?
Аргументные и адъюнктные целевые клаузы в горномарийском языке
In this study the author suggests a new systemic model of purpose constructions in Hill Mari – a Finno-Ugric language, spoken by approximately 30 000 people living mostly in Mari El republic, located in Volga river basin. There are two core strategies of marking of the embedded predicate which can be used in purposive[1] contexts in Hill Mari. Firstly, an imperative form can be used. This option is reserved for different-subjects contexts. Secondly, an embedded predicate can be marked as infinitive. Interestingly, such a clause allows for its subject to be expressed overtly, in which case it is marked by dative case. Typically, though, the subject of an infinitival purposive clause is omitted and obligatorily controlled by a certain argument of a matrix clause. Finally, there are two peripheral constructions – that of perfect tense and non-past tense. Both are quite marginal and not universally accepted.
This study also discusses the interaction between aforementioned strategies and purposive complementizers štobə̑ (which is borrowed from Russian) and manə̑n. The main theoretical concern of this study is though certain peculiar traits of subordinate null subject’s behavior. The paper adopts a standart generative approach (within Chomsky’s minimalist program) and argues that Hill Mari purposive constructions can be divided to argument ones, occupying the position of VP complement, and adjunct ones, which are in their turn VP adjuncts. This structural distinction can account for the indirect object control, which is always possible, and direct object control, which is only allowed in case of certain matrix predicates. Such an analysis links Hill Mari purposive construction’s distinction to the Purpose/Rationale clauses distinction proposed for English in [Faraci 1974].
Finally, Hill Mari infinitival purpose clauses’ specific traits can potentially provide certain insights for the general theories of ditransitive constructions. Thus, among the main current approaches only the one developed in [Pylkkänen 2008] can account for the facts observed in Hill Mari. Pylkkanen has proposed that in some languages double objects constructions can be derived via “high” applicative head, taking VP as its complement and indirect object as its specifier. The study argues that this is likely to be the case in Hill Mari.
[1] The term “purposive clauses” here is used in the sense of a traditional term “purpose clauses” in order to distinguish the latter from the narrow class of “purpose clauses” in Faraci’s terms (see [Faraci 1974]).