: The Linguistic Association of Finland.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2007. Negation – an overview of typological research. Language and Linguistics Compass 1 (5), 552–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2010. Negatives without negators. In Wohlgemuth, Jan & Cysouw, Michael (eds.), Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 45), 169–194. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mol, Frans. 1995. Lessons in Maa: A Grammar of Maasai Language. Lemek: Maasai Center.Google Scholar
Nedyalkov, Igor. 1994. Evenki. In Kahrel, Peter & van den Berg, René (eds.), Typological Studies in Negation (Typological Studies in Language 29), 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Klemola, Juhani & Laitinen, Mikko (eds.). 2006. Types of Variation: Diachronic, Dialectal and Typological Interfaces (Studies in Language Companion Series 76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. II: Complex Constructions, 42–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, John. R. 1985. Negation. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I: Clause Structure, 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, J. David. 1965. A Grammar of Diola-Fogny (West African Language Monographs 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Savijärvi, Ilkka. 1977a. Itämerensuomalaisten kielten kieltoverbi I. Suomi [The negative verb in Finnic languages I: Finnish] (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 333). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Savijärvi, Ilkka. 1977b. Redundanssi ja kieltoverbin ellipsi suomen kielen negaatiojärjestelmässä [Redundancy and the ellipsis of the negative verb in the Finnish negation system] (Jyväskylän yliopiston suomen kielen ja viestinnän laitoksen julkaisuja 14.) Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto.Google Scholar
Savijärvi, Ilkka. 1981. Redundanz und Ellipse des Negationsverbs im Negationssystem der finnischen Dialekte. In Leskinen, Heikki (ed.), Heutige Wege der finnischen Dialektologie (Studia Fennica 24), 157–174. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Seiler, Guido. 2004. On three types of dialect variation and their implications for linguistic theory: Evidence from verb clusters in Swiss German dialects. In Kortmann (ed.), 367–399.Google Scholar
Tauli, Valter. 1966. Strutural Tendencies in Uralic Languages (Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series 17). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar