Necessity constructions in Hill Mari: a diachronic corpus perspective

Aigul Zakirova (University of Potsdam)

12.05.2025, 14:15–15:45
Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 (Hauptgebäude), A 014

Zoom:
https://lmu-munich.zoom-x.de/j/93938720682?pwd=ZnRCV1JnL2w4SVdvMHlCTEtWL2NjZz09
Meeting ID: 939 3872 0682
Passcode: 284661

In this talk, I discuss constructions expressing necessity in Hill Mari. My qualitative and quantitative analysis is based on oral texts from two distinct time periods: the 1890–1910s (as represented in the text collections Ramstedt 1902, Beke 1951 and Wichmann 1931) and the 2010s, as represented in the Corpus of spoken Kuznetsovo Hill Mari (https://hillmari-exp.tilda.ws/corpus). Where possible, I also use data from the Gospel of Luke (Albinsky 1821).

The following constructions have been found in the contexts of necessity: keleš + Vinf, V-mə̑la, V-šašlə̑k, V-šaš (in both time periods); popazaš + Vinf (only in the 1890–1910s), and väreštäš + Vinf (only in the 2010s).

In the talk, I show how over the course of one century, the expression of necessity in Hill Mari has changed. First, the V-mə̑la construction has become more frequent, while the keleš construction has become rarer. Second, the popazaš construction apparently was replaced by a similar construction based on another verb, väreštäš. Finally and most importantly, the necessity constructions found in the 1890–1910s corpus, including the -šašlə̑k construction, are (largely) impersonal, i.e., they typically do not express their S/A argument overtly. In the present-day language, the -šašlə̑k construction has developed into a personal necessity construction, and nowadays the choice between the -šašlə̑k construction vs. all others seems to be determined by the presence of an overt S/A argument. The available (although scarce) data suggest that the diachronic development of the -šašlə̑k construction involved a change of alignment within it: in the 1890–1910s, the subject position of the construction was occupied by the S/P argument ('Y is to be done'), whereas in the present-day language the subject position is occupied by the S/A argument ('X is to do Y'). I further discuss the possible role of language contact in this development.