Double Marking in Nganasan Possessive Constructions
DOI: 10.23951/2307-6119-2026-4-9-17
Nganasan, like several other Uralic languages, uses a range of possessive constructions. With a pronominal possessor, which is often omitted, possession is marked by possessive affixes on the possessee. If overt, the pronoun appears in a syncretic nominative/genitive/accusative form: unlike nouns, personal pronouns do not distinguish these cases. With a nominal possessor, the noun usually takes the genitive, while the possessee remains unmarked. Head marking is also possible with nominal possessors when the possessor is the topic and the possessee is in focus. Finally, Nganasan has double-marked constructions, with marking on both the dependent (possessor) and the head (possessee). Since personal pronouns do not distinguish nominative and genitive forms, double marking can be identified only with nominal possessors; alternatively, head-marked and double-marked constructions can be regarded as indistinguishable with pronominal possessors. This article examines doublemarked possessive constructions. It shows that double marking can express contrast, with the contrastively focused element occurring within either the topic or the comment. Contrast is understood broadly here, encompassing clarification and the addition of a new element to a known set of objects. Double marking can also signal a topic shift or the reactivation of a temporarily backgrounded topic. The combination of contrast and topic shift or reactivation in a single construction is not typologically unique. In Nganasan, double marking may iconically express the discourse prominence or special emphasis assigned to these constructions. The study draws on the glossed portion of the INEL Nganasan Corpus, comprising approximately 220,000 word forms.
Keywords: Nganasan, possessive construction, contrast, topic, comment, topic shift, topic reactivation
References:
1. Gusev V. Yu. Konstruktsii s nominativnym posessorom v nganasanskom yazyke [Constructions with a nominative possessor in Nganasan]. Rodnoy yazyk, 2022, no. 2, pp. 67–88 (in Russian).
2. Brykina M., Gusev V., Szeverényi S., Wagner-Nagy B. INEL Nganasan Corpus. Version 1.0. Publication date 2025-05-02. Archived at Universität Hamburg // The INEL corpora of indigenous Northern Eurasian languages, 2025. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/11022/0000-0007-F45A-1 (accessed 14 December 2025).
3. Wagner-Nagy B. A Grammar of Nganasan. Leiden, Boston, Brill, 2019. XVII+583 p.
4. Chafe W.L. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In: Ch.N. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic. New York, Academic Press, 1976, pp. 25–55.
5. Sæbø K.J. Presupposition and contrast: German aber as a topic particle. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 2003, no. 7, pp. 257–271.
6. Yanko T.E. Intonatsionnyye strategii russkoy rechi v sopostavitel’nom aspekte [Intonational strategies of Russian speech in a comparative aspect]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskikh kultur Publ., 2008, 311 p. (in Russian).
7. Zieleke R. Contrast via information structure: On topic development with German aber in post-initial position. In: J. Brysbaert, K. Lahousse (eds.). On the Role of Contrast in Information Structure. Berlin; Boston, De Gruyter Mouton, 2024, pp. 131–160.
8. Lambrecht K. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994. XVI+388 p.
( 536.16 kB ) 
( 530.65 kB )
Issue: 4, 2026
Series of issue: Issue 4
Rubric: LINGUISTICS
Pages: 9 — 17
Downloads: 6