Argument and Adjunct Purpose Constructions in Hill Mari

Abstract

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. (Here and thereafter (if the opposite is not stated overtly) the term “purpose clause” or “purpose construction” is used in its traditional wide sense and should not be confused with “Purpose clauses” opposed to “Rationale clauses” in R. A. Faraci’s terms (1974).) There are two core strategies of marking the embedded predicate which can be used in contexts denoting purpose 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. Notably, such a clause allows for its subject to be expressed overtly, in which case it is marked by Dative. 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 - those 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 purpose complementizers (conjunctions) š (borrowed from Russian) and. However, what constitutes the main theoretical concern of this study are certain peculiar traits of the subordinate null subject’s behavior. The paper adopts a standard generative approach (within Chomsky’s minimalist program) and argues that Hill Mari purpose constructions can be divided into two groups, namely, argument ones, occupying the position of VP complement, and adjunct ones, which are attached as VP adjuncts. This structural distinction can account for the indirect object control, which is possible in all cases, and direct object control, which is only allowed in case of certain matrix predicates. Such an analysis links Hill Mari purpose construction’s distinction to the Purpose/Rationale clauses distinction proposed for English in R. A. Faraci (1974). Finally, Hill Mari infinitival purpose clauses’ specific traits can potentially provide certain insights for the general theory of ditransitive constructions. Thus, among the main current approaches only that developed by L. Pylkkänen (2008) can account for the facts observed in Hill Mari. L. Pylkkänen argues 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. Our study argues that this is also likely to be the case in Hill Mari.